1963-10-29

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I rise on a question of privilege which affects all members of this house. It concerns the veracity of returns and statements made by two occupants of the treasury benches. I regret very much that I have to refer to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because hitherto he has always appeared to me to be forthright. However, I am afraid the evidence I have on this matter in uncontrovertible. What I have to say affects also the minister of northern affairs in connection with a return he made to my notice of motion for the production of papers, No. 64.
However, my question of privilege affects more directly the Secretary of State for External Affairs in relation to my starred question, No. 1,235, which appeared on the order paper on October 4. It was answered by the hon. gentleman on October 21. In order to lay the groundwork for my question of privilege I have to read from starred question No. 1,235, as follows:
Has the government of Canada or any official or employee of the government had any consultations with either the government of the province of British Columbia or with the government of the United States of America or with any official or employee of either of the said governments with respect to (a) the maintenance or paving of the Alaska highway?
The question continues but what follows is not relevant to my question of privilege. The answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on October 21 was as follows:
There have been no recent negotiations between the governments of Canada and the United States on any of the five subjects mentioned in the question although there have been some informal and inconclusive discussions with regard to the Haines cut-off highway.
The remainder of the answer is irrelevant to the point I am making.
I have, Mr. Speaker, a letter dated October 3, 1963, from the officer in charge of Canadian affairs, department of state, Washington, which letter reads in part as follows:
Discussions have also been held in the past with officials of the Canadian government and have revealed that, in Canadian thinking, paving of the Canadian portion of the Alaska highway has quite low priority, owing to the limited economic benefit which would be derived for Canada relative to the cost. In their view, Canadian funds would be more profitably expended on other highway projects in Canada, some of which might also be of more immediate benefit to Alaska than paving the Alaska highway.
Following a recent report of an alleged renewed interest on the part of the Canadian Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Arthur Laing, the department requested the embassy in Ottawa to seek clarification from responsible Canadian officials. Upon inquiry the embassy learned that the story was apparently based on a passing comment to a reporter and was not an official statement.
The letter goes on to say:
The embassy has been informed that this statement reflects the official position of the Canadian government. This would seem to indicate that no change in the Canadian government's views has occurred.
My question of privilege is that the answer given to me by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is false if we are to believe the information in this letter dated October 3, 1963, which was well before the minister gave his answer to me in the house. The letter is signed by Delmar R. Carlson, officer in charge, Canadian affairs, department of state, Washington.
I think the house must either have this matter satisfactorily explained by the minister or must accept the conclusion that there has been deception in the minister's reply.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend will agree there has been no deception. If there has been wrong information given, that will be corrected. I shall look into this matter at once, but I assure my hon. friend that the answer I gave was the answer that I believed the circumstances warranted. However, I will be glad to examine what my hon. friend has said in relation to the answer given and to the facts as I am informed of their existence. I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Erik Nielsen: May I say a brief word in conclusion on the question of privilege and by way of reply. It seems to me again, Mr. Speaker, that we must get proper answers to the questions we ask. I should not have to go through the department of state in
4124	HOUSE OF
Sale of Wheat to Czechoslovakia Washington. I do not want to put my questions on the order paper in the United States congress.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier) presented the second report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, before the report is concurred in, I would like to point out that, at this morning's meeting, the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines unanimously agreed to a motion requesting the interested authorities to see to it that the reports of the committee are published in both languages at the same time, in view of the fact that this morning we received only the English text, although the committee had asked that, in future, the report be published simultaneously in both French and English.


Mr. Speaker:: In reply to the hon. member for Lapointe I must say that the only question before the house is this motion. Therefore I propose we restrict ourselves to the motion which has been presented.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, for the
Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is away on public business, I wish to announce that he has just signed, on behalf of the Canadian government, a long term wheat agreement with the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. In connection with the negotiation of the agreement, the Minister of Trade and Commerce welcomed to Ottawa Mr. J. Poula, Czechoslovak vice minister of foreign trade, who is in the gallery today witnessing our proceedings. Mr. Poula signed the agreement on behalf of the government of his country.
The agreement is for a period of five years during which Czechoslovakia will purchase and Canada will supply 1.2 million metric tons of Canadian wheat, that is, about 44 million bushels, for shipment in the following
I Mr. Nielsen.]

