1963-01-31

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at 6.15 p.m. the department of state of the United States issued a statement to the press, in both Ottawa and Washington, on which I should like to comment.
That release was communicated to our ambassador in Washington and to our Department of External Affairs in Ottawa one half hour before it was handed to the press.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I find it difficult to
understand such an extraordinary procedure. I want to speak, as always, on matters affecting a great neighbour and friendly nations with restraint, but also with responsibility. Quite apart from the terms of the statement, this action by the department of state of the United States is unprecedented, and I weigh my words when I say that it constitutes an unwarranted intrusion in Canadian affairs.
Mr. Speaker, in the statement the views of the department of state are expressed as to what it considers measures which Canada ought to take in relation to NATO and NORAD defences. These are surely matters for decision by Canada. As I read the document which was issued, it bears a striking resemblance to the statements made here last Friday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).
On Friday last I expressed the views of the Canadian government on these matters, and I am not going to enter into any argument regarding the questions of detail dealt therein, except to say that the government sees no need to modify the views then expressed. The government of Canada does not consider that open public pressures by way of press releases or otherwise are appropriate methods of exchanging views as between equal sovereign nations and allies. There are well recognized channels for the exchange of points of view between sovereign countries and allies even when these points of view differ, as they must; and I express my very
great regret that the United States department of state did not see fit to follow the usual course in communicating its views. We have asked the Canadian ambassador to Washington to return to Ottawa in order to give us his first hand views regarding this matter.
Having said that, I want to emphasize this. The Canadian government will continue to work and strive for understanding and cooperation. It will, as always, honour its obligations. But it will not be pushed around or accept external domination or interference in the making of its decisions. Canada is determined to remain a firm ally, but that does not mean that she should be a satellite.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Go ahead, Yankee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will not demean myself in beginning by recognizing these insulting observations that have just been made from the other side of the chamber. It is what I have been accustomed to expect from some hon. gentleman opposite, so I will let the matter go at that.
However, I do not intend to overlook, before I reach the substance of what I have to say, the insinuation made by the Prime Minister in his statement, repeated by the Prime Minister in the house last Friday and repeated outside the house, to the effect that my statement on defence was worked out after consultation with the United States government and that the United States statement to which the Prime Minister referred bears a striking resemblance in some of its words to the statement I made last Friday. That statement coming from the Prime Minister of this country, Mr. Speaker, is unworthy of him.


John George Diefenbaker: It was not denied.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a cheap and false insinuation. I hope that assertion will deal with that matter.
The Prime Minister has referred to a statement issued last evening by the department of state in Washington. Immediately on receiving that communique I myself said, in a statement made public, that it was surprising-and I repeat this-that the United States

External Affairs
government considered it necessary to issue any such statement about the speech of the Prime Minister and about the public statement on national defence of the Minister of National Defence. Questions of Canadian policy should be left entirely for discussion and decision to Canadians.


Mr. Churchill:: You did not say that last night.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister and his party have no monopoly of the determination of any party to stand up for Canada's rights in these matters against anybody. I suggest, however, that the rule also applies to Canadian governments and should be observed by them.
Having said that, may I add that it is important to be absolutely clear about what is involved in this matter. The statement made by the government of the United States, as indeed in large part the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada last Friday and the clarification statement made by the Minister of National Defence subsequently- all these concern, Mr. Speaker, joint arrangements of the two countries for our common defence, joint arrangements entered into by this government for Canada.
The real issue for Canadians is, what are the facts and what is the truth? What is the truth about our defence policy in this common effort on this matter? The Canadian people and their representatives in parliament are entitled to learn the facts and to know the truth. On Saturday and again on Monday the Minister of National Defence, in a public statement of clarification, contradicted certain of the Prime Minister's statements.


Mr. Harkness:: I did not.


Mr. McPhillips:: That is what you say, but it is not true.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yesterday the United States government contradicted other statements, and I feel that it was inappropriate for them to have done so. But it is this parliament's right and this parliament's duty now to find out at once what the truth is. So let us get the truth. Let us find out what the facts are without any further shilly-shally or delay.


John George Diefenbaker: When are you going back for further instructions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the search for the facts and in the search for the truth let us remember Prime Minister Macmillan's words in the British parliament yesterday, when he said that the free nations are friends and allies and must remain friends
and allies. Let us also remember that the real threat to Canada's security does not come from the United States but from communist imperialism, and unnecessary disputes among the western allies will weaken us all. There are at the moment enough differences in the free world today without adding one between Canada and the United States.
So, Mr. Speaker, any political leader in either country who for political, partisan purposes stirs up or enlarges any difference between the two countries-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are condemning yourself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -would be putting his party ahead of his country-


John George Diefenbaker: Are you speaking for yourself?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and would be putting the vain hope of immediate political advantage above the mutual interests in peace and prosperity which the two countries share.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed in the last few hours an unprecedented action by a friendly government, that of the United States of America, against this country, Canada, in a way that to me is blatant interference in Canadian affairs. As has already been stated publicly through the press, the action taken by the United States government is the most severe ever taken during peacetime toward Canada. It would seem to me that there could have been far more friendly and effective ways of expressing a statement which obviously, through our own indecision in Canada, we have goaded the United States into making.
We have been told that we are in conference with the United States concerning what should be the policy of our two governments concerning defensive nuclear armament. Surely this conference table could have been one means of expressing the thoughts of the United States government. Then there are the normal diplomatic channels. I am sure that I express the sentiments of the Canadian people from Newfoundland to Vancouver island when I say that we resent the action the United States has taken, not so much for what was said but for the way that government has seen fit to say it. I agree that the United States of America is our closest friend and our best customer. However, I agree also with our Prime Minister that we, as Canadians, will not be pushed around.

The Prime Minister has said he will not be pushed around in the making of decisions.
I ask him again, what are those decisions? This is not a question that has been asked only by those who are members in this House of Commons. This is a question that is being asked by Canadians across the country. This is a question that the members of the press are asking as well. I should like to quote from an editorial that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of last night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. gentleman gets too far may I remind him that this is not a debate. This is a comment upon a statement that was made. I realize the difficulty, but I would ask the co-operation of hon. members who have the right to speak now.


Robert Norman Thompson: I believe I have as much right to make a statement as anyone else here, and I am making that statement. I would say this, that there is general confusion in Canada as to what our position is. When we have a statement made by the Prime Minister, we have it defined in another way by the Minister of National Defence. We think we have a right to know what the actual decision of the government is in this matter. On the other hand I do not believe it is enough for the leader of the official opposition to stand up and merely try to justify himself by accusing the Prime Minister of making accusations against him. Certainly we ought to have a sense of responsibility in this matter so that we can make clear something which is not very difficult, because I do not think any of us are too far apart on it. Then we would not be forcing the United States into making statements which define our policy for us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not the time for a debate in connection with this problem. I believe we would never have been in this particular situation if a little different action had been taken. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that we ought to be moving immediately into a debate where we can have this matter fully clarified. Consequently I move-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Norman Thompson: -the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing the matter of defence policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would draw to the attention of the hon. gentleman the fact that the provisions of standing order 26 do not permit him at this time to move such a motion.
External Affairs


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of the members of the New Democratic party the statement issued yesterday by the United States state department constitutes an unwarranted and unprecedented interference in the internal affairs of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is unusual for a state department to issue a statement contradicting statements made in a house of commons by the prime minister of another country. It is even more unusual to have the release issued by the embassy here in Washington-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -here in Ottawa. The statement which was released in Washington yesterday was one thing, but the release which was issued to the press, a copy of which I have in my hand, was issued here from the United States embassy in Washington-


Some hon. Members:: Ottawa.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, it
seems to be increasingly difficult to differentiate between these two capitals at the present time. We in this party have very fundamental differences with the government on the questions of external affairs and defence policy, but we will not brook nor will any other group in Canada brook interference from the United States or from any other power in the discussion of our internal affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the government of the United States should know from this parliament that they are not dealing with Guatemala, where in 1954 the state department had a substantial hand in throwing out the Ar-benz government; nor are they dealing with Cuba, where in 1961 they promoted, financed and mounted an invasion of that country which was an inexcusable interference in the affairs of another member of the organization of American states, an action, I may say, which was in my opinion taken for no other reason than to make the world safe for the United Fruit Company and the Standard Oil Company in order that the latter might continue their policies of commercial exploitation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, there are two parts of this statement which was issued yesterday to which I think the house ought to have its attention drawn. The first is this:
The provision of nuclear weapons to Canadian forces would not involve an expansion of independent nuclear capability, or an increase in the

External Affairs
"nuclear club". As in the case of other allies custody of U.S. nuclear weapons would remain with the U.S. joint control fully consistent with national sovereignty can be worked out to cover the use of such weapons by Canadian forces.
That is the end of the statement. I wish to point out first, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the view which the United States took when nuclear missiles, presumably under the control of the Soviet union, were stationed in Cuba. The United States quite properly took the position at that time that this was an extension of the nuclear club, and that it did alter the balance of nuclear power.
May I point out, second, that it is for the Canadian people, through their elected representatives, to decide whether or not the acquisition of nuclear arms will expand the nuclear club and increase the danger of nuclear war. We in this party contend that stopping the spread of nuclear arms is a prelude to securing a cessation of nuclear tests and to reaching a treaty on nuclear disarmament. This is a Canadian decision, which has to be taken by Canadians and any attempt by any outside government to dictate to Canadians what their policy should be regarding the acquisition of nuclear arms will be both resented and ignored.
The other sentence in this statement to which I should like to draw the attention of the house is this:
A flexible and balanced defence requires increased conventional forces, but conventional forces are not an alternative to effective NATO or NORAD defence arrangements using nuclear-capable weapons systems.
Our membership in NATO is not conditional upon our accepting nuclear weapons. That is shown by the fact that other members of the alliance have not accepted nuclear weapons. If the Canadian people want to decide, as we think they should decide, upon a non-nuclear role for Canada, that is a decision which they have a right to make without any advice or any attempted intimidation from outside.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the statement issued yesterday points up the need for a full discussion of this whole question. The Prime Minister in his remarks today said that the government sees no reason to change its statement. I should like to ask, which statement, the Prime Minister's or that of the Minister of National Defence?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The statement issued yesterday simply points up the fact that we have had no clear cut statement of policy. Indeed, two statements of policy have been issued, one contradicting the other. Your Honour quite properly interrupted the hon.

member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) to say that this subject could not be debated on motions. But the need for a debate is beyond argument. Mr. Speaker, I therefore propose, at the proper point in the proceedings, to move under standing order 26-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think one
can anticipate, when commenting upon a statement at this time, the action that may be taken in the future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am simply saying that I think there ought to be a debate, and I certainly, if no one else does-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -will move to provide an opportunity for such a debate.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman has indicated what he proposes to do, but it is still quite improper at this time when commenting upon a statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would say, Mr. Speaker,
before I resume my seat, that it seems to me completely inadequate to deal with a matter of this vital importance by having a brief statement made under motions without giving this house and the country an opportunity to fully clarify what is the government's position, in order that we may know what Canada is going to do in the near future with reference to the acquisition of nuclear arms for Canada.


U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent and public importance, namely the statement made last night by the United States department of state contradicting recent statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence concerning the joint defence arrangements of the Canadian and United States governments.


Mr. Speaker:: I will be interested to hear remarks about the urgency of debate.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: I wish to make four points, Mr. Speaker, any one of which might be considered fatal to the motion to adjourn the regular business of the house as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. First of all I think we should be setting a dangerous precedent for ourselves if we were

to allow every unfavourable press release by a foreign power to precipitate us into debate while we are running the affairs of our own country. It does not take much imagination to foresee that if we postpone our regular business at this time for such a reason, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, other countries might be quick to use this as a tool against us.
The second point I wish to make has to do with citation No. 100 to be found on page 90 of Beauchesne. Paragraph 3 of that citation states that urgency within rule 26 does not apply to the subject matter itself but means urgency of debate when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that a discussion take place immediately. I submit, without argument as to the urgency of this subject matter, that there is not the urgency of debate required within the framework of Beauchesne's interpretation of the rules and practice of the house.
The third point I wish to make again relates to Beauchesne, and the point is whether the public interest would suffer if this matter were not discussed at once. As Dr. Beauchesne has written in citation 100, paragraph 2:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance", for the discussion of which the adjournment of the house may be moved under standing order 26, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
We have heard the statement from the Prime Minister that the Canadian ambassador will shortly be in Ottawa to report on this matter, and I submit it would be more in the public interest to defer debate until the government had received the benefit of such briefing.
The fourth and final point I wish to make -and I think it will be equally effective in disposing of this matter-concerns the rules of this house, in particular standing order 26 paragraph 6(c) which states:
The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.
I submit to you, sir, that the burden, the substance of what we have been dealing with today has been dealt with already in the debate which took place in this house on Thursday and Friday.
For these reasons I submit this is not a motion you should rule in order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the hon. member for Halifax should be congratulated on having done his best on behalf of the government side to avoid a discussion of this matter in
U.S. State Department Press Release the terms in which the motion is being put forward. I am afraid, however, he does not find himself, in so far as his main argument is concerned, in harmony with the leader of the house or with the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has considered this statement by the United States government to be of such an unprecedented character that he felt it necessary to bring it up at once in the House of Commons under motions. The Prime Minister himself admits this is a matter of unprecedented urgency, and if that is the case surely we should be permitted-indeed, it is our duty-to discuss a matter of such unprecedented urgency at once in this chamber.
There is one alternative procedure which, if the government saw fit to adopt it, might justify the withdrawal of this motion. If the leader of the house would inform us that at once, when we finish the orders of the day, we would consider the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, which are already before the house, that would also provide a good opportunity to discuss this whole business.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you should decide, as I hope you will not, on some technical ground that this motion is inadmissible, I hope the government will not run away from the discussion, because they have the opportunity of bringing on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs this afternoon which would provide an ample basis for such a discussion as I am proposing.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: To assist you, Mr. Speaker, in reaching a decision as to whether this is urgent I wish to submit that we have had several interpretations of what the defence policy of this country is supposed to be, even since the debate we had on defence policy last week end. Because of this situation I think it is urgent that the members of this house and the country generally should have a clearcut statement of policy from the government. The urgency of the matter involves clearing up this confusion. Delay involves placing the friendship of this country with one of our great neighbours in jeopardy. Therefore I think the urgency of debate is unquestionable.
I should like to say that members of this party do not agree in its entirety with the motion which has been put forward; in other words, that the department of state has contradicted recent statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. We do not read that out of the release. However, we do feel it urgent that this matter of defence policy should be cleared up.
3294	HOUSE OF
U.S. State Department Press Release


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it must surely be clear that if in recent years there has been a subject concerning which there was urgency of debate, this is it.
I thank the hon. member for Halifax for drawing attention to the key sentences, in Beauchesne as far as motions of this kind are concerned. He is perfectly right in saying there must be urgency of debate. I thank him also for reading the sentence which says that the issue must be so pressing that the public interest would suffer if it were not given immediate attention.
Aside from the views expressed by the hon. member for Halifax we find, on the question of urgency, almost unanimous support from the floor of the house. The Prime Minister found it a matter of such urgency, as the Leader of the Opposition noted, that he rose to speak on the matter immediately motions were called. The Leader of the Opposition came into this house with a motion ready under standing order 26. The hon. member for Red Deer tried to move one as well, and my own leader indicated he had one ready. This means that in all four corners of this house it has been recognized that this matter is one of urgency in terms of having a debate today.
I also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is real point to the words quoted by the hon. member for Halifax, which I read a moment ago, that the issue must be so pressing that the public interest would suffer if it is not given immediate attention. I submit that is precisely the case. I submit that unless this statement which was issued at a quarter after six last night by the United States department of state is discussed in this House of Commons, unless we in this House of Commons make our views known, and unless we get a clarification of the position of the government with regard to this whole matter, the Canadian public interest will suffer on all counts. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that although you were acting as you should in inviting comments on this question rather than ruling immediately, the burden of the argument is crystal clear, that this is a matter which comes under the designation of urgency of debate.
One of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Halifax is, I confess, so weak that one should hardly mention it, but he put it forward. He cited the section of standing order 26 which says that one cannot move under that standing order to debate something which has been discussed previously in this session. This house adjourned at six o'clock yesterday. The press release which has given this country such great concern was issued at a quarter after six last


night, so there could not have been any discussion of this matter prior to this occasion. Therefore I suggest that that part of the hon. member's argument should not have been made at all.
Like the hon. member for Medicine Hat I must say that had my leader been able to put forward a motion under standing order 26 there might have been a slightly different turn put on the matter, and if he gets the chance to speak he will so indicate. But what is before us is not any particular implication in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. What is before us is a request that this house adjourn all its other business to discuss this most urgent and most important matter, the determination of which I suggest should be discussed by this house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, one point was raised by the hon. member for Halifax to which I would like to draw particular attention. He said that under motions we had already discussed this matter, and that it would be out of order to adjourn the house to debate the subject further.