quantities: In the first year of the agreement,
350.000	metric tons, of which 120,000 tons will be shipped before July 31, 1964; in the second year of the agreement, between 300,000 and
400.000	tons; in the third, fourth and fifth years, a combined total of between 450,000 and 550,000 metric tons, provided that the quantity in each of these years shall not be less than 120,000 tons.
The Canadian wheat board and Koospol have concluded the first sales contract under this agreement, which provides for the shipment of 120,000 metric tons of wheat during the summer of 1964. Purchases under this agreement will be facilitated by the extension of credit arrangements under the Export Credits Insurance Act providing for payment over three years.
There is a long standing tradition of friendly and fruitful trade relations between Canada and Czechoslovakia. The house will share my view that this important new agreement between the two governments is a clear indication of the desire of both parties to see an increase in the development of mutually advantageous trade.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I am
sure all Canadians will welcome the extension of these sales to countries behind the iron curtain. I should like to say a word of appreciation to his excellency the ambassador for Czechoslovakia for the very long and careful negotiations he has carried on with the Canadian government over the last two or three years leading up to this long term agreement. Since the announcement was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I think he can assure the house that there are documents on file outlining the conditions that we thought would make an excellent basis for a long term agreement. I am pleased indeed to see that this idea has been put into effect and has been accepted by both parties.
I think, too, the house will recognize the wisdom of the course followed a year ago, when the first item of business in that new parliament was the extension of the Export Credits Insurance Act to provide $400 million under this act to cover these new sales. I hope that new sales announced in the next week or so will be of equal size to the one we have heard about today.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: I am sure the people of Canada are not particularly concerned about which government was in office when these negotiations were started. What the people of Canada will be pleased to know is that an agreement has been concluded. We in this party would like to offer our congratulations to the Canadian wheat board upon concluding this agreement,

and to express our thanks to the Czechoslovakian ambassador who has carried on the negotiations on behalf of his government.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the succession of sales agreements that have been concluded in recent months all indicate the value of having a wheat marketing board and carrying on an orderly wheat marketing policy. In spite of the criticism we have heard from south of the border with regard to fixed price agreements, I think in the long run both the importers of wheat and the producers of wheat in Canada will gain from this arrangement.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: We in this group, Mr. Speaker, welcome the announcement that has just been made in respect of the sale of grain to Czechoslovakia. We offer our congratulations to the wheat board upon negotiating this deal. I think, too, we would like to take this opportunity of supporting the government in the action they have taken to provide the credit that was necessary to bring the deal to fruition.
I think the succession of large grain sales made during the last few months points to the fact that Canada is resuming her position as the major exporter in the international wheat market, and it is particularly welcome following the excellent crop Canada has had, and which is now completely harvested and in storage.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that we have learned of this new sales agreement signed with another of the countries behind the iron curtain.
These countries recognize, I am sure, the superiority of our grain or wheat production; no doubt this is why they are interested in buying part of our national production.
However, our eastern farmers will see with a certain anxiety, perhaps even with anguish, ships sailing along the St. Lawrence, and filled with wheat for Czechoslovakia and Russia.
In addition to the wheat which is being sold to the countries behind the iron curtain we would like to see some wheat being sold inside our own borders, and more particularly along the St. Lawrence; our eastern farmers would then also benefit from our production at a price which would be every bit as profitable as the price which is offered foreign countries.
Mr. Speaker, we like to hear statements of that kind coming from the minister about sales to other countries, but we sincerely hope that the day is at hand when the Canadian government will announce a policy favourable to our eastern farmers.
Ship Construction Program Announced [Text]

On the orders of the day:


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of his statement concerning the wheat agreement with Czechoslovakia. Is the statement that he made to the house today a duplication of the statement he made to the people of the United States while in that country over the week end, speaking to a university group, or is this another statement he has issued to the Canadian people?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would
hardly call it a duplication but rather an amplification.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the public accounts, volumes 1, 2 and 3, and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1962, laid before the house on January 21, 1963, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the house departmental programming plans for the construction of 12 survey and research ships at a cost of $50 million, with tender calls during the next five years.
The ships are to be used to meet the vital needs for charting and studying Canada's tremendous expanses of coastal and inland waters. The new plans simply mean that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has an impressive shipbuilding program to replace obsolete ships and to provide the additional ships so urgently needed for hydrographic and oceanographic work.
The new program will be carried out in two phases. Phase one calls for the construction of five vessels at a cost of some $20 million, with tender call during the next 14 months. Phase two covers the construction of the remaining seven vessels at a cost of $30 million.
The vessels in phase one comprise (1) two major survey and research vessels, at a cost of from $5 million to $6 million each, for the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, designed for

Ship Construction Program Announced work in the Arctic as well as for duty in coastal waters and in the open oceans; (2) two tidal current survey vessels, at a cost of from $3.75 million to $4 million each, one for each coast; third, a research vessel primarily to support the oceanography program of the institute of oceanography at the University of British Columbia, at a cost of $1 million.
Phase two of the shipbuilding program comprises, first, two additional major survey vessels capable of hydrographic and oceanography work in the Arctic and deep waters, at a cost of from $5 to $6 million each; second, five minor survey vessels designed for work in Canada's inshore and inland waters, at a cost of from $1.6 to $2 million each.


Hon. Paul Marfineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the minister give us some details on that shipbuilding program involving research ships for hydrographic and oceanographic work. That statement by the minister tends to continue and to confirm the oceanographic development program instituted by the previous government.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it would be well to recall to the house the various phases of the work carried out by the previous administration in these fields, and more particularly the setting up of the Bedford oceanographic centre, near Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The Conservative government also built H.M.C.S. Hudson, which was described as a floating laboratory. I am sure the minister will agree with me that this ship is recognized as one of the most modern in that particular field.
The oceanographic and hydrographic programs need to be pushed in Canada. The Conservative party initiated that action and this government is carrying on, but all the Canadians are the ones who will eventually benefit from it.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary program and we are pleased with it.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the statement just made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Benidickson). Personally, 1 regret one thing, though I do not know if my colleagues will agree with me. It is that our party did not have the opportunity to initiate a shipbuilding policy in the field of oceanography.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the house that in the province of Quebec, especially in the Quebec city area, there are many shipyards, and we hope that the department will give some tenderers of this area the opportunity to build some of its ships. In fact, our facilities in that field are very good and it must be noted also that unemployment is quite serious there. Consequently, I ask the government to take this suggestion into consideration, since we have excellent shipyards in the Quebec city area.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we shall not dally any more to say that we also approve that shipbuilding program as announced today by the government. When it comes to developing our country by peaceful means rather than war instruments, we agree and can only congratulate the government for the statement it has made today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a statement ascribed yesterday to Prime Minister Barrow of Barbados regarding the question of additional aid and assistance to commonwealth countries in the West Indies. The right hon. gentleman recently stated there would be an increase in the assistance to be given under aid programs. Would he give consideration to expanding assistance to our friends and fellow members of the commonwealth in the area adjacent to North America?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My answer to the leader of the opposition is in the affirmative. The government will give consideration-I may say the government is giving consideration- to this matter.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I could take this opportunity to deal with a question asked me yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition regarding a resolution at the United Nations concerning the shipment of arms to Southern Rhodesia, about which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam also inquired. The sponsors were 41 African and Asian members in

addition to Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Yugoslavia. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would agree to my tabling the list of sponsors, in view of its length and in order to save the time of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the ruling by Mr. Speaker to the effect that responsibility lies with the government for convening standing committees of the house, will the government take immediate action to convene the committee on agriculture and colonization?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Stale):: My understanding is that Your Honour indicated that it was the custom for the chief whip, who is after all not a member of the government, to do this. But I have conferred with the chief whip, and he is doing his best to get this done as quickly as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could supplement the answer I gave to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I have now been informed that a meeting was held at two o'clock today, the very thing the hon. gentleman asked for.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Would the government be prepared to have the house refer to this committee the whole question of prices in Canada as related to bread, flour and wheat?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a matter which the government will have to consider. I cannot commit the government without consultation, but I should be glad to take that question up with my colleagues.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State as house leader. My question is supplementary to the statement he made earlier today. Is he aware that a meeting of the agriculture and colonization committee called by me was held at two o'clock this afternoon, and that the committee elected a chairman and vice chairman, passed a motion to print its proceedings, and took other matters of substance into consideration?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had heard, Mr. Speaker,
that this meeting took place, and I congratulate the hon. gentleman on his initiative and enterprise.