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, I said there was a debate last week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said there was debate last Thursday and Friday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I simply wanted to point out that under motions all we had discussed was the propriety of a statement made by a department of another government. What this motion calls for is a discussion of the joint defence arrangements between Canada and the United States government. Surely the people of Canada are vitally concerned in this matter. There has been no opportunity to discuss it, because the press release was issued yesterday and the debate on external affairs was held last Thursday and Friday. I submit that all the discussion this afternoon on motions simply points up the fact that this house and the country are clamouring to know what those defence arrangements are between the two countries, what commitments have been made by this government, and what the government's policy is with respect to this matter.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I clear up some confusion as to one of the points I made, which the last speaker dealt with wrongly at first and then I think was seized of the true facts and did admit that there was a debate in this house last week on United States-Canadian joint negotiations.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think we need belabour the point. It was cleared up.


Robert Jardine McCleave: But my point is that surely this is the whole purport of the motion of

the Leader of the Opposition, which refers to the U.S.-Canadian joint defence arrangements. I am saying that the major part of the debate has already taken place in this house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the hon. member will look at the motion, it is to discuss the statement made last night by the United States department of state. We certainly did not debate that last Thursday and Friday. This is a matter of immediate interest.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on occasions when you are faced with decisions dealing with motions of this nature you have to take into account a number of factors, the chief one, of course, being urgency of debate. On a great many occasions the subject that is introduced is a matter of very great interest. But then your habit has been to examine the procedure of the house to see whether or not the business set for the day in question should be put aside, as it would have to be put aside to provide for debate if no other opportunity was evident in the near future. Time after time successive Speakers have considered matters of this sort, and if they have been informed or have seen that opportunities for debate would arise in the near future they have not accepted the motion.
In this instance, despite the active interest displayed in this particular matter, there will be opportunities for complete debate on the subject if so desired by the house, and at much greater length than would be the case today, if the general order of business is followed. I announced in the house last night that today and tomorrow we would be discussing estimates; and these are very important estimates, the Department of Labour, Post Office Department, and others. There has been a great demand for discussion of the estimates put forward time and time again by members of the opposition. Now we are being asked to set aside an urgent matter of importance to the Canadian people, namely the spending program of the Canadian government. We are asked to put that aside in favour of entering upon a debate based on a statement made by a foreign country.
In the order of business that I announced yesterday there was a supply motion for Monday and Tuesday. That provides a two day debate on a subject selected by the opposition and leads to a conclusion, because votes are called at the end of supply motions. The debate today would not be a conclusive debate, because it would end when the automatic adjournment of the house occurs.
Mr. Speaker, basing myself on citation 100(3) on page 90 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, which states that-
U.S. State Department Press Release "Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunity provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough-
-I suggest that the subject would be brought on early enough, all factors being considered, on Monday and Tuesday.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker* I should like to say a word on the question of urgency. In this connection I should like to recall to Your Honour what Mr. Speaker Michener had to say regarding a motion for adjournment under standing order 26, which had been put forward by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) on February 18, 1959, as reported on page 1133 of Hansard. Mr. Speaker Michener said:
The question that concerns me is whether there will be an opportunity to discuss this important matter, such that we do not need to interrupt the proceedings to deal with it today, or whether there has already been ample opportunity this-session.
It seems to me this is one of the essential considerations which Your Honour will wish to bear in mind. From the nod of Your Honour's head, I gather that you concur in this observation. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has pointed out, this question arose only as the result of a statement issued by the United States state-department last night at 6.15 p.m. Hence one aspect of Mr. Speaker Michener's concern is covered by the facts of the situation which now engage our attention.
The fact that this is a matter of urgency is, in my opinion, reflected in the very character of the circumstances which brought the Prime Minister to his feet when Your Honour called motions. In his own words is to be found the justification for our plea of urgency. The Prime Minister said in substance that never before in the relations between the two countries had there been so unwarranted an intervention by the United States in the affairs of this country. That statement in itself, in the light of the-situation that confronts us in the world, surely should constitute evidence of the-urgency of the matter. Do we need any further evidence? In the statement of the Prime Minister we have evidence that so urgent is this matter, that the government has given instructions to our ambassador in Washington to return to Canada at once for consultation with the government at home. Can there be anything which reflects more seriously than does that action the urgency of this situation?
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to determine that there was no urgency-

V.S. State Department Press Release in this situation in effect you would be denying the implications of the statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to the intervention or the implications of that intervention, supported by everyone who spoke for the political parties in this house today and for the people of Canada. This matter is so urgent that unless an opportunity is given to ascertain the facts there will go on for days controversy and difference of opinion between two friendly nations which will create a situation conceivably even more difficult than that which attends us at this moment.
I submit to you with confidence, Mr. Speaker, that for these reasons and for the reasons contained in the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, this is a more urgent matter than any we have had in this house for many years.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to urge the government to agree to the suggestion made to consider that matter. Since the public could have been misled and confused following the debates of last Thursday and Friday, I feel that this is a matter of public importance.
On the other hand, I do not see why the .government would deny the house such a debate, since the statement on which a special debate is proposed goes exactly to prove that the leader of the Liberal opposition (Mr. Pearson) was mistaken or that he misled the people when he made his statements.
Therefore, I believe that the government should allow the house to consider the matter which the hon. members seem to want to discuss today.
(Text):
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier)r Mr. Speaker, I am sure Your Honour will wish to listen to all the points that can be brought forward at this time in order that you make a decision having regard to what Your Honour has heard with reference to this motion to adjourn the house. I am prompted to rise particularly for one reason, namely that which was raised by my hon. friend the house leader, when he led us to believe that because of certain business of the house announced prior to this time, there would be an opportunity to discuss this matter at [DOT]a later date. In fact, to use his own words, he said that it would not be opportune to put aside the spending program of the gov-*ernment.
My reply to that statement-and I am sure that of most of us who sit on this side [DOT]of the house-can be none other than that

the government was lax in not bringing that spending program before the house long before this time. In fact the government has had many opportunities to do so, beginning with this week when it called the bill dealing with the national economic development board, whereas it could have discussed the spending program. It was then made quite clear that that is not the reason.
However, there is another important reason. Over and above the fact that there seems to be unanimity in this house with regard to urgency of debate-and surely there should be unanimity on a matter of this nature arising out of the statement by the United States state department last night concerning the terms of our alliance and contradicting the statement made by the Prime Minister-it strikes me that not only the members of the government but the Prime Minister himself should be the first to rise and say, not that this matter is of such unprecedented importance that I shall make a statement on motions, but that the house shall immediately be free to debate this matter of utmost importance.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonlon-Slralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: On urgency?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yes, on urgency. It seems to me that the only change in position since we finished our debate on Friday last is not in the relations between Canada and the United States or in the international situation, but only in the fact that there has been a news release from the United States. I suggest that when this house has so recently had an opportunity to debate the subject matter of that news release it is hard to understand how anyone, much less one occupying the responsible position of Leader of the Opposition, should be so greatly alarmed by a mere news release, and that this should be taken as such an urgent matter of public importance that we have to put aside our business in order to take up consideration of it.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank all hon.
members who have assisted me at arriving at a decision in this regard. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition refers to a statement which was released yesterday contradicting certain statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence concerning certain joint defence arrangements of the Canadian and the United States governments.
I think everyone agrees that this matter is one of great importance. Hence the question to be decided is whether or not we should

spend some time in discussing such a matter. The question that concerns me is that of urgency of debate at this time.
As I have indicated, and as have my predecessors on many occasions, rule 26 is a very extraordinary remedy. There are ample references to it on precisely the key point, namely the urgency of debate. If, as seemed to be indicated by certain hon. members, the question was that of the acquisition of nuclear weapons, then I would immediately say no, as that matter was debated last week. So on that ground the proposition, as it affects the country as a whole, would fall to the ground.
As to the question of urgency of debate by reason of the fact that this was the first item on motions, we have motions called five days a week, and I fail to see how in many instances there can be differences as to the timing or as to what person puts forward a matter when the Speaker calls motions.
There is another point urged with regard to urgency of debate, and that is the necessity of ascertaining the facts. On the basis that this statement was issued at 6.15 p.m. yesterday, and as hon. members are here, I find some difficulty in seeing how a general debate in this connection could ascertain more facts than have been disclosed at the present time. In combination with something else I feel that if the purpose is to ascertain the facts today, this is not necessarily the most appropriate time.
It has been indicated by the hon. member for Essex East in citing a ruling of my predecessor that there should have been a recent opportunity in the past to discuss the matter, and I agree with him that in so far as the narrow confines of this statement are concerned there was not that opportunity. But there will certainly be an opportunity in the relatively near future. This is not a new indication this afternoon but something that was indicated yesterday and even the day before. It has been announced that the business for next Monday will be a supply motion. This provides for a two day debate if required and also provides for some form of conclusion if such shall be the case, whereas the adjournment of the business today would merely result in the discussion of this matter without any conclusion.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is a great deal of interest in these matters, I still find on these grounds that such a motion does not meet the requirements in so far as urgency of debate is concerned. Therefore I would not accept the motion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with great
respect and with regret I should like to appeal your decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
U.S. State Department Press Release


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In this regard I would cite Hansard, volume 1 of 1960, page 1153, where Mr. Speaker Michener, in referring to a previous decision by Mr. Speaker Beaudoin in 1955, said:
I refer the hon. member to the Journals of the House of Commons for 1955, page 858, where the same point was dealt with by the Speaker of the day, who said:
"In the future, whenever I make a ruling to the effect that the motion should not be accepted because it is not in order or is not of urgent public importance-that is, that there is no urgency of debate-I will not grant an appeal from my decision that there is no appeal."
On this point I say that there is no appeal from a Speaker's ruling. In so far as urgency of debate and acceptance of the motion are concerned, it has been traditional that there has been no appeal from the decision of the Speaker, and in support of that I am citing the decision of my predecessor which on that occasion was accepted by the house. Therefore I am ruling in the same way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I appeal against your ruling that there is no appeal. I am so anxious that Your Honour should listen to the citation I have that I have allowed this discussion to-take place between the Clerk and the Speaker, and quite properly. Your Honour has referred to a citation. May I refer to one that has the strength of long recognition because of the circumstances in which it was taken. I refer Your Honour to page 90 of Beauchesne, fourth, edition, paragraph 7:
The house affirmed, on the 19th of February, 1932, that there is no appeal from the Speaker's decision, that a motion, to adjourn the house for discussing an urgent matter of public importance, cannot be made unless the member's statement shows that there is actual urgency for debate. The Speaker decided that his decision on this particular point was final. Mr. Ralston appealed from the "Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision." The Speaker was sustained-
The right of Mr. Ralston to appeal against the ruling that there is no appeal was sustained, and that is the appeal that I now make. In making it may I point out to Your Honour, with respect, that in the following paragraph a way is opened in doubtful cases.
In doubtful cases, the question of urgency and of importance are left for the house to decide, by giving or withholding its support.
Because of the seriousness of this situation I appeal against your ruling that there is no appeal.


Mr. Speaker:: I find-


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: If it is on a point of order,, although the appeal, of course, is without debate-

U.S. State Department Press Release


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is what?


Mr. Speaker:: Without debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish to speak on the point of order as to whether there can in fact be an appeal from your ruling. The hon. member for Essex East spoke on that point, contending that there is a right of appeal from your ruling that there can be no appeal from your ruling on this particular subject. That is just how complicated it is; and the absurdity of the proposition which the hon. member for Essex East wishes us to support is illustrated by the fact that the citation read by him establishes that the house itself confirmed the position that there is no appeal from the Speaker's ruling on this point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know my hon. friends do not like it when the rules are properly applied if it does not happen to suit their convenience, but I recall at least one occasion, if not more, when that very point was made on this subject at the time we were in opposition on the other side, and the Speaker of that day pointed out that ordinarily he would be inclined to permit an appeal to the house from his ruling under this standing order, but inasmuch as the house on a previous occasion had upheld the position that there was no appeal, then that decision, he said, is final and binding.
This has become part of the rules of the house decided by the house as reported in this citation in Beauchesne. Unless we are to change the rules of the house, which can only be done by unanimous consent or by motion after notice, then I submit that rule is binding. It is a rule which the house has imposed upon itself, and it cannot be changed except by unanimous consent or by motion after notice which must be carried by a majority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on this matter may I suggest first of all that the Minister of Public Works is in error when he says there is a rule on the point. There is no rule and no standing order on the point. But, Mr. Speaker, reference has been made by both the hon. member for Essex East and the Minister of Public Works to the ruling that Mr. Speaker Black made in 1932 to the effect that there was no appeal against his ruling that there was no appeal. The hon. member for Essex East has pointed out that the Speaker was sustained. The Minister of Public Works states that that settles the matter.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that later in the same year, on November 2, 1932, the same Mr. Speaker Black was in the chair and there was a motion to adjourn


under the corresponding standing order. The motion was not allowed by the Speaker but there was an appeal directly against his decision that the motion was not in order and that appeal was put to a vote. Subsequently, on March 27 and on May 22, 1935, under Mr. Speaker Bowman, appeals were allowed without even going to this second stage.
Mr. Speaker, I have browsed enough in the procedures and practices of parliament to know that there are incidents since then when rulings have been given the other way. I suggest the rulings have been back and forth to such an extent that there is no clear decision by the parliament of Canada on this point. If the Minister of Public Works is going to rely on the stand taken by Mr. Speaker Black on February 19, 1932, I suggest he should look and see what Mr. Speaker Black did on November 2, 1932, some months later in the same year, when he allowed an appeal.
This is a new parliament, and we have our own problems to deal with. There is no clear precedent. There are precedents both ways. I submit that in effect you have ruled today-you, Mr. Speaker Lambert, have ruled -that there is no appeal against your ruling. It is your ruling that must be tested. I submit that the hon. member for Essex East has every right in this parliament to appeal against the ruling you have made today.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for what they have had to say in this regard. I think hon. members will appreciate the position in which I am. Based on the precedents of my predecessors I have full authority for the proposition I put forward. Further, on the basis of the appeal principle, an appeal regarding my decision, by advancing it one step further, it would eventually result in an appeal. The only thing I can do at the present time, since an appeal has been taken, is to put the question.
All those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling that there is no appeal from his decision in regard to section 26 of the standing orders, will please say aye.