INQUIRY AS TO COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER BILLS C-83 AND C-84

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Secretary of State related to the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Can the hon. gentleman inform the house when a committee will be set up to consider Bills C-83 and C-84, in accordance with a commitment he made to this house on July 8?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to make a statement about that. The hon. member for Lapointe was good enough to assure me the other day-I am sure he will not consider this any breach of confidence-that he did not feel there was any need to have a committee set up before second reading was given to the bills. He also indicated that as far as he and his friends were concerned they were prepared to give second reading to the bills whenever the government called them.
I know the former minister of northern affairs is interested in seeing these bills move forward, because they represent his own policy. If we could get unanimous agreement to have second reading of these bills with very limited debate, the government would be only too happy to bring them forward. I say this in the light of a situation which is well known to the hon. gentleman, the situation in the Mackenzie where it is proposed to establish a greater degree of self government. I should be glad to have an opportunity of consulting with hon. gentlemen opposite to see whether, in the circumstances I have mentioned, these bills could not be brought down this week.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question. Does the Secretary of State not consider that these items are of sufficient importance to demand more than a restricted debate? This represents a major step forward in confederation, and I should think it would require maximum consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman's question deserves a somewhat extended answer. This does pose a serious problem with respect to the timetable of parliament. There are many matters which merit debate, but the time in which debate can take place is limited. In this particular case, because of a special situation which the government inherited-I am not being critical; we approve of the policy the hon. gentleman sponsored-
4128	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry it is really necessary that this legislation should be dealt with promptly if the policy laid down by the previous government is to be carried out. It is not possible both to have an extended debate and to deal with this matter promptly, and the house will have to make up its mind which it prefers.


Erik Nielsen: Since these bills could have been sent to the committee four weeks ago, does the hon. gentleman not think that if they were sent to committee now they could be given the consideration, for a week or for two weeks, which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has suggested they should receive? Such discussion in committee would probably lead to more unanimity in the house. Let us hear the people of the north before the bills are placed before us here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That, of course, would be a wonderful idea if it were not completely contrary to the rules.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the warning by the United States food and drug administration that some smoked fish products from the great lakes area contain botulous organisms, what special measures are being taken by the Department of Fisheries to ensure that there is no danger to consumers from botulism present in fish taken from the great lakes and processed or offered for sale in Canada?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: We are fully aware of the situation, and we deplore the unfortunate poisoning incidents which have occurred recently. The matter is presently under investigation by officials of my department in conjunction with officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. A complete statement on the situation and on the action being taken by the two departments involved will be made tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.


Is work now under way at Val d'Or in order to build an American nuclear base?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker; no work has been started to erect a United States nuclear base at Val d'Or.


Mr. Pigeon:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister-


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give us the assurance that no work will be undertaken at Val d'Or along those lines?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The only work that is being done is work for a Canadian base, and I should be very pleased if the hon. member would let me know whether he would like to have it in his constituency or not.



PROPOSED AFFILIATION OF C.M.R. WITH UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Following the request of the St. Jean Baptiste society, does the government intend to recommend the official affiliation of the College Militaire Royal de St. Jean to the University of Montreal, so that the curriculum may be entirely in keeping with the former training of the cadets?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is still under consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is taking a long time.


Mr. Dupuis:: It will take less time than under the Conservative administration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We did not have the time; we were defeated.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question?
Could the minister tell us whether it is the government's intention to rescind the order in council regarding the Three Rivers bridge

and whether he has met with the authorities of the corporation of the Three Rivers bridge about that matter?
tText]


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: As to the first question, may I say the matter is under consideration. There is a grave question as to the validity of the order or purported order in council. As to the second matter, I expect to meet with the bridge authorities some time in the next few days.


Léon Balcer: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question. Has his department not given a legal opinion on the validity of this order in council in these last few days?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Jusiice):: I am not aware that a legal opinion has been given, but I will be glad to look into the matter.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice?
Can the minister tell us whether the statement made by the secretary of the corporation, Mr. Frangois Nobert, in Three Rivers last week, to the effect that the Department of Justice had confirmed the validity of that order in council, is true?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen or read Mr. No-bert's statement in the newspapers, but I will be pleased to inquire and see whether there is any contradiction between his statement and the records of the Department of Justice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question?
Can the minister tell the house whether an agreement has been signed between the government of the province of Quebec and the municipal development and loan board?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the agreement has been signed by the province of Quebec and is now en route to Ottawa to be signed here.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Can the minister tell us whether this agreement provides that federal inspectors will have access to the accounts of the province of Quebec? Has he received a protest from the Quebec government in that connection?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I might be permitted to give a slightly longer answer to this particular question than is usual for me. In section 7 (2) of the Municipal Development and Loan Act, which provisions hon. members may recall were among those included in the bill as a result of the discussions held with the provinces at the conference at the end of last July, there is subsection (d) which provides inter alia that the board will have the right to inspect from time to time any municipal project in respect of which a loan has been made under the agreement. The agreement referred to is the agreement to be made by the municipal development and loan board with the provinces which wish to do so.
The province of Quebec has decided to make such an agreement with the board. From the very beginning of the discussions that the board has had with Quebec and other provinces concerned, a provision has been included in the various draft agreements for inspection of the projects and related records by the board. This is necessary, of course, so that the board will be able to assure parliament that parliament's instructions have been carried out. The provincial representatives after discussion have agreed to this.
I think it should be stated that the board is in no way trying to vary the spirit of what was agreed to with the province of Quebec and the other provinces in July, but is merely carrying out the will of parliament. The Quebec authorities, I am sure, fully recognize this. As I said a minute ago, I am informed that they have signed the agreement and are returning it to Ottawa today to be signed by the federal authorities. I have had no suggestion from the Quebec authorities that they object in any way to the draft agreement. In fact they have agreed to it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if a standard agreement was presented to all the provinces, and how many of the provinces have signed and forwarded agreements to Ottawa for signature?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There is a standard agreement which has been reviewed, discussed and agreed to by all the provinces, and I am hoping at the end of this week to make a complete report to the house on the status of the various agreements. It is this week that they are being signed, and I am not sure which ones have been signed to date and which ones are still to be signed.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: A further supplementary question. Would the government consider renegotiating the federal inspection clause at a future time?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the agreement that I believe is just in the process of being settled with the province of Quebec, I do not know why we would now consider suddenly starting to renegotiate it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question. Is the minister of the opinion that with this clause included the federal government is respecting municipal autonomy?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If this clause is satisfactory to the province of Quebec I would think that the answer would be in the affirmative.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister now or at an early date give a report to the house on the extent to which the recommendations of the Glassco commission have been implemented by the present government, and what activities are now going forward or are planned in this regard?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in answer also to a question asked yesterday I wish to say that I will be prepared to make a statement to the house on this matter next Monday.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport?
Could the minister inform us about the stand the government intends to take with regard to the recent statement made in Rome by the general manager of the International

Air Transport Association to the effect that tariff reduction would solve air transport problems?


Mr. Speaker:: I do think this is a question for the order paper.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will he be giving us today his promised statement with respect to the R.C.A.F. station at Summerside?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to tell my hon. friend that the Department of National Defence has no intention of closing the R.C.A.F. station at Summerside. We have a continuing requirement for it for our maritime activities, Atlantic. We are very pleased with the co-operation that the Royal Canadian Air Force receives from the citizens of the island. We acknowledge that co-operation, and I am pleased to tell the hon. member that we are going to carry on.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the house leader because I am not sure to which minister I should direct it. The departure of the NATO delegation has been delayed for seven hours. We will depart at five minutes after ten. Is this on account of hurricane Ginny raging in the Atlantic or is it because of the hurricane that took place in the House of Commons last night?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not very well informed about this matter. I do not know what the reason is, but I hope it is that hon. members are coming to realize that their first duty is in this house.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is there any basis for the complaints being received that rentals are being increased by Central Mortgage and

Housing Corporation, and that these increases have a direct connection with the increase in the amount of the old age pension?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the right hon. gentleman for giving me notice of a question on this general subject but not along the lines of the question he has just posed. I have a list here, if he is interested in it, of the areas where increases have been effected since June 15, the period of time to which he has referred in his notice. I am glad to tell him that the majority of these increases are automatic
Inquiries of the Ministry and result from increases in municipal taxes.
In view of the detail involved as to places, amounts and the reasons in each case, I wonder whether he would agree to my tabling this list.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly it could be put in Hansard as part of the answer in order to save the time of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The document referred to above is as follows:]