Some hon. Members:: Aye.


Mr. Speaker:: All those against the Speaker's decision in that regard will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the ayes
have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.

Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's ruling. The Leader of the Opposition moved the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the statement made last night by the United States department of state contradicting the recent statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence concerning the joint defence arrangements of the Canadian and United States governments.
The Chair ruled that this was not a matter of sufficient urgency of debate to be permitted under the terms of standing order 26, whereupon, the Leader of the Opposition appealed from the ruling of the Chair.
The Chair ruled there was no appeal from a ruling of the Chair in this regard and quoted from Hansard, volume 1, of 1960, page 1153, where Mr. Speaker Michener, in referring to a previous decision by Mr. Speaker Beaudoin in 1955 said:
"I refer the hon. member to the Journals of the House of Commons for 1955, page 858, where the same point was dealt with by the Speaker of the day, who said:
'In the future, whenever I make a ruling to the effect that the motion should not be accepted because it is not in order or is not of urgent public importance-that is, that there is no urgency of debate-I will not grant an appeal from my decision that there is no appeal.' "


Mr. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired and did not vote. Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The decision of the Chair has not been sustained. There is now a further question, which is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) appeals from the ruling that I made under standing order 26 that this matter is not one meeting the requirements of urgency of debate. Those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those against sustaining the ruling of the Chair will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. The motion is that the house adjourn to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the statement made last night by the United States department of state contradicting the recent statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) concerning the joint defence arrangements of the Canadian-United States governments. Has the hon. member the leave of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have moved this motion in order to discuss a matter which we in this party and in other opposition parties have considered to be a matter of the utmost urgency and importance, namely the statement made last evening by the department of state of the United States government. This statement among other things contradicted recent statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) concerning the joint arrangements of the Canadian and the United States governments.
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that this motion would not have commended itself at once to the Prime Minister and the members of the government-


An hon. Member:: Why did you not want to vote on it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am asked why we did not want to vote on it. That is what we are trying to bring before this House of Commons and, in spite of the obstruction of the government, I hope we shall have a chance to vote on this matter.
As has already been pointed out, this motion brings up the whole question of joint arrangements for defence-the fact is that they are joint and indeed some of them are collective. They have been made between our two governments, namely the Canadian government and the United States government. It is of the greatest possible importance that these arrangements should now be discussed having regard to the statement issued in Washington by the state department last evening, the statement made by the Prime Minister in this house last Friday, and the clarification, to use his own word, of the statement of the Prime Minister by the Minister of National Defence without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. I think it is a matter of first importance- indeed I think it is essential-that, before this discussion concludes this evening, we have a statement on this matter from the Prime Minister of this country, from the Minister of National Defence who has not said a word on this issue, and also from the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) who presumably supports the statement of clarification made by his associate minister and who undoubtedly will wish to explain to the house why he supports it; and also by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. Green) as this has now become a matter of high policy between our two governments in the realm of foreign affairs.
I wish to keep my remarks short so that I will give the four hon. gentlemen time in which to state their position in this house. I understand that, according to the rules, we have from now until ten o'clock for that purpose and that the ordinary hour for private members' business is dispensed with.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


John George Diefenbaker: You have Monday and Tuesday.


An hon. Member:: Why should it be dispensed with?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -in view of the statement made at the beginning of this sitting by the Prime Minister himself who considered the matter of unprecedented urgency and of unprecedented importance and constituting, in


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not asking that it should be dispensed with. I understood that, in these circumstances, it automatically was dispensed with. If I am wrong about that matter, I should like to know it.


Mr. Speaker:: For the information of the Leader of the Opposition may I say that the standing order with respect to private members' business is not suspended by this motion for adjournment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very well. We then have from eight o'clock until ten o'clock for spokesmen of the government to explain their position with regard to this statement and we shall have before long, I hope, occasions on which to continue the debate on this matter.
This statement of the state department of the United States was issued, in my view, inappropriately. It should never have been issued. I said that last evening, when 1 commented on it at once. Irrespective of the provocation-and there was provocation-it was wrong of the state department of the United States or the foreign office of any government, however friendly, to issue a statement of this kind commenting on-and by commenting on in this way, intervening in-a matter which is before the House of Commons of this country. In my view the only situation which would justify this course at all would be if the state department had already protested by formal note to the Canadian government certain observations made by the Canadian Prime Minister last Friday. If no attention was paid to that note, then perhaps it could be said that they had the right to make their position public. No doubt in the course of this discussion the Prime Minister or a spokesman for the government will tell us whether any note on this matter has been received by the Canadian embassy in Washington or from the United States embassy in Ottawa dealing with this matter, or whether any oral representations were made in this matter.
This United States statement, because it is a foundation for the discussion, I think should be put on the record. I propose to do that and then to enable the spokesmen for the government to reply. The text of the statement is as follows, and I commend the first paragraph of this statement to the house:
The department-
-that is the department of state-
-has received a number of inquiries concerning the disclosure during a recent debate in the Canadian House of Commons regarding negotiations over the past two or three months between the United States and Canadian governments relating to nuclear weapons for Canadian armed forces.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, it should be emphasized that the department of state refers to disclosures made by the Prime Minister of this country in a recent debate in this house concerning negotiations or discussions which had been entered into between the two governments two or three months ago
U.S. State Department Press Release and about which we in this house knew nothing. These disclosures were made by the Prime Minister on a matter which affected the United States government as much as it affected the Canadian government.


John George Diefenbaker: Did you object?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will ask the Prime Minister when he speaks on this matter, or the Minister of National Defence to tell the house whether these disclosures in the House of Commons about these talks between the two governments on a matter of such importance, were made with the knowledge and approval of the other government concerned with the conversations.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition this question. Did he object to having the information he asked for?


Lester Bowles Pearson: One of the extraordinary things about this disclosure made by the Prime Minister is that it did not give us any information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And when we asked next day questions about the disclosure, even about who was carrying on the negotiations, the Prime Minister and the members of the government said these were improper questions. These discussions were news to the House of Commons. The last time we had heard in this house anything about discussions in this matter was from the Prime Minister two years ago when he told us that they were finished. Apparently they were begun again, no doubt between the representatives of the two governments. We do not know who they were. We do not know what departments are carrying them on. However, we know they were confidential negotiations and we know they were referred to in this house by the Prime Minister. However, we do not know whether he made those disclosures about those negotiations after having informed the government of the United States that he was going to do so. I ask him if he even gave them half an hour's notice.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the Leader of the Opposition object? He will not answer that question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask the Prime Minister, in case he did not catch my question, will he tell the house when he speaks whether he gave the United States government any advance notice, even half an hour's notice, that he was going to bring out in this house that confidential discussions were going on? Did he give the government of the United States any notice about this or did he just come into the House of Commons and mention

U.S. State Department Press Release these matters to the surprise, no doubt, of the other party to the negotiations, which happened in this case to be the government of the United States?


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. gentleman where he gets the idea that they are confidential? Did he get that when he was down in Washington or New York?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in Washington for many months.


John George Diefenbaker: No, New York.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There have been a good many visits to Washington, since my last visit, by members of the government, who must know much more about these matters than I do. The Prime Minister went to Nassau a little while ago where he had luncheon with the President of the United States. No doubt he talked with the President of the United States about these matters on that occasion. May I ask him whether he discussed with the President of the United States the propriety of bringing these matters into the House of Commons and giving the United States government notice that he was going to do so? I am sure that in this luncheon conversation between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister they went over the whole question of Canadian-American relations.
With respect to these negotiations about which we heard for the first time last Friday, having been told two years ago by the Prime Minister that discussions on this matter had ceased, there is a paragraph in the United States communique which should be put on the record because it bears on the origin of these conversations, these discussions, these negotiations, which were first made public by the Prime Minister of this country without any consultation with the government of the United States. I read from the United States communique:
Shortly after the Cuban crisis in October 1962-
Shortly after the Cuban crisis.
-the Canadian government proposed confidential discussions-
The initiative for these confidential discussions came not from the United States but from the Canadian government. The proposal was made by the Canadian government for such conversations, for such discussions. Surely that makes it all the more important that if disclosure of these confidential negotiations was to be made by the Prime Minister in a debate in the House of Commons it would have been done with the knowledge and approval of the other party to the negotiations. I know the Prime Minister is a stickler for the proprieties in these matters.


I know how he feels when he does not get more than half an hour's notice. How does he think the United States government felt when it got no notice at all?
Shortly after the Cuban crisis In October 1962, the Canadian government proposed confidential discussions concerning circumstances under which there might be provision of nuclear weapons for Canadian armed forces in Canada and Europe.
This was the proposal made by the Canadian government for conversations with the United States government. The communique goes on:
These discussions have been exploratory in nature; the Canadian government has not as yet proposed any arrangement sufficiently practical to contribute effectively to North American defence.
So much for the negotiations about which we have been unable up to the present to secure any information in this house, although the Prime Minister himself in the debate last Friday, and the Minister of National Defence, did tell us they were going on. Perhaps we will hear this evening from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) at least what department of the Canadian government is carrying on these confidential negotiations, what progress is being made, if any, and why it is that the Canadian government, having proposed them for the purpose set out in this paragraph, has not been able to put forward any practical suggestion which might contribute effectively to the joint defence? The communique also has this to say:
In 1958 the Canadian government decided to adopt the Bomarc-B weapons systems. Accordingly two Bomarc-B squadrons were deployed to Canada-
At the expense, incidentally, of the United States government.
-where they would serve the double purpose of protecting Montreal and Toronto as well as the U.S. deterrent force. The Bomarc-B was not designed to carry any conventional warhead.
Of course, we all knew that.
The matter of making available a nuclear warhead for it and for other nuclear capable weapons systems acquired by Canada has been the subject of inconclusive discussions between the two governments. The installation of the two Bomarc-B batteries in Canada without nuclear warheads was completed in 1962.
That confirms what we on this side felt to be the case, that by the end of 1962 the point of no return had been reached in so far as these two Bomarc squadrons were concerned in regard to keeping them there without any warheads or giving them the warheads without which they would be completely useless. Then the communique goes on:
In addition to the Bomarc-B, a similar problem exists with respect to the modern supersonic jet interceptor-

I believe that is the CF-101.
-with which the R.C.A.F. has been provided. Without nuclear air defence warheads, they operate at far less than their full potential effectiveness.
One of the statements made by the Prime Minister in the debate last Friday which must have caused some confusion in the mind of the Minister of National Defence and, indeed, of the other party to our defence arrangements, the United States government, was a statement made by the Prime Minister who has stated more than once in the discussions we have had on this matter in the house that there is no contradiction between anything he said last Friday and the clarifying statement issued by the Minister of National Defence. No contradiction, the Prime Minister has told us. But the Prime Minister said last Friday, as found on page 3133 of Hansard, that these aircraft, the CF-101 that is referred to in the paragraph in the communique which I read, "title to which will be vested in Canada, will be armed with conventional weapons".
But if you look at the statement by the Minister of National Defence, which no doubt he will clarify further in the course of this discussion, you will find that he says:
So far as NORAD is concerned, Canada has been negotiating with the United States for the past two to three months in order that nuclear warheads will be made available for our two squadrons of Bomarcs and our F-101 interceptors.
That is only one contradiction between the policy as laid down by the Prime Minister and the policy on defence as clarified by the Minister of National Defence, so perhaps in addition to dealing with the statement from Washington the two hon. gentlemen concerned will reconcile their own clarifications, with assistance from the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny). Then the communique goes on to say:
The discussions between the two governments have also involved possible arrangements for the provision of nuclear weapons for Canadian NATO forces in Europe-
That is a straightforward statement.
The discussions between the two governments have also involved possible arrangements for the provision of nuclear weapons for Canadian NATO forces in Europe, similar to the arrangements which the United States has made with many of our NATO allies.
We will expect the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence or both to clarify that statement in the light of its relation to statements made by the Prime Minister in the house last Friday. I continue with the communique:
During the debate in the House of Commons various references were made to recent discussions
at Nassau.
U.S. State Department Press Release
Now, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a great play on the fact that the conference at Nassau between the United States president and the United Kingdom prime minister had a very direct and definite bearing on Canadian defence policy in NATO and perhaps even, so far as I know, in NORAD.