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION HOUSING PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
Increased Rental Rates Since Mid-June, 1963
Location Saint John, N.B.
Nitro, Que.
Sept lies, Que.
Brantford, Ont. Guelph, Ont. Hamilton, Ont. Kitchener, Ont. Niagara Falls, Ont. Wingham, Ont. Arnprior, Ont. Bracebridge, Ont. Campbellford, Ont. Toronto, Ont. Etobicoke, Ont. Meaford, Ont. Newmarket, Ont. Oakville, Ont. Orillia, Ont.
Owen Sound, Ont. Peterborough, Ont. Windsor, Ont.
Red Deer, Ont. Transcona, Man. Cumberland, B.C. Victoria, B.C.
Amount of Increase Per Unit, Per Month
	$ 5.00
	4.00
	10.00
$ 1.00-	1.50
	1.00
3.50-	4.00
	1.50
3.00-	5.00
2.00-	2.50
	1.00
1.00-	1.50
	7.00
1.00-	1.50
	1.00
	1.00
	1.50
	1.00
	1.00
1.00-	1.50
	1.50
1.00-	1.50
	1.00
	1.00
	1.00
1.00-	2.00
Reason for Increase
To cover the excess of operating costs over revenue. Increased cost of public services. To cover the excess of operating costs over revenue. Increased municipal taxes.
tt	ft	fttt	it	att	tt	fttt	it	ifft	ff	ttft	ft	itft	ft	ttft	ft	itft	ff	ttft	ft	ttft	ft	tttt	it	((tt	tt	ftft	*t	ttit	tt	fttt	ft	ftft	ft	tttt	tt	fttt	ft	ftit	tt	tttt	tt	U

[Stage Direction]
Decreased Rental Rates Since May 1, 1963
Location
Amount of Decrease
Per Unit, Per Month	Reason for Decrease
Atikokan, Ont.
Ville St. Michel, Que. St. Laurent, Que. Montreal, Que.
10.00- 15.50 6.00- 10.00 1.00- 10.00 1.00-	7.00
To equate with market rental rates.
tt	it	tt	it	u	(ift	tt	tt	t(	i(	((ft	tt	tt	ft	ft	u
28902-5-264
4132	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
John Richard Garland: With respect to the question now posed by the hon. gentleman, may I say there have been no increases in elderly citizens projects since I made my announcement around the middle or early part of September.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the assurance given yesterday to the national Liberal women's federation by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the Canada pension plan will be proceeded with either at this session or at the next session, will the Prime Minister tell us which it is to be, this session or next?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm what I have said more than once, that it will be proceeded with as soon as possible. My hon. friend asked the other day whether I would be in a position soon to make a statement on this matter.
I propose to do that next Monday, and to relate this statement to our proposals for the future conduct of the work for the remainder of this session.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister care to indicate what steps the government is taking to negotiate a Canada pension plan with the province of Ontario?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have been having some discussions with the province of Ontario and other provinces which have brought up points arising out of the last meeting we had with them on this matter.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if in considering this statement he proposes to make on Monday next he would consider announcing the intention of the government in respect of the projection of family allowances beyond the age of 16 for educational purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be talking about the business of the house, Mr. Speaker, and what we wish to do during the balance of the session.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime


Minister concerning the world fair. Does the Prime Minister intend, in the near future, to suggest amendments to the act to establish the Canadian world exhibition corporation? [Text]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell us what the nature of these amendments will be?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Wait and see.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare what progress she is making in attempting to have the jurisdiction over health and related services in relation to Indians transferred to the various provinces.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am afraid the question is too broad to be answered on orders of the day. I shall be very happy if my hon. friend would raise it at the time my estimates are before the house.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister tell us whether her estimates are going to be brought before the house by herself, or will there by some other minister answering for the department?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Norihwesi Territories):: My question is for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and it arises out of press reports to the effect that the executive vice president of the Liberal association of the Northwest Territories is in the process of being appointed commissioner of the Northwest Territories. Will the minister take the house into his confidence and advise whether he intends to make this appointment, or whether such a commitment has been made?