John George Diefenbaker: And all the nations of NATO.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that happens to be the case, and of course it is not the situation, why is it that the Prime Minister then would make a statement of that kind, which would certainly be a great surprise to the other members of NATO who were not at the conference, and which is not borne out by anything in the Nassau communique from the United Kingdom and the United States. Either the Prime Minister had some secret information which he is disclosing to this house and which the other NATO governments know nothing about, or he is basing his statement on a communique that does not support it.
After all, the United States was a party to this conference and presumably the United States government knows more about the implications of the Nassau agreement between President Kennedy and Prime Minister Macmillan than the Prime Minister of Canada could hope to know, because he did not take part in these discussions. He had lunch with the two leaders but, regrettably, he did not take part in the discussions. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this paragraph on Nassau has very special significance. It reads:
During the debate in the House of Commons various references were made to recent discussions at Nassau. The agreements made at Nassau have been fully published.
Apparently there are no secret agreements; they have been fully published.
They raise no question of the appropriateness of nuclear weapons for Canadian forces in fulfilling their NATO or NORAD obligations.
The Prime Minister told us that this statement made by one party to these discussions at Nassau is inaccurate. Does he continue to insist on the validity of his own argument that the Nassau communique and the Nassau conversations did have that effect which the United States government says in its communique they did not have?
Then, Mr. Speaker, the second last paragraph of this United States communique reads:
Reference was also made in the debate to the need of NATO for increased conventional forces. A flexible and balanced defence requires increased conventional forces,-
We on this side have said this more than once both in and out of the house.
3304	HOUSE OF
U.S. State Department Press Release -but conventional forces are not an alternative to effective NATO or NORAD defence arrangements using nuclear-capable weapons systems.
Perhaps the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) or both hon. gentlemen could comment on the authority for that particular statement. The United States statement continues:
NORAD is designed to defend the North American continent against air attack. The Soviet bomber fleet will remain at least throughout this decade a significant element in the Soviet strike force. An effective continental defence against this common threat is necessary.
Then, the last paragraph reads:
The provision of nuclear weapons to Canadian forces would not involve an expansion of independent nuclear capability, or an increase in the "nuclear club". As in the case of other allies custody of U.S. nuclear weapons would remain with the U.S. joint control fully consistent with national sovereignty can be worked out to cover the use of such weapons by Canadian forces.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this communique is extremely interesting, regardless of the impropriety of issuing it at all, and I claim it was improper to issue it. This is extremely interesting because of the light it throws on the confusions and contradictions of Canadian defence policy. Anyone who has listened to the Prime Minister's statement, to the Minister of National Defence's clarification, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs' (Mr. Green) statements, can understand how confusion can be caused in these matters by these contradictory statements.
May I just refer to one such contradiction? In the statement made by the Prime Minister last Friday, as recorded on page 3127 of Hansard.
-we will act to do those things that will carry out our responsibilities.
I think no one will take any exception to that statement. Then he went on to say, in respect of responsibilities.
We will do nothing to extend the nuclear family.
But having made that statement, on page 3128, the following page, he added this:
-those forces-
He was talking about some of the Canadian forces with NORAD and NATO.
-would have to be equipped, in order to be fully effective, with defensive nuclear weapons if and when the need arose.
The Prime Minister will do nothing to extend the nuclear family but he has accepted, on behalf of the government of Canada, equipment which cannot be effective without nuclear warheads and he is willing to accept those nuclear warheads if and when the need arises.
The Minister of National Defence is a little more specific on this matter. I refer to 

his statement, no doubt in clarification of the Prime Minister's statement that we will do nothing to extend the nuclear family, when he said:
-our obligations to equip certain weapons systems with nuclear arms are reiterated together with the determination to honour those obligations.
Take your pick, Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the Minister of National Defence or the remarks of the Prime Minister of Canada. How both of these hon. gentlemen can reconcile these contradictory remarks and maintain there is cabinet solidarity is difficult for anyone on this side of the house to understand. The Minister of National Defence brings it all to a conclusion in his clarifying statement when he says this:
Those paragraphs-
He is referring to certain paragraphs in the Prime Minister's speech.
-state a definite policy for the acquisition of nuclear arms.
Well, Mr. Speaker, surely I have said enough to underline the contradictions, the confusions that have been created by the Prime Minister, not by the United States government, in his statement of last Friday. Surely, I have said enough to indicate that if it was improper for the United States to issue this release, as it was, it was equally improper for the Prime Minister of this country to make public the fact that there were negotiations going on between the United States and this government without getting the approval of the other party to the negotiations, and without even informing them of the disclosure.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to private members' business which is on today's order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that it would not be inappropriate for me, since there is a motion standing in my name, to request unanimous consent of the house, in view of the importance of this hour, to the suspension of private members' hour between five and six in order that we might continue with this debate?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Before Christmas, when we were discussing this motion, we asked the hon. member for Essex East if he would agree to the suspension of this hour at a time when important business was being discussed. He said no in a very Scrooge-like manner. I, for one, would not agree to the suspension of this hour.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Closure.


Mr. Speaker:: This requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to the proposal?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that there does not appear to be unanimous consent to the adjournment of private members' hour. Therefore, we will proceed with the notice of motion.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, December 20, 1962, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of correspondence or any documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the crown and officers of the Department of Justice or the privy council or any other government department or agency on the subject of surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-902, dated June 24, 1962, and the amendment to the surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-987, dated July 11,	1962, and the import control list as
amended by P.C. 1962-903, dated June 24, 1962, with particular reference to the legality of such orders.
Mr. H. F. Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has ranged over fairly wide ground, as hon. members who have been following it will recall, despite the admonitions of Your Honour to restrict it to the question as to whether or not the papers that are called for should be produced.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that some of the little private conferences be held elsewhere, or in a lower tone of voice so that we may carry on with the business of the house.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was introduced it was billed before the country as being a matter of the greatest urgency and importance that this question be decided. That has been the tenor and tone of the speeches of members of the official opposition. That position has not been borne out by their actions, however. The question we are being asked to decide today is whether, in the words of the motion, "an humble address should be presented to His Excellency," and the motion continues in these words:
__praying that he will cause to be laid before
this house copies of correspondence or any documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the crown and officers of the Department of
27507-3-209
Correspondence Respecting Surcharge Justice or the privy council or any other government department or agency on the subject of surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-902, dated June 24, 1962, and the amendment to the surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-987, dated July 11, 1962, and the import control list as amended by P.C. 1962-903, dated June 24,	1962, with
particular reference to the legality of such orders.
The mover, when putting this motion, stated what in his opinion was concerned therein. I quote from page 1425 of Hansard for November 9, 1962:
Mr. Speaker, my motion has to do with the production of the opinion of the law officers of the crown on the legality of the government's austerity program, and more particularly the legality of the surcharges on imports order in council.
That is to say, the production of those documents which have some bearing on that legality. That was the situation when this motion was originally introduced by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Henry Frank Jones: This debate has gone into-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Nicholson) apparently has a question. I did not know whether the parliamentary secretary was willing to yield the floor.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the parliamentary secretary if I heard him correctly when he referred to the government's austerity program.


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is right; that is what he said.


Henry Frank Jones: I was quoting from the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: He was wrong, as usual.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, this debate and the arguments which have been developed in it turn in two directions. One is really not germane to the debate at all and yet there has been a good deal of discussion on it. I refer to the question as to whether these surcharges are in fact legal. I shall later deal with that matter at some length, even though it may appear to be out of order. I shall do so for this reason, that much of the time of the house has been taken up in discussing that very point. I suggest it is really because of the lack of understanding of the point and why it is irrelevant to this debate that hon. members in certain parts of the house have in the past indicated that they would support this motion.
In order that we may deal with this situation comprehensively I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members that the

Correspondence Respecting Surcharge argument for having these documents produced, based on precedent, was completely demolished by my friend the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith). He completely demolished the arguments of the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). He made a very interesting analysis of the arguments that had been put forward up to that time, and the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Simcoe North have shown completely that there is no precedent worthy of consideration that supports this motion. I should like to refer hon. members to Hansard of November 22, starting at page 1912 and continuing through the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe North, who made a brilliant speech. Perhaps the ability with which he presented his arguments and the validity of those arguments can be demonstrated by the fact that he was interrupted on no less than 17 occasions by members of the opposition and that on no less than seven occasions Your Honour had to restore order and intervene in the debate, in order to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks.
The arguments of the hon. member for Essex East which were demolished by those put forward by the hon. member for Simcoe North commence at the beginning of the second column of page 1912. He quotes them chapter and verse. I shall quote them in summary so that hon. members may understand that there is no substance at all in the arguments and there is no precedent for the production of these documents. The precedents cited originally by the hon. member for Essex East are as follows. He first referred to an opinion given by the minister of justice in 1935, which is referred to at page 1427 of the current Hansard. As reported on that page, the hon. member for Essex East said:
Not only did he give without any prodding the opinion of the law officers of the crown but as well he volunteered opinions on the very point in issue which had been tendered by two eminent counsel, namely Mr. W. N. Tilley, K.C. and Mr. Aime Geoffrion, on the very point. Those opinions are now to be found in Hansard for 1935, volume III, at page 3166.
That is the end of the quotation from the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East. Then we have the observations and comment of the hon. member for Simcoe North clearly destroying that argument. He said, as reported at page 1912 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the opinion of the law officers of the crown on that occasion was not given.
That is the answer to that argument. Then he said:
There was no request for it. All that was done was that Mr. Guthrie, as reported at page 3166 of volume III of Hansard for 1935 said:

"The opinion of the law officers of the crown is that clause 5 presents some difficulties."
Then a little further on he said:
"The opinions of counsel who 1 have named are summed up in the following statement by Mr. Tilley:"
The hon. member for Essex East had read Mr. Tilley's opinion, he being an independent counsel. This question was pursued in the house on that occasion by the hon. member for Simcoe North, who said:
On that occasion, notwithstanding what was said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Essex East, the opinion of the law officers of the crown was not produced.
It was the same dispute. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said it was given in the house. My hon. friend from Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) said it was not. The reply given was: "You have just read it." To this the answer, naturally, was that only the substance had been given. That completely disposes of the argument of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).
The second precedent the hon. member quoted appears at page 1427 of Hansard for 1962 as follows:
...we have as perhaps the most recent precedent In this house the action taken by Mr. St. Laurent when he was minister of justice. In May of 1942 the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff) and the present member for that constituency moved for a copy of all opinions rendered by the Department of Justice with reference to the power of the governor in council to conscript men for service in any theatre of war.
Subsequently Mr. St. Laurent tabled those opinions. The hon. member for Simcoe North effectively disposed of that argument when he referred hon. members to a motion which is to be found on page 2290 of Hansard for 1942. The motion is as follows:
For a copy of all opinions rendered by the Department of Justice with reference to the power of the governor in council under the War Measures Act to conscript men for service in any theatre of war.
Mr. Cardiff had asked for a copy of all opinions rendered by the Department of Justice with respect to this matter, and Mr. St. Laurent replied:
I have been advised by the departments of government concerned to say that they do not object to the production of the opinions mentioned in this motion, but it will be done without prejudice to the general rule-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, I think it is a rule of this house that hon. members must make their own speeches. This is a very short debate, and all the hon. member is doing is reading speeches which have already been made. I suggest this is contrary to the rules and that it is being done solely to prevent a vote.

Correspondence Respecting Surcharge


Henry Frank Jones: May I say, on that point, that nothing could be farther from the truth than the statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I wish to set forth in summary form a complete disposition of the legal arguments made in support of this motion in order to reach as rapidly as possible the issue which was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I suggest that the objection put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the real issue which agitates members of the opposition. I wish to point out the consequences which would follow if the view of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was put into practice. I am sure that when we reach that point and get into a discussion of this matter he will agree with me that the interpretation we place upon the situation is a correct one. Meanwhile, I believe I am entitled to place before the house a summary of the arguments already advanced in order that we may move forward to the stage we should all like to reach.


An hon. Member:: You have five minutes left.


Henry Frank Jones: I should like to continue. As I was saying, the second argument raised by the hon. member for Essex East was disposed of by the hon. member for Simcoe North.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member tell us the page from which he is quoting?


Henry Frank Jones: I have done that. He will find this at page 1913.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Get to 1963.


Henry Frank Jones: The third reference made by the hon. member for Essex East is to some remarks by Mr. Abbott to be found at page 1428 of the current Hansard. The hon. member for Essex East said:
It was not rejected. As my hon. friend knows, it was an oral opinion. Perhaps by this time my hon. friend understands that it is not possible to produce by way of a document an opinion which has been given orally; that was the situation in 1948.
If hon. members care to refer to Hansard at page 1913 and read there the argument advanced by my hon. friend from Simcoe North they will see that this contention by the hon. member for Essex East was completely demolished.
All this brings me to what is, I think, really behind some of the feeling, on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others, that these documents should be produced. I think it is fair to say 27507-3-209i
that the underlying sentiment of hon. members who have asked for the production of this document, the basic position taken by them and particularly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is that the taxes in question should not have been imposed by the government in the way in which this was done-that, in effect, it was an improper imposition of taxation. I think that is probably a fair summary of the position taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Taxation without legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Taxation by order in
council, which the Prime Minister promised never to do.


Henry Frank Jones: No. It was not a question of taxation by order in council. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, and he has agreed, that the gist of his complaint is that it was taxation which was, in effect, illegal -taxation which should not have been imposed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because it was not authorized in any of the statutes.


Henry Frank Jones: That is the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and that is the subject to which I wish to draw the attention of hon. members at this time, because I think it is germane to the question whether or not these documents should be produced.
Here I should like to point out to hon. members and especially to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the legality of these surcharges is a matter for the courts to determine if requested to do so. Various hon. members have observed that since they were imposed millions of dollars have been collected under these charges. They have been collected from companies large and small. If the companies in question had seriously believed that these taxes had been imposed illegally they would surely have made an appeal to the courts, where the matter would have been determined. The provision of the papers referred to in the motion would not decide the question of legality in any way; they would still be nothing more than an expression of opinion alongside which other people could place their opinions. We would get into an interminable wrangle.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware of the fact that the Prime Minister refused our request to refer this question to the Supreme Court of Canada for a determination as to the legality of the charges?


Henry Frank Jones: I am aware that the hon. member has made that assertion on a number of occasions, but it does not meet the objection I am raising, because the very people who are directly affected by these taxes,
3308	HOUSE OF
Correspondence Respecting Surcharge the large companies and others who are involved, could take this matter to court and have the validity of these taxes determined in court, which is the only place where it can be determined. This could be done in accordance with the regular processes of law. However, despite the fact that millions of dollars have been collected under the surcharges since they were first imposed, no company to my knowledge had entered suit in any court in this land to dispute these charges. Even if one or other of the people directly concerned had done this it would not amount to a definite answer, because until decision was reached ultimately this is a question which the courts must decide. As I say, it is open to anybody to dispute the validity of any taxation imposed upon them by the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on this particular motion so that the issue can come to a vote this afternoon. I suggest to the hon. member who has just spoken that one important reason why this question has not been submitted to the courts by various business firms involved is that there are still some people in Canada who think that parliament should have the opportunity to discuss and decide matters of importance. That view apparently does not seem to be shared by the so-called government of the day.
Further, I should like to suggest that the fact that I have not interrupted the parliamentary secretary should not be construed by any means as implying that I think his argument is cogent and strong. He seems to think that the arguments of the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) some weeks ago gained some weight from the fact that other hon. members made certain interventions. I should not like him to think that my failure to make interventions of that sort implied my belief in the validity of his argument.
The hon. member who has just spoken felt that the arguments of the hon. and learned member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) based on precedent have been completely demolished. He suggested that there is not one precedent worthy of consideration which supports the side of the hon. member for Essex East on this question. I should like to bring something to the attention of the hon. member who has just spoken and to this house. I refer to Hansard for March 10, 1960, page 1929. Apparently the Indian Act was under discussion, and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was at that time concerned about 122 Indians who had signed certain
IMr. Jones.]

taxation waiver exemption forms and whether or not they were going to have these taxation waiver forms invalidated by statute. The then minister of immigration, now the Postmaster General (Mrs. Fairclough), said this-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. gentleman make sure that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) is listening?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I gathered that due to his long experience in this house he would be listening. I would be most surprised if he would not in view of the importance of this matter; and I am sure that the people of Canada would be most surprised to find that he did not consider this basic question of constitutional law sufficiently important to listen to these remarks at the present time. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the then minister of citizenship and immigration said:
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have a legal ruling on that point from the Department of Justice and perhaps I might refer to it in order to help the discussion along and so subsequent speakers will not misunderstand. I will read the ruling.
At that point the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said:
Could the hon. lady speak a little louder?
Perhaps he was guessing there that these words might have to echo down through the years to this very day.


Thomas Miller Bell: We all know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is clairvoyant.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Clairvoyance is another quality that the hon. member who just spoke seems to lack, along with intelligence, and I sympathize with him for this lack. Then the minister went on:
This is from the Department of Justice. It reads as follows:
"... in my opinion, an Indian who has executed such a waiver will enjoy the exemption provided by section 86 (1) of the Indian Act in respect of any liability for tax that would otherwise arise after the day upon which the proposed acts are brought into force by proclamation".
Mr. Speaker, this is not a summary. It is not a conclusion. This is a quotation of the actual words of a law officer of the crown. I realize that the hon. member who has just spoken may not consider this to be a precedent worthy of consideration, and I think he should blush at thinking so little of the opinion taken by a learned minister of the crown. They really should get together and discuss this point, and I think he would have some regard for his colleague in the government of the day. Even though he might not consider this to be a precedent worthy of consideration, I submit to you and to the members of this house that this is a precedent

Correspondence Respecting Surcharge
most worthy of consideration. It is certainly worthy because of its recency, and worthy also I think because of its source, the most distinguished and learned Postmaster General, then the minister of citizenship and immigration.
In conclusion-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. gentleman concludes, would he permit me to ask him a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could he read the opinion again, because I understood that it had reference to taxation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Filibuster; repetition.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It would be a privilege to accede to the hon. member's request.


Thomas Miller Bell: Come to a vote.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will conclude in about five minutes and then we will see if this is permitted to come to a vote. This was a matter involving taxation and the minister of citizenship quoted these exact words:
"...in my opinion, an Indian who has executed such a waiver will enjoy the exemption provided by section 86 (1) of the Indian Act-''
etc. It is most interesting to see that the government of the day found it necessary, worth while, appropriate and correct to bring into the house the exact words of an opinion of a law officer of the crown when only 122 individuals were concerned. But it did not have enough consideration and concern for the seriousness of this question when there are 18 million people and $200 million of taxation involved. Therefore, I urge this house to permit this matter to come to a vote immediately and to vote in favour of the motion of the hon. member for Essex East. (Translation):


Mr. Heward Graffley (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize some points of interest concerning the motion now under discussion.
As our distinguished Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) already mentioned in the house a few weeks ago, one can readily realize, just by reading the motion introduced by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) this afternoon, that it is drafted in too general terms.
First of all, we note that the hon. member for Essex East is asking:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of correspondence or any documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any other minister
of the crown and officers of the Department of Justice or the privy council or any other government department or agency on the subject of surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-902, dated June 24, 1962, and the amendment to the surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-987, dated July 11, 1962.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member
allow me a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Let me read the motion first. (Text):


An hon. Member:: We can all read it. (Translation):


William Heward Grafftey: -and the import control list as amended by P.C. 1962-903, dated June 24, 1962, with particular reference to the legality of such orders.
At the very end, the hon. member states the following:
-with particular reference to the legality of such orders.
If we read this motion carefully, we note that even though the hon. member mentions at the end the legality of such orders, the motion is obviously too vague and thus unacceptable to the government.
Now for the second principle I want to bring up this afternoon. It is also easy to see that it would be impossible for a government to administer the country's business if it were obliged, each time the opposition requests it, to communicate to the house advice received from various government officials, either verbally or in writing.
I am convinced that the hon. member for Essex East, who has been here a long time, is well aware that documents giving such advice to the government are privileged.
Third, those opinions, as has been said many times in the house, are given usually to the government by the attorney general of our country.
The fourth principle I want to bring up has already been established by the Minister of Finance, namely that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) is not obliged to give legal opinions to the house. He does not even have the right to do so. In that respect, I refer you to Todd, volume I, page 576.
(Text):
In continuing may I say this. While I cannot be too precise in this instance, I myself as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance well remember the following incident. When I say I cannot be too precise, what I mean is this. It was either in answer to an ordinary written question or a starred question that I tabled in this house not so long ago matters concerning the legal opinion offered by the officer involved. I should like to simply state this. The hon. member for Essex East has, just at the end of his motion requesting the production of these papers,
3310	HOUSE OF
Correspondence Respecting Surcharge inserted the expression, "with particular reference to the legality of such order". I know that one may not impute motives in debate, and in the truest sense of the word I am not doing that. However, I should like to say that it is my opinion that what the hon. member really desires in this debate is this. I am not quite sure that he desires it today, but when this motion was originally conceived he perhaps desired a full dress debate on the surcharges as such. Now that we have today the results which these surcharges have had-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I disabuse my hon. friend's mind. I want two things. I want the legal opinion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has invited this intervention. I want the legal opinion on which the government's action was based. Also, as a member of this house, I want the right to pass on a decision of the government of Canada to impose taxation to the extent of $200 million on the people of Canada.


William Heward Grafftey: I will answer that statement in two very brief sentences. If that is all the hon. member wanted, why did he not word his motion in that way? It has been suggested time and time again in this house that the motion is far too general. He says that is what he wants at the very tail end of his motion. However, I suggest that what the hon. member says he wants now and what he says he wants in the motion are two entirely different things.


An hon. Member:: Double talk.


William Heward Grafftey: I suggest that this is one of the many reasons why the government cannot accept this motion. In its original concept in drafting it is far too general.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


William Heward Grafftey: I have been trying to answer the question of the hon. member of Essex East. As to the second question he asked, may I say that he has had offered by the deputy attorney general of Canada an opinion that the action taken by the government was legal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is it?


William Heward Grafftey: I have already cited, as has the Minister of Justice in a previous debate, and as have my colleagues time and time


again in this particular debate in the house, precedent after precedent to the effect that advice, written or otherwise, given to members of the government by senior officials or ordinary officials is normally considered to be privileged.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to finish answering one before attempting to answer another.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have not asked it yet.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member may ask his question later. I should like to say this, Mr. Speaker. The fact that this whole question has been raised by the hon. member for Essex East surprises me. Just the other day a very honourable and distinguished member of the other place in years gone by, before the present administration formed the government, said that the Liberal administration was forming a veritable establishment in this country. While we have often differed, I have always considered that the hon. member for Essex East is one of the men opposite on the front benches, who have what I call a feeling for parliament, and perhaps he is the only one. That is why it surprised me that he should raise this question. That is why it surprised me that he of all people should bring this question forward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman seems to be on a flight of fancy. Would he permit my question?


William Heward Grafftey: I am dwelling on a principle which means a great deal to me. I know it does not mean too much to the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member answer my question? It has to do with a matter of principle. The hon. gentleman said the motion was too vague. Will the hon. gentleman, as the representative of the Minister of Finance to whom this advice was given, say that the particular piece of advice about the legality of these surcharges will be tabled voluntarily?


William Heward Grafftey: I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate must recognize the fact that this would be a government decision and that I have no authority whatsoever in the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman ask his minister the next time he sees him?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would ask the hon. gentleman to have a little bit of feeling for parliament.

Correspondence Respecting Surcharge


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to go back to an old point that I have often raised previously in this House of Commons. It surprises some people. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate, as a former clerk of the privy council, had a great understanding about the government when he was a clerk of the privy council. It is no wonder that he has such a great understanding of the workings of government. I am not sure whether I am on firm ground when I say this but I believe that the clerk of the privy council was and is today the senior civil servant. I could be corrected on that matter, but that is an opinion that I have.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Instead of giving opinions on this subject I think the parliamentary secretary should confine himself to the motion. I think I should draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that, up until now or until the distinguished parliamentary secretary began to speak, this debate has been restricted to discussion of whether or not these documents should be produced. When he starts to go into the history of the privy council or the biography of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I think the distinguished parliamentary secretary wanders a long way from the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: I am
greatly interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. If he thinks that the hon. member who has the floor is out of order, may I ask his cooperation and that of all hon. members in abstaining from asking questions that are out of order.


William Heward Grafftey: I should just like to return to my original thesis.
My original thesis was simply this, that if any of the hon. members on the front bench opposite had a feeling for parliament it was the hon. member for Essex East. The hon. member for Essex East often asks me why I left the Liberal party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


William Heward Grafftey: Among many reasons, as a young man-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: Order I think the hon. member is straying very far from the motion under study. I believe there are members who are interested in speaking on this motion and I am sure he will try to bring his remarks back to the motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question? Is it not a fact that he has already spoken in this debate?


William Heward Grafftey: I do not believe so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think he has, and if he has then I regret to say that my hon. friend does not have the right to continue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A painful interruption.


William Heward Grafftey: It is certainly my belief that I have not spoken in this debate. I intended to be very brief in putting across this point of principle and if I seem to be out of order it is because of the numerous interruptions which have caused me to take a longer time to get my point across. It is simply this. I felt that the hon. member for Essex East, unlike some of his colleagues on the front bench who confuse parliamentary principle with bureaucratic control, at least had a feeling for parliament, and that is why I am surprised that under any pretense he should believe it is a good idea to make public an opinion such as the one he wants made public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is an argument for bureaucracy you are making.


William Heward Grafftey: I can only suggest in all sincerity that over the last number of weeks we have seen in the House of Commons the opposition trying to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Habel:: Trying to get information.


Mr. Maiheson:: Trying to bring the facts before parliament.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be heard and if there are points of order I would ask that they not be made from members' seats. This is closure by noise, Mr. Speaker. If there are any points of order, let them be brought forward. I wish hon. members would do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure you do.


William Heward Grafftey: I should simply like to say that I am not sure the once great Liberal party has points of principle, points of real doctrine, that they can bring before the House of Commons.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask a question?


William Heward Grafftey: We have seen motions of this nature brought before the Canadian House of Commons. We have seen attempts by hon. members opposite to try to defeat the government on little procedural matters.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We did today. (Translation):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: Order. The hon. member must not attribute motives to the mover of this motion. The wording of the
3312	HOUSE OF
Correspondence Respecting Surcharge motion speaks for itself. I expect that when he continues the hon. member will obey the rules and stay within the limits of the debate.
(Text):


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I am only bringing to the attention of the house that the very way this motion is worded makes me feel that what is really wanted-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: Hon. members are saying "order". The fact is that this motion asks for one thing, and less than ten minutes ago the hon. member for Essex East rose and said that he wanted something else. What are we expected to believe? If this is the case, then I have every right to imply, not knowing what they really want, what I believe they really want and that is a broad and general debate on the surcharges.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear. Let us have it.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not what the motion asks for. The motion is far too general and that is one of the reasons why the government cannot accept it. I would suggest that hon. members opposite think about getting down to the real business of governing Canada. The people of Canada want us to get down to the nation's business and forget these procedural matters.


John Ross Matheson: It is about time.


William Heward Grafftey: The people of Canada want us to get down to the major business of the house and put our national interests before party interests.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Why does the government not do that?


An hon. Member:: Liberal obstruction. (Translation):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: Order. I do not know of any changes in the rules of this house, and the one I read is to the effect that only one member, at a time, can speak. Therefore, I am sure that everyone will understand that the member who has the floor at this time is the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey).
(Text):


William Heward Grafftey: The fact that the hon. member for Essex East says that he wants one thing and the motion asks for another leads me to believe that hon. members opposite do not know what they want. This is another reason why we cannot accept the motion. When in the history of parliament has a government accepted a motion from an opposition that did not know what it really wanted?
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul).!

I suggest that this motion shows that members opposite would like to defeat the government at any cost, not on a question of principle because they have forgotten what principles are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I might ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he think there is any higher principle than the right of parliament, and parliament alone, to tax?


William Heward Grafftey: Parliament is the voice of the people, and the voice of the people of Canada today is saying to parliament: Get on with the nation's business and do not present such phony motions to the house in an effort to defeat the government on procedural niceties. If parliament truly reflected that spirit today, if hon. members opposite were listening to the people of Canada they would not be presenting such fractious motions to parliament. That is why I have every right to voice cynicism when hon. members opposite ask for one thing in a motion and then another thing on the floor of the house. I suggest to hon. members that they get together and decide what they really want. Then the government can at least begin to consider whether or not it can accept their motions. For these reasons, which I have attempted to outline amid many interruptions, it is absolutely impossible for the government to consider accepting such a motion.
(Translation):


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we just heard the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) discuss the order or orders in council passed by the government on June 24, July 11 and again on June 24, 1962. I wonder why the government persists in not tabling in the house the correspondence asked for by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).
It seems to me that this request is a usual and normal one which should help and inform every member of this house.
Here is what is asked for in that notice of motion:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of correspondence or any documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the crown and officers of the Department of Justice or the privy council or any other government department or agency on the subject of surcharge and imports order-
The surcharge on imports might be of some value but we believe that it would be preferable, instead of imposing a surcharge, to grant a compensated discount on products made in

U.S. State Department Press Release
Canada as an incentive for Canadians to buy our own production.
Nevertheless, we would like to know what correspondence was exchanged concerning that "surcharge on imports".
-P.C. 1962-902, dated June 24, 1962, and the amendment to the surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-987, dated July 11, 1962, and the import control list as amended by P.C. 1962-903, dated June 24, 1962-
We go to July and we come back to June. That is somewhat the game the Liberals played for 22 years in Canada, going forward and coming back after.
-with particular reference to the legality of such orders.
It is a matter of legality. It is also a matter of receiving the appropriate documents, the documents or correspondence in respect to those orders.
We, of the Social Credit party, believe that even if there is here a point of law on which lawyers can fight, in the first place, even before this motion or request for correspondence and orders is passed, we should ensure that an incentive system to help production in our own country is established.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that his remarks are out of order since we are considering a motion for the tabling of some documents. I do not think that on this occasion it is in order to discuss the advisability of applying this or that measure.
Therefore, I ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the wording of the motion under study.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will restrict myself to the wording of the motion.
Like the hon. member for Essex East, we ask that all the documents required to inform the house about the surcharge or about any surcharge whatever on imports coming either from the United States or from any other country in the world be tabled, so that the members may know exactly how they stand regarding these orders in council of June 24 and July 11.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: The hon. member for York-Humber.


Mr. Cowan:: I will gladly yield the floor for the question.


Mr. Pigeon:: He wants to speak.
27507-3-210


Thomas Miller Bell: I think the hon. member for York-Humber should be heard. He has been trying to get the floor for quite a few minutes.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I appreciate the opportunity of saying a few words on this matter of producing the opinion of the deputy attorney general, particularly on this last day of the month of January which is named after the two-faced god Janus who, as you know, looked both ways.
I should like to point out that five years ago this very month there was an opinion of the deputy minister of trade and commerce being bandied around this house. The then minister of finance, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming), was screaming that the Liberal party had concealed the facts. It was not enough that they concealed advice they received from competent sources; it was not enough-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: Order; the hon. member cannot choose this time to make a political statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Benidickson:: He is giving a precedent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: I am sure the hon. member will try, after his introduction, to make his remarks relevant to the motion.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: My reference was to page 3568 of Hansard for January 21, 1958. I am a new member in the house, but I was present on October 9 and again on November 8 when the Minister of Justice made a remark which I consider ridiculous in commenting on this situation. I quote:
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the validity and legality of these orders in council let me say that the government has proceeded on the highest advice, and that the legality of these orders is not questioned unless hon. members choose to question the opinion of the deputy attorney general of Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


William Moore Benidickson: You are just running scared.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for
private members' business having expired, the house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson for the adjournment
3314	HOUSE OF
U.S. State Department Press Release of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely: the statement made last night by the U.S. department of state contradicting the recent statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, concerning the joint defence arrangements of the Canadian and United States governments.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks this afternoon I was asking the Canadian government to take advantage of this motion to discuss Canadian defence policy, and in doing so to examine, if it so desires, the United States government statement which, I repeat, should not have been issued in the first place but which, having been issued, is a further link in the chain of evidence which exposes the confusions, the contradictions, the weakness and the indecision of Canadian defence policy today as part of continental, and indeed collective, defence policy. The reason we on this side of the house believe that such a discussion is a matter of urgent importance, and the reason we are joined in this opinion by two of the three other parties in this house, has nothing to do with United States opinions about Canadian policies which may be implied in that statement. As I have said, such an expression of opinion in these circumstances was unwarranted and unjustified. I know that the United States government had plenty of provocation. It had before it the spectacle of the government which had joined with it in continental defence, the government which had made in July, 1957 the NORAD agreement with it, apparently publicly divided about matters which were of course of close concern to the United States, with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) saying one thing and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) saying something else, with the Minister of National Defence apparently engaged in negotiations with the United States to carry out his policy, and the Prime Minister disclosing these confidential negotiations last Friday but certainly not explaining them.
However, Mr. Speaker, whatever the provocation, two wrongs do not make a right and to the extent that it expressed or implied opinions, the United States government was wrong in making this public statement. But the primary interest of this house is not in


the opinions of the United States government. Our interest lies in finding out the facts for and about Canada, the facts as to what is the present defence policy of this Canadian government. The Prime Minister has told one story, the Minister of National Defence has told another; the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) sit silent. It is left to our neighbour and ally to tell yet another story, one much closer to that of the Minister of National Defence than to the Prime Minister's, but different in important respects from both. We want the facts, Mr. Speaker, all the facts, about the defence policy of Canada.
The Canadian people have the right to know. If our allies want to know too, as they apparently do, that is natural in a coalition, but it is secondary. It is of first importance however that the Canadian people know. Any government that evades any longer telling them, that evades saying what are its own policies in this vital matter, is guilty of neglect of its duty to the Canadian people.
This motion, which the government opposed, does give the government another chance to tell us now. However, Mr. Speaker, it will not be helpful, to say the least-and it could be harmful-if, instead of doing this, government spokesmen retreat into cheap slanders about the motives of those of us on this side in the statements that we make on defence. So far as my own motives are concerned, I will let the record speak about my service to my country, and of my pride in that service over the many years as a Canadian, but as one who knows that service to Canada cannot be divorced from service to peace and to freedom. These irritating but idle slanders, Mr. Speaker, are merely a smokescreen for those who wish to obscure their own defaults and take people's minds ofE the serious problems which we face in this country today and which we must solve. It would be a sorry day for us all if we allowed-or, even worse, if we encouraged-differences and disputes between our two countries to weaken, and perhaps even destroy, the good neighbourhood which we have built up over the years and which of course has had to stand, and will have to stand, many strains. It is now more essential than ever that both countries, as partners in a coalition of other free and democratic nations for peace and progress, preserve and strengthen that good neighbourhood inside the coalition in which the United States alone have the power to give the leadership that is required-I pray that it also has the wisdom-in that coalition in which Canada has played and, I hope, will continue to play, a good and responsible part. I do not propose, and we on this side do not

propose, to do anything which would blur or weaken that part. Whenever the western alliance is weakened and divided, only Moscow and Peking are happy; and there are sombre signs of such a division in Europe today. I hope they will disappear. In any event, let us not carry this division across the Atlantic or do anything which would injure good relations on this continent. At least, let us make sure that if this is done we do not have any responsibility on our side of the border for that deterioration.
It was said this afternoon that Canada and Canadians are not going to be pushed around by anyone. Of course we are not. Canada will manage its own affairs. But we cannot do this in isolation from our friends or by quarrelling needlessly with them. Canada first, yes: The right kind of nationalism is a healthy and strong thing in the building of a country. Canada first, yes: But to say "Canada only" would be wrong and impossible. Let us be mature enough to accept both these guides for conduct in our relations with the United States of America and with our other friends. If our two countries sharing this continent, so close together in so many ways, cannot maintain a solid structure of friendship and close co-operation founded on respect for each other's national identity and national independence, then ideed there is little hope for peace, security and progress in the troubled world of today. I say this: in defence and in everything else we can stand up for Canada, as we will; we can protect our rights and safeguard our interests, as we will. But I insist on believing we can do this while maintaining close and good relations with our neighbours. As Canadians-and all members of the house are Canadians and proud to be Canadians-we on this side will do our best to avoid any such disastrous results coming from any temporary differences which may exist between our two countries and which, I do believe, by good sense, moderation and understanding on both sides, can easily be solved.


Robert Norman Thompson: The debate in which we are taking part today is an example of sheer pettiness and petty politics at their worst. To me, the whole thing smacks of hypocrisy. I cannot help but go back in my mind to the middle of last June when we were told that the financial situation of Canada was better than it had ever been- that there was nothing wrong with it. I recall that on June 20 or June 21, just after the election, there was a television forum in Ottawa at which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) came out from a cabinet meeting and joined us in the forum. In the course of that program he declared that Canada was 27507-3-210J
U.S. State Department Press Release in better shape than it had ever been before. The very next day, the austerity program was announced and news of the financial crisis was made known.
I am concerned at this time because, once again, the people of Canada are being deceived as to the actual facts, not only by the government but also by the official opposition. This is why the people in Canada are getting fed up with politics in running the management of their affairs. Certainly, in a question as important as defence the people of Canada and their representatives in this house deserve to know what are the actual facts of this situation. To me this is something which should not be political. It should transcend political barriers because it is something with which every one of us is vitally concerned if we are to fulfil our own obligations and responsibilities to our country. What we really want here tonight is a statement of what really is the defence policy of the government of this country. What we need to do is to lift this thing out of the political muck it has got into and set it up according to principle; to state what is our principle as far as defence policy is concerned. This is what the people of Canada expect from this house and from this government. It is our obligation to fulfil this responsibility to our electorate.
I am disturbed by a number of things which have been said. We find that the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Pearson) is accused of having gone down to the United States to get advice to guide his policy. But what is the difference between that and going to have a meeting with the President of the United States to find out what should be done? What we need to do is to lay down Canadian policy. Leave politics out of it, and let us bring this debate up to the level where it should be. It is not so much a question of Canadian policies which are in opposition to United States policy. That is not what is involved in this document issued by the U.S. state department last night. The real issue is simply this: what is our policy -what is the Canadian policy, not the American policy? That is why, if we are going to blame this on the United States, although in this case I believe they were entirely wrong in how they did it, we should be careful how we proceed. I believe the real key to this situation which has developed between the United States and Canada-and these things ought not to happen, because the United States is our friend whether we like it or not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

U.S. State Department Press Release


Robert Norman Thompson: The first line of defence in this nation, if there should ever come a day when there is the danger of invasion from without, would be carried by the United States of America, again, whether we like it or not.
Coming back to the issue, it seems to me that we should not and cannot make this question of defence a political football. It is not difficult or should not be difficult to define a defence policy for this country. I do not find it so difficult. Let us face up to a few facts and have the courage to put them down and state them, and get rid of this uncertainty. Let us pull this matter out of the realm of emotions we are playing to today. There are other things more important than that. That is why I am convinced, and I am still convinced even though the Prime Minister says it cannot be done, that we should have a defence committee composed of representatives from each of the parties. It need not be a policy making committee. I agree that the final policy is the responsibility of the government. Certainly, if we had such a committee, we would never be in the mess we are today because together we would have carried the responsibility and together met the question posed as a result of what happened last night. I am not alone in saying that this should be done because I hear it from across the country. I picked up a paper of the city last night, the Ottawa Citizen, and read an editorial which said that at no time more than in the past two years had it been so apparent that parliament should either set up a committee to examine the country's defence policy, or that the government should issue a white paper on its defence program. The article went on to say that it is not necessary that a committee make policy, that only the government could do that, but that a committee could define the policy that does exist.


An hon. Member:: If it exists.


Robert Norman Thompson: U.S. State Department Press Release
This is the situation before us. The reason why we are in this particular discussion tonight is that the government of the United States has become exasperated at our indecisiveness and our unwillingness to go along with what is apparent responsibility, whether it be in the form of moral or written commitments. While again X do not agree with the manner in which they did it, I feel they have been obliged to come out and to clarify for us what our commitments are. This situation is wrong. Thus I believe we in the opposition parties have come here representing what is the general feeling across this country tonight, namely that we want to know what the policy of the government is.


An hon. Member:: Would you understand it if you did know what it is?


Robert Norman Thompson: Such statements are just typical of more of the petty politics we have here, and the less we have of them the better. Again may I say that what we want is a statement of government policy or else a demonstration from the government that they are willing to come down and work out what seem to be legitimate and sound policies for the defence of our country, not only through what we have within ourselves in our own ability to develop but also that which we share with the United States for the overall defence of this continent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been precipitated by a press release which was issued by the United States state department yesterday. All parties in this house have gone on record as regretting and resenting this interference in what is a matter of public debate in the House of Commons and something which should be settled by the people of Canada alone. However, Mr. Speaker, we ought not to allow any feeling of resentment to cause us to lose our sense of perspective with regard to this matter. I think we have a right to tell the Americans that we will decide this matter for ourselves. But even this course need not interfere with the good relations between Canada and the United States. We have strong bonds of blood, language and trade as well as common ideals of justice, democracy and liberty which will always bind us closely together.
The Leader of the Opposition made a great play with regard to the importance of friendship between these two neighbouring countries. With that sentiment all of us will agree. However, I submit that independence of thought and expression need not mean division. In the communist bloc where a group of satellites are held in thrall by the Soviet union, obedience is the watchword. However, in the west we have always prided ourselves

on the fact that what we have is a free association of free people and that where there is a free association of free people we should have the right to express our differences of opinion. This ought not to diminish our friendship. As a matter of fact, it is sometimes easier to tell your neighbour and your friend to mind his own business than it is to tell a stranger to do so. That is all we have tried to do today, without in any way meaning that we are seeking to divide these two nations in the many things which they have in common.
Independence in matters of international affairs is something for which the Canadian people have struggled over the years. There was in our history a time when we were still tied to London by strings of colonialism. Men like Sir Robert Borden in the first world war and Right Hon. Mackenzie King at the beginning of the second world war insisted that Canada had a right to make its own decisions and that we did not take instructions from Whitehall. In the second half of the twentieth century it is equally important that, without being offensive, we can say that we are not prepared to take instructions either from the pentagon or Whitehall.
What I resent most about the statement which was issued yesterday by the state department of the United States is not just that it criticized the head of a government of a friendly country but that it sought to put pressure on the Canadian people to adopt a policy with which I disagree. But irrespective of whether I disagree with it or not, it is a policy which the Canadian people have the right to adopt or reject on their own, without interference by others.
The second thing I think we should keep in mind is that this statement which was issued yesterday simply points up the fact that the Canadian government has not been straightforward and honest in acquainting the Canadian people regarding its intentions concerning the acquisition of nuclear arms. This afternoon the Prime Minister said that this statement from Washington would in no way change the government's statement. As I said this afternoon, which statement? We have had two policies enunciated by the government and all this furore has been because we are trying to get the government to come down on one side or the other so that the Canadian people will know what our policy is in respect of the acquisition of nuclear arms.
Over the years this government has accepted commitments to acquire equipment and planes which were virtually useless unless they were equipped with nuclear warheads. Yet the government has continued to give the impression that even though they

were buying this equipment no irrevocable decision had been made to acquire these nuclear warheads. Always the suggestion has been thrown out that "some time in the future we will be able to make this decision". What we have really been doing is to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money buying equipment which is worthless if we do not accept nuclear warheads, and which puts us into the nuclear club if we do.
The Prime Minister himself put on the record last Friday his well known statement at Brockville during the election campaign where he said:
We shall not, so long as we are pursuing the ways of disarmament, allow the extension of the nuclear family into Canada . . . We do not intend to allow the spread of nuclear arms beyond the nations which now have them.
That seems a very clearcut statement. Now we find as a result of the statement that was made first by the Prime Minister and then by the Minister of National Defence, and now by the state department, that negotiations are going on at the present time to acquire nuclear arms even though the prospects for disarmament are much brighter now than they have been for some time.
Let me point out some of the inconsistencies. In his statement last Friday the Prime Minister, as found on page 3128 of Hansard, said:
In 1958, when the Bomarc was first laid down as a plan, the great challenge to North America was believed to be bombers carrying bombs ... Today that is changed. More and more there is a phasing out in connection with the bomber threat as more and more intercontinental ballistic missiles are increasing in number.
That statement by the Prime Minister is supported by the statement which appeared in today's press containing an announcement made by Mr. McNamara, secretary of state for defence in Washington yesterday. Mr. McNamara said:
Bomarc anti aircraft missiles, which cost the United States about ?2 billion, have only a limited life. These weapons suffer from the same defects as manned interceptors, vulnerability to ballistic missile attack. But because the United States already has paid for its eight Bomarc sites, the Bomarc system will be continued for several years. Canada has two Bomarc squadrons, but no nuclear warheads for them.
In the same statement Mr. McNamara said:
The main continental concentration must be in defence against the expanding intercontinental missile threat. The United States is moving ahead with research on a more advanced form of antimissile defence known as the Nike-X, but there will be no production until the system is able to discriminate between a real nuclear missile and a decoy.
If it is true that the Bomarc has a very short life, a very limited effectiveness, and
TJ.S. State Department Press Release that manned bombers are no longer a real threat, then it seems to me the government ought to tell us why it is that they now propose, according to the Minister of National Defence, to negotiate agreements to accept nuclear warheads for them. In the same speech of last Friday the Prime Minister made this significant statement:
More and more the nuclear deterrent is becoming of such a nature that more nuclear arms will add nothing materially to our defences. Greater and greater emphasis must be placed on conventional arms and conventional forces.
I ask the house to consider that statement in the light of the statements which were made by the Minister of National Defence and by the state department. As found on page 3136 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
Delivery of the F-104G has commenced, but the strike reconnaissance role has been placed under doubt by the recent Nassau declaration concerning nuclear arms...
He went on to say:
It will be necessary, therefore, at this meeting in May, for Canada to give consideration to this matter and we will, in co-operation with the nations of NATO, undertake a clarification of our role in NATO defence plans and disposition.
In the light of these statements let us look now at what the Minister of National Defence said. I must say in passing that to the best of my knowledge this is the first time that 72 hours after a prime minister has made an important statement on policy in parliament one of his ministers has found it necessary to issue a statement of clarification and interpretation and to make it outside of the house where he could not be questioned or interrogated on the matter. The Minister of National Defence, referring to page 3136 of Hansard for January 25, sums up the Prime Minister's statement by saying:
Those paragraphs state a definite policy for the acquisition of nuclear arms in these terms.
That certainly is not the impression that those of us who listened to the speech or those of us who read it carefully clause by clause next day got from it. The Minister of National Defence then sums up the three paragraphs and says:
First, our obligations to equip certain weapons systems with nuclear arms are reiterated, together with the determination to honour those obligations.
What obligations? This is what we want to know; what are the obligations? If the Canadian government decides to commit Canada into the nuclear club, then the Canadian people ought to know it. They ought to know what obligations have been assumed. If the minister says we are going to honour those obligations, then this parliament and the people of this country ought to know what it is we are going to honour, and what it is we
3320	HOUSE OF
U.S. State Department Press Release are going to do. The minister who says we are going to honour these obligations has not yet spoken in parliament, although we have been sitting tor months, to tell us what our obligations are.
Second, that the strike reconnaissance role of the F-104's has been placed in some doubt by the recent Nassau declaration, as well as other developments in the defence field; thus, it is necessary for Canada to seek, on the part of NATO, a clarification of her role in NATO defence plans and dispositions; this clarification to be provided when the NATO ministerial meeting is held in Canada next May. Should NATO reaffirm for Canada a role involving nuclear weapons, Canada will equip her NATO forces to discharge her obligation.
Surely, that is crystal clear, beyond any shadow of doubt. It is not this parliament, it is not this government; it is our NATO allies who will decide whether or not to reaffirm Canada's role involving nuclear weapons. Now, it is bad enough when any one country, even a friendly neighbour, is going to lay down our policy; but is the NATO council now going to lay down our policy? This is certainly the implication in this statement. Of course, as the release from the state department points out, this whole question of the Nassau declaration placing this matter in doubt is a sheer hallucination and is simply another means of postponing making a decision, a decision which this government has been putting off month after month and year after year.
I say it is time for them to take their courage in their hands. Sooner or later, they have to come down on the side of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) who has been against nuclear weapons, or the defence minister who has been for nuclear weapons. Any government, any individual who tries to ride two horses going in opposite directions is bound to find himself sitting in a most undignified position. This is exactly the plight into which the government has brought itself at the present time.
I continue with the minister's statement:
Third, so far as NORAD is concerned, Canada has been negotiating with the United States for the past two to three months in order that nuclear warheads will be made available for our two squadrons of Bomarcs and for the F-101 interceptor squadrons. These negotiations will be continued in order to reach a satisfactory agreement. I believe such an agreement can be arrived at in the near future.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in both the statement of the Prime Minister and the defence minister, only NORAD is mentioned as being the subject of nuclear negotiations with the United States. However, the state department release yesterday says that there have been confidential discussions proposed by the Canadian government concerning circumstances under which there might
[Mr. Douglas.!

be provision of nuclear weapons for Canadian armed forces in Canada and Europe. We were not, therefore, told all the story. I might point out also that the minister's statement refers to nuclear warheads for the F-101 interceptor planes, but the Prime Minister's statement says that these would be armed with conventional weapons.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to labour the point. I feel it is quite clear that the government has been unable to make up its mind. Since 1958 it has been playing both sides of the street. Now, events have caught up with them. The Prime Minister said last Friday that the government's policy was flexible and fluid. It has not been either flexible or fluid, it has become wiley and wobbly; it has wobbled from one side to the other. Theirs has been a program of postponement and procrastination. I hope the government will make up its mind. I hope it will make up its mind in favour of a nonnuclear role for Canada. But what I fear is that we are, behind closed doors, being committed inch by inch to nuclear weapons, so that suddenly we will wake up to find ourselves members of the world's nuclear club.
The statement by the minister of defence, and the statement by the state department yesterday, make it fairly clear to me at least that the policy of the government on nuclear weapons is not substantially different from that of the Liberal party, except that the Liberal party has come out forthrightly now and said that they are in favour of accepting nuclear weapons for Canada. The government seems to be edging into it backwards, bit by bit, by secret negotiations and the buying of equipment which is worthless without nuclear warheads. The end result, of course, will be the same. The Liberal party wants to go into the nuclear club through the front door and then, if they can, negotiate themselves out the back door. The government, apparently, wants to sneak in under cover of darkness through the back door so nobody will see them going in.
We in this party have made our position abundantly clear. We say that Canada should negotiate itself out of any nuclear commitments under both NORAD and NATO. I do not need to reiterate the arguments. The Prime Minister himself gave some of them last Friday when he said that nuclear arms would not add materially to our safety, that the real threat in the future is from intercontinental ballistic missiles, that our contribution could be made by the use of conventional arms or conventional forces. They are all there. The official opposition, the Liberal party, really do not want a nuclear role for Canada either, because they say that even if they get nuclear weapons, the moment

they get them and train people to use them, they are going to try to get rid of them. Then why not start by not accepting them in the first place.
We think this is the time to speak out independently, as other nations in NATO have done, Norway, Denmark and others. We say there is nothing to be gained by joining the nuclear club, but there is much to be lost; that the whole trend today in military strategy is away from the limited nuclear, tactical war; that the two great powers now have the ultimate nuclear deterrent; that as long as it is restricted to these two powers, the horrible consequences of a nuclear war may deter them both, and that therefore Canada's best contribution lies in containment, in preventing nuclear weapons from spreading to nations other than the two which now have them. We say that this is the first step as a prelude to getting a ban on nuclear tests and ultimately an international treaty for nuclear disarmament under international inspection and control.
We are not suggesting that Canada should wash its hands of its responsibilities. We are a member of the west. We have great responsibilities in this world. But we maintain that those responsibilities, in view of our size, our location and our resources, can best be discharged by giving increasing support to the United Nations, by supplying conventional forces for a world police force, by making available some of our vast resources of food, capital goods and consumer goods to help the underprivileged and needy countries in the world.
May I close by saying this one word, Mr. Speaker. Around the corridors there are constant rumours of a dissolution of this parliament so that this matter can be settled by the people of Canada. I for one believe that if this government or any government, having in mind that all the parties in the last election were against acquiring nuclear weapons for Canada, is going to acquire nuclear weapons, it has a responsibility to go honestly to the people of Canada for a mandate before accepting nuclear weapons which involve the lives, the welfare and the future of the people of this country. I want to say that as far as we in this party are concerned, no talk of a dissolution will intimidate us from trying to find out what our obligations are and from seeking to discover the extent to which this government has committed us to the acquisition of nuclear arms. After all, arguments about United States intervention and arguments about whether or not the government's policy is a made in Canada policy rather than a made in the United States policy are pure
U.S. State Department Press Release irrelevancies. They constitute a smokescreen, a smokescreen that is laced with double talk.
There is only one question at issue in this debate. That question is, to what extent, if any, has the government of Canada committed itself to the acquisition of nuclear arms for its forces? That is what we want to know. We have had contradictory and conflicting statements. We would be derelict in our duty, Mr. Speaker, if we did not insist that the government tell us. It is not a matter of mere academic debate or political manoeuvring. Joining the nuclear club is something which can affect the lives of all the people in this country, of generations yet unborn, and the peace of the world. We have a right to know what is the government's policy. We have a right to know what commitments they have made. We have a right, above all, to have the government come down on one side or the other. We in this party plead with them to come down on the side of giving Canada a conventional and economic aid role in the world, and to stand up before the world and say that in order to promote peace, in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, Canada will not become a member of the nuclear club and will not accept nuclear arms.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I thank the house for the very kind reception it has given me including, I see, applause from some hon. members opposite, to which I am totally unaccustomed. This debate was supposed to be on the statement made last night by the United States department of state concerning defence arrangements between the Canadian and United States governments, as moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). I must say that it has moved far, far away from that. However, I do not complain on that score and I think it is perhaps inevitable in a debate of this kind that there be quite a wide range of subjects introduced. I was a little surprised, however, to hear the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) make the suggestion that I should go out to Alberta to lead the Conservative party there. I am quite sure that he did not get that suggestion from the premier of the province, Mr. Manning, who I think I see in the gallery, because I am quite sure Mr. Manning would be as discouraged over any such move as is Mr. Bennett over another move along that line to which hon. members have made reference regarding British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, to begin with may I say that having regard to the contents of the press release which we are supposed to be debating, the method chosen by the United States state
3322	HOUSE OF
U.S. State Department Press Release department is, I think, unparalleled in the long history of relations between our two countries. In fact, it constitutes an unwarranted interference in our national affairs-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -an interference that must be deplored in the strongest possible terms. I find it extremely hard to understand the course of action the state department has adopted, since it would seem elementary that such a course could only cause a needless obstacle to our efforts to reach an agreement on matters vital to the national security of both our countries. Of course, we must recognize that differences of opinion do arise from time to time between even the best of neighbours. But there are recognized methods and procedures of resolving such difficulties. Such methods as the state department has seen fit to utilize are not among them. Hon. members know that criticism from one's own nearest neighbour in our every day fives is usually resented by everyone, even when it is given in private. But when such criticism is given in public it can only do damage. I trust we shall have no more instances of this sort.
There has been a terrific amount of rumour and speculation in the past few days in connection with defence and other matters, some of which have been referred to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). I suppose it is only to be expected that such would be the case. But what surprises me is this-that attention should be paid to these speculations, rumours and so forth. As a good example, I find in tonight's Citizen a story by Bruce Phillips, an old friend of mine, in which he says "Man in the middle of the disarmament tug of war, Mr. Harkness, is reported close to collapse." Mr. Speaker, I ask every member of this house if I appear to be a man who looks, talks or acts as though he were on the point of collapse? I may say that this story reminds me of a well known saying of Sir Winston Churchill- "some chicken, some neck" which I paraphrase in these circumstances as "some story, some collapse." But this is symptomatic of the sort of thing which has been going on for the past several days.
As I say, I find it hard to understand why so much credence should be given to rumours, speculation and things of that kind. The same amount of credence should be given to them as should be given to the story I have just mentioned, which is typical of the kind of thing we have been hearing.


An hon. Member:: Don't collapse.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do not worry, my friend. I know there is a doctor in the house and he will look after you if you need him.
Assertions have been made, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), both today and previously, both in this house and out of it, that I have contradicted the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). The hon. gentleman is not the only one who has made such assertions. It is simply not true. I would like to make that as flat and definite as it is possible for me to make it.


Mr. Chevrier:: It is flat, all right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hon. members over there like to have their little joke but often they go somewhat beyond joking with regard to this matter. I think they should realize we are discussing a subject of some seriousness. I should like to outline exactly what the situation is so that there will be no question and no doubt about it. I complained to certain pressmen about the interpretation which had been given in the newspapers to the speech which the Prime Minister had made-an interpretation which, I believe, was unwarranted. When I got up on Saturday morning I was met with a headline: "$700,000,000 worth of weapons carriers to be scrapped". As I said immediately, there had never been any intention of scrapping the aircraft we had bought. As a matter of fact, such an interpretation is completely ridiculous. We secured, to give the latest example, some 66 F-101 or Voodoo planes not very long ago at which time it was stated that they would be armed as we secured them with conventional weapons. We are using them in that form. Any idea that they would be scrapped, or that the other weapons carriers would be scrapped, bear no relation to the facts whatever.
In any event, the interpretation which was placed on the Prime Minister's speech was a completely erroneous one. It was one which I believed it was my duty to deny as soon as possible, and I think other members of the house shared this view. I mentioned this matter to the reporters with whom I talked, and later, in what has since become a well known statement issued to the press, I drew attention to a particular part of the Prime Minister's speech which some of those people had apparently neglected even to read. They were trying to read into this speech something in connection with the scrapping of nuclear weapons carriers and things along those lines, that were never there and never intended to be there. What I did, as a matter of fact, was to put down in my own words, which are naturally different from the Prime Minister's words-everybody's words in connection with these things are not exactly alike

what the Prime Minister had said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I put down absolutely
nothing which is not contained on page 3136 of Hansard. I would just like to read what is stated there in order to demonstrate that to be a fact.
On page 3136, about half way down the left-hand column, the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
What course should we take at this time?
This is in connection with nuclear weapons, and so on.
I emphasize what I have already stated, that we shall at all times carry out whatever our responsibilities are.


An hon. Member:: What are they?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I turn now to the next column. The Leader of the Opposition interrupted, of course, but we find a statement beginning near the top of the page:
Following SACEURS's recommendation, as we saw the situation in 1959 and as I said earlier in my remarks, we undertook to equip our squadrons assigned to NATO for the strike reconnaissance role, which role would include the mission of delivering nuclear weapons. No one was under any misunderstanding in that connection. Parliament approved this program and appropriated the funds.
To continue; there were three which I wish to deal with. The first was in connection with our obligations, which I have dealt with. The next was in connection with the F-104's. The Prime Minister said, on this point:
Delivery of the F-104G has commenced, but the strike reconnaissance role has been placed under doubt by the recent Nassau declaration concerning nuclear arms as well as other developments both technical and political in the defence field. It would be necessary, therefore, at this meeting in May for Canada to give consideration to this matter and we will, in co-operation with the nations of NATO, undertake a clarification of our role in NATO defence plans and disposition.
The Leader of the Opposition is always talking about my having clarified the Prime Minister's speech. I never used the word "clarification". I had no such word in mind. The only place where clarification occurs is right here. I have just read it. The Prime Minister's statement goes on:
We are united in NATO. We have never and will never consent to Canada breaking any of her pledged words or undertakings. It is at that meeting, where there will be reviewed the entire collective defence policy, that we shall secure from the other member nations their views, and on the basis of that we will be in a position to make a decision, a consistent decision, first to maintain our undertakings and secondly to execute, if that be the view, the maintenance of our collective defence. In the meantime the training of Canadian forces in the use of these weapon systems can continue.
U.S. State Department Press Release
There is absolutely nothing in my statement in connection with that matter which is not contained in the passage I have just read.
Then the Prime Minister went on to deal with NORAD.
So far as NORAD is concerned I have said at the beginning of my remarks that Canada's sovereignty must be maintained. We shall continue our negotiations. They have been going on quite forcibly for two months or more.
Then the Prime Minister turned to me and I said "For two or three months". The Prime Minister continued:
Yes, they have been going on for two or three months. Sometimes I wonder whether that is the reason the Leader of the Opposition rushed in with his statement the other day, because he found that out and knew about it. But there was never any concealment of the fact. We will negotiate with the United States so that, as I said earlier, in case of need nuclear warheads will be made readily available.
Mr. Speaker, I defy anybody to find anything in my statement which is not contained in what I have just read.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I have the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will accept that defiance right now.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has the floor and no one can force his way on to the floor.


Lionel Chevrier: He is asking a question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The loquacious and excitable member for Essex East finds it extremely difficult to keep the seat of his pants on his chair when he gets excited. I do not wonder that he is excited, because he has found out, and knows it is the truth, that all the allegations that he and his leader have been making in this connection are completely false.
Now, I think I have dealt with that matter. However, there is one point that the Leader of the Opposition brought up. He tried to make out that there was a contradiction between the Prime Minister and myself, that I had said something which he did not say, and so on and so forth. He was referring to the fact that I had mentioned in this statement our squadrons of Bomarcs and our F-101 interceptor squadrons. Then he referred to page 3133 of Hansard, part of the Prime Minister's speech. On that page and the preceding page the Prime Minister was referring to the statement which had been made when the F-lOl's were acquired; and at the very end of the statement at the top of page 3133 he said:
These aircraft, title to which will be vested in Canada, will be armed with conventional weapons.
3324	HOUSE OF
U.S. State Department Press Release
I said that the Prime Minister had read the statement which was made when we acquired these aircraft and when the announcement was made. On page 3136 of Hansard, when the Prime Minister was dealing with NORAD, he was speaking of the negotiations which we had been carrying on. I was also speaking of the negotiations which we were carrying on.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is trying to make out that there is a contradiction here as well, and that there is no mention, as far as the Prime Minister was concerned, of Bomarcs, F-lOl's, and so forth. What the Prime Minister stated concerned NORAD; and the two weapons systems we have as far as NORAD is concerned which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads are the Bomarc and the F-lOl's. They are the only ones we have. Therefore, when you are talking of NORAD, they are the things about which you are negotiating. That is all there is to that contention.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will be quite happy to take a question when I have finished.
As I said at the beginning, the reason for this debate was the statement made by the United States. I think we must all realize that the security of the western world is dependant on the co-operation of the NATO countries, all 15 of them. Anything which disturbs that co-operation and disturbs relations amongst the 15 countries of NATO is not a good thing for any one of those countries. I should like to point out, however, that there have been other cases than the unfortunate one we are now discussing. I do not think I need point any fingers; it is never wise, I think, to point any finger at a particular country in Europe. However, everyone here is aware of the fact that the maximum of co-operation and exchange of views has not always prevailed as far as some of the European countries who are members of NATO are concerned. But I think the important thing is that the NATO alliance, that great alliance of the countries of the west, be maintained because on it depends the security of all of the free world.
Now I should like to deal briefly with some of the remarks made by the three hon. gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate. First of all there was the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I must say that it reminded me of a story they tell about Paddy Nolan, who was a famous lawyer in the early days in Calgary and of whom Your Honour has no doubt heard many stories. Poor Paddy was in the hospital on one occasion. The nurse brought him in his meal. He looked


at it and said: "That's a dog's breakfast". Then he said: "Will it keep?" "Yes, sir", said the nurse. "Well then," said Paddy, "keep it". I think that story describes the hon. gentleman's speech pretty well. It was a dog's breakfast and he should have kept it.


An hon. Member:: It won't keep.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must say that he did give us some high-sounding rhetoric, which did not mean very much, however, after the dinner adjournment when he had managed to get something written out along that line. As to some of the statements he made, he stated-and I have already dealt with this- that I had contradicted statements made by the Prime Minister. I think there is no doubt about the situation there. Such a thing did not take place. He complained about the disclosure of the negotiations, and immediately after he was pounding his desk and saying that every detail in connection with these negotiations must be revealed to the House of Commons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I never said any such thing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Surely he cannot expect to have it both ways. I would ask him, how is that for a contradiction? I think it would qualify very highly. He also mentioned something about the Nassau agreement in connection with this statement issued by the United States state department. The Prime Minister was at this meeting and he has certain opinions in connection with this matter which he expressed. It is quite evident that his opinions and the opinions of the people in the state department who issued this press release are not the same; but this is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. It is a question of what the Prime Minister believes is the situation and what the authors of this particular statement apparently believe is the situation. This does not mean that there is anything very serious in the way of what the Leader of the Opposition I think called a great contradiction and so forth.
The Leader of the Opposition stated, "We want the facts, all the facts, about the defence policy of Canada". Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have been giving these facts for the past two years or more. Moreover, when the estimates of the defence department come before this House of Commons, and I hope they will do so very shortly, I shall be delighted to answer any of the questions members wish to ask in regard to defence.
I can only think back to the last time when the estimates on defence were before the House of Commons some considerable time ago. If anybody reads that record I think he

U.S. State Department Press Release
will find that there were not too many intelligent questions asked from across the floor with regard to defence matters.
The hon. member for Red Deer said this, "What we want is a statement of what the defence policy is". Mr. Speaker, I think I shall have to send him copies of Hansard for the period when defence was up for debate and the estimates were being gone over the last time, and perhaps a few of the speeches out of the dozens I have made across this country on defence policy during the last two years or more.


Robert Norman Thompson: Send them to the press and across the country too.


An hon. Member:: Send us a policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have been stating defence policy and have been doing so in very definite terms all during the more than two years that are past. This cry "We do not know what the defence policy is" and so on is, I think, due entirely to the fact that they refuse to read anything that has been said, or that they refuse to accept anything that has been said about it. They just want to go around in circles.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam gave the usual type of anti-nuclear speech which characterizes his party. All I can say in connection with it is that every time I hear one of these speeches or every time I read one the impression is borne in on me more and more forcibly that these hon. gentlemen have never understood the situation or that, if they have understood it, they have certainly concealed that fact very well. I do not propose at the present time to go into all the arguments in connection with that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Tell us what the policy is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam went on to say, "What are the obligations? We were not told what these were". I have referred to the Prime Minister's speech. I wish he would read it again. I wish he would study it. If he would do that, he would find out what the obligations are. I do not know how often it is necessary to state these things in order to penetrate the skulls of some people. However, that is the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These hon. gentlemen do not like this speech. I have often observed that there is nothing that hurts like the truth. The statement which was made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and which I think everyone will recognize as having no validity, was that the policy of
the government is not materially different from that of the Liberal party. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that our policy throughout has been and is at the present time so different from that of the Liberal party that I find it difficult to understand how the hon. member could make that sort of statement. The Liberal party has been right around the complete circle with regard to this matter. Nobody ever knew from day to day where they stood on it and we do not yet know. I think everybody was delighted when the Leader of the Opposition about two or three weeks ago finally made what looked like a definite statement, so that we would at least know where he stood; but as soon as he made it he began to draw back from it, retreat from it, qualify it, and change it around so that we are back in the same old position in which we have been right through the piece. We do not know where the Liberal party stands or where the Leader of the Opposition stands. He just will not take a position and stand by it. That is all there is to it. This procedure, I am afraid, has characterized his so-called stand in connection with almost every subject with which he has dealt. On the contrary, we have followed a clear and responsible policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we have followed a clear and responsible policy for the past five years. It has been explained in very considerable detail. We shall continue to follow that policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question before he sits down, although I may say that he has sat down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will he now tell us what the nuclear defence policy of the government is?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to think that no matter what one says with regard to these matters, or no matter how clear the words or how clear the terms, the Leader of the Opposition will refuse to understand. In fact, I think only God will put sense inside that head.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we are all agreed in this house that Canada must determine its own foreign policy, that it must be master of its own defence policy and that we must exercise all the sovereign power capable of being exercised by a sovereign state in this period of interdependence. On this question there is no issue between any of the political parties in this house. However, there is an issue as to the extent to which we have been informed by this government
3326	HOUSE OF COMMONS
U.S. State Department Press Release of its defence policy, its attitude toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and our full role in NATO and in NORAD. It is regrettable that, as a result of the speech to which we have just listened, by the Minister of National Defence, the first statement on national defence by this minister in a long time, we are no further ahead in our demand for a full statement of defence policy.
It has been difficult for us to get this debate. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly, as have other leaders and other members, asked this government to give this house an opportunity to discuss defence policy. The Leader of the Opposition in particular has asked that there be set up a defence committee so that we could ascertain the facts about a matter of such consequence to this country-


John George Diefenbaker: A defence policy committee?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to this parliament and to our contribution in the free alliance of nations. The difficulties for debate which we have had today could all have been avoided if the government, recognizing our right to information on defence, had removed from this house the necessity of the procedural wrangle which lasted several hours. We should have had this debate when the request for it was made this afternoon at 2.30 following publication of the statement of the state department last night shortly after six o'clock.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: You want to dance to Uncle Sam.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that we want to dance to Uncle Sam. We have already dealt with that. We want to dance to our responsibilities to the Canadian people in defending the free world against the challenge which faces us.
The Minister of National Defence talked about unity in the cabinet. They all speak the same language. He asserts there is no difficulty with regard to the positions of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and himself. He says nothing, of course, about the views of the Associate Minister of National Defence. We know what the views of the Secretary of State for External Affairs are. He said in a speech in Vancouver on December 4:
There has been no change In policy-that is to decline nuclear weapons until there is a deteriorating world situation or war.
On January 25 the Prime Minister said in this house:
More nuclear arms will add nothing materially to our defences.
That is the statement of the Prime Minister. Then, on the 28th of January in the release,

in the statement of interpretation-the minister does not like the word "clarification"- the Minister of National Defence said that the government is committed to a definite policy for the acquisition of nuclear arms. These excerpts, and I am going to come to more extended ones, clearly indicate that the challenge of the Minister of National Defence is answered, because there is and there continues to be in the very statement he made tonight a clear division of opinion between himself and the statements the Prime Minister made in this house last Friday.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that the Minister of National Defence issued a press release, resorting to that extraordinary action, indicates in itself a serious division of opinion between the Prime Minister and himself as Minister of National Defence. Otherwise, why issue a statement.


Mr. Balcer:: He just explained it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Otherwise, why issue a statement? Surely the Minister of National Defence could have met the press, could have been subjected to questions, could have referred the reporters to specific responses of the Prime Minister. But he issued this statement on Sunday last because, I suggest-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not Sunday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -there was a serious division between the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister to the point that the Minister of National Defence had threatened to resign over the week end. I challenge the minister to deny that statement.
Let us take the minister's statement and see .whether or not there are any contradictions. Here is what the Prime Minister said last Friday, as found at page 3136 of Hansard, the page mentioned in the press release of the Minister of National Defence. Here is what the Prime Minister said among other things as reported in the left-hand column on that page:
What course should we take at this time? I emphasize what X have already stated, that we shall at all times carry out whatever our responsibilities are. I have said that strategic changes are taking place in the thinking of the western world, and there is general recognition that the nuclear deterrent will not be strengthened by the expansion of the nuclear family.
Listen to this.
With these improvements in the international situation, this is no time for hardened decisions that cannot be altered. We must be flexible and fluid-


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will tell you what is wrong. Here is what the Minister of National Defence said, referring to the speech of the Prime Minister:
In the speech nearly all the varying theories and ideas which have been put forward on nuclear arms were mentioned, but the definite policy of the government is contained in a few paragraphs which appear in the right hand column on page 3136 of Hansard for January 25th.
Here is what is wrong. Here are the words of the Minister of National Defence, and let them be contrasted with these expressions of fluidity and flexibility, this taking of all kinds of positions. Here is what the Minister of National Defence said:
Those paragraphs state a definite policy for the acquisition of nuclear arms in these terms.


Mr. Sevigny:: Read on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister said that those paragraphs of the Prime Minister's speech clearly indicate that the government is in favour of a definite policy for the acquisition of nuclear arms.


An hon. Member:: Do you agree with that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
point. I will tell you what I think later. What I am doing now is to discuss something more important, the views of the government of Canada with regard to so vital a matter. There were no hardened positions in the statement of the Prime Minister, but there was a hardened position in the statement of the Minister of National Defence. There is no doubt where he stands. If there was any doubt before last Sunday it has been removed by this release. He stands for the acquisition of nuclear arms and the Prime Minister does not state any position at all except I must say, in fairness, that he does observe that after the NATO ministerial meeting, an opportunity will be given, in the light of a flexible and fluid situation, to arrive at a policy. That is the position. I contrast these two positions. I challenge any hon. member opposite to say that this does not represent a fundamental difference of approach and view by these two members of the government.


Léon Balcer: It is all in your mind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Here is another contradiction. The Minister of National Defence says in his release:
Third, so far as NORAD is concerned, Canada has been negotiating with the United States for the past two to three months in order that nuclear warheads will be made available for our two squadrons of Bomarcs and for the F-101 interceptor squadrons. These negotiations will be continued in order to reach a satisfactory agreement. I believe such an agreement can be arrived at in the near future.
It must be emphasized that in what I have read the minister says:
332?
U.S. State Department Press Release
-so far as NORAD is concerned, Canada has been negotiating with the United States for the past two to three months in order that nuclear warheads will be made available-
There is no qualification-"will be made available". That is not what the Prime Minister said. As found on page 3136 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
We will negotiate with the United States so that, as I said earlier, in case of need nuclear warheads will be made readily available.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: What is the difference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "what is the difference". In the one statement the adverb "readily" appears and that suggests that if the government wishes nuclear weapons they will be readily available. But that is not what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) said. He said we are negotiating towards a situation that will make nuclear weapons available to Canada. If my hon. friend does not understand that language, then I want him to know that I am sure the vast majority of the people of Canada will see in this statement, as contrasted with that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), a further contradiction which reveals the situation under which the Minister of National Defence finds himself tonight, and the situation that he found himself in during the week end when he threatened to resign from this government over differences with the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I might well ask the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), who has a responsibility as associate minister, what his views are. We saw a story in today's press to the effect that the Associate Minister of National Defence was complaining about the release made by his colleague, who was endeavouring to put his interpretation on the remarks of the Prime Minister.
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I wish to assure hon. members of this house that I have never complained to anyone about the statements made by my colleague the minister of defence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think there is here any basis for a question of privilege. The minister could make his point if there were a dispute at this time, but there is now no basis for a question of privilege.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if the Associate Minister of National Defence feels that his views should be made known,.
3328	HOUSE OF
U.S. State Department Press Release I think he may feel certain that this house will welcome his participation. We regard as part of his responsibility-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: You will get it, and you will regret it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that he should tell us if he shares the views of the Minister [DOT]of National Defence or those stated by the Prime Minister on Friday last. This is his obligation and his duty, certainly, as Associate Minister of National Defence. (Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: There is no disagreement between us.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have expressed our view on the propriety of the form of intervention exercised by the United States with regard to its reaction to the debates of this house, and particularly to the statement of the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: You are building your argument on them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is that?


John George Diefenbaker: I say to you, you are building your argument on statements made by those people in the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Those people?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, on reflection, that he-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I hope we do not have *quite so many interventions, in order that we may get along.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, on reflection, notwithstanding the provocation, that he will find it unsatisfactory, as Prime Minister, to have referred to the people in the United States as "those people". We do not agree with the United States on all its policies, but we are bound with them in a supreme and challenging task, that is to be joined with them, with the United Kingdom and the other NATO countries, in seeking the preservation of our freedom and unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have a right to ask the Prime Minister, we have a right certainly to ask the Minister of National Defence to comment on a statement which was given by the United States in a manner that is not in conformity with recognized international intercourse.


John George Diefenbaker: You are accepting all the criticisms.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This statement indicates that the state department has

received a number of inquiries concerning disclosures during the recent debate in the Canadian House of Commons regarding negotiations over the past two or three months. The Prime Minister, on another occasion has spoken of unity in NATO and the necessity for maintaining that unity. The Prime Minister, however, in some gratuitous remarks made today, and which he made during his speech on Friday, did not take into consideration the implications of his words, in so far as other NATO members were concerned, not the great powers of NATO but some other countries, of the stature of Canada who are vitally affected by some of the implications made by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Herridge:: Which countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are many countries, such as Norway. What about Norway? What about Belgium? What about the other countries who may be embarking on important negotiations now with the United States?


An hon. Member:: Guess again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, "guess again". I know why he says that. He does not believe in NATO.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I may say I resent the cheap, political insinuations made by the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I sincerely trust that, having heard tonight from the Minister of National Defence we will not wake up tomorrow morning and see in our newspapers a release by the Prime Minister interpreting the speech of the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: It is now ten o'clock, and by standing order this debate has come to an end.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will continue with the estimates of the Department of Labour and catch up on time by dealing with the estimates of the Post Office Department as well.


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what it will be for Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have already announced a supply motion for Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 1, 19S3