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The hon. member should know that I would refuse to answer such a question. There are bills that are still to come before this house, and which must pass this house, before any commissioner for the territories can be appointed. I accept no responsibility for the statements in the

press. I know nothing about them. Certainly when the time comes to appoint a commissioner we will appoint the best commissioner that we can obtain from any source.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Mr. Delmar R. Carlson, the officer in charge of Canadian affairs in the United States administration has purported to announce the Canadian government policy-I refer the minister to the portion of the letter which I read to him earlier on my question of privilege-will the minister or his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources tell the house what the policy of the Canadian government is in respect of the paving of the Alaska highway?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In so far as this question relates to the department over which I preside, I have already indicated that I propose to examine the reply given earlier in the light of my hon. friend's comment.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the principles he enunciated last Friday with regard to security investigations will result in any changes in the procedures recently followed at universities. I ask this in relation to representations made to the Prime Minister by university professors and student organizations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The changes in the regulations as such would not, as I understand them, apply to the problem of the universities that has been in the minds of some hon. members concerning activities on the university campus. We have discussed this special problem with representatives of the universities, and we hope to meet them again next week to discuss with them the new regulations and any matters arising out of them which would concern the universities.



RAYMOND RODGERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the house leader a question in 28902-5-264i
Inquiries of the Ministry which you, Mr. Speaker, have an interest. I ask it of you and the house leader as a member of the commission on internal economy. I want to know whether there is any possibility of a quick resolution of a long standing situation whereby the parliamentary correspondent of the St. Catharines Standard has been excluded from the facilities supplied by the crown in this parliament.
I should like to explain that this is not a matter of urgent national importance, but some of us want to take some further action through the machinery available, and we need an answer to this question before we do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would have no idea what kind of answer to give. If Your Honour can throw any light on the matter I would not wish in any way to prejudge your decision.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate very much the interest taken by the hon. member for Port Arthur in this difficult situation. I wish to assure him that although it is taking a considerable time to reach a right and just decision involving not only a certain gentleman in question but the whole matter of principle, there are many urgent matters which require immediate attention from day to day, as hon. members will appreciate. There has not been sufficient physical time to make the proper study which the case merits, and which is so much in the mind not only of the Speaker but of other persons concerned in the matter.
I wish to assure the hon. member that just as soon as it is physically possible to give the proper time and attention to this really serious matter of principle, it will be done, and I hope a just decision rendered.



INQUIRY AS TO SITTING ON REMEMBRANCE DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: I should
like to ask the Prime Minister if, when he is considering his statement about the future work of this house, he will consider declaring Monday, November 11 a holiday for all Canadians as well as for the members of this house and the people who work in the House of Commons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I may be wrong, but I think November 11, a day which means so much to so many people, is already a legal holiday. I believe the best way that parliament can show its observance of this day would be by working.

Inquiries of the Ministry PENITENTIARIES



ST. VINCENT DE PAUL    ASSAULT OP INMATE BY GUARDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Yesterday at the request of the hon. member for Vancouver East, as well as in answer to a question which was posed by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and I think one other hon. member, I agreed, with the unanimous consent of the house, to table a statement with reference to the Gunn case. I do so now.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May we have it in Hansard?


Lionel Chevrier: If that is the wish of the house I have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The statement referred to above is as follows:]
In consequence of the newspaper publicity concerning the alleged beating of Alvin Gunn, an inmate of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, I requested the commissioner of penitentiaries to cause an inquiry to be made into the facts of the case. He reports to me as follows:
In January 1962 Alvin Gunn was transferred from Kingston penitentiary to St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. He is described as a boxer and an aggressive individual. During the riot at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in June 1962, he was identified by nine different witnesses as a ringleader of the rioters. He struck a senior keeper on the neck with sufficient force to cause his mouth to bleed. He appeared for trial this month, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one day's imprisonment concurrent with his present sentence. During the proceedings of the trial, he described the brutal beating that he alleges was given to him by penitentiary guards following the riot.
On June 22, 1962, 70 inmates of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary were reported as being prominent among those rioting. They were dissociated from the main prison population. Gunn was taken to the dissociation area by five officers who, at this time, cannot be positively identified.
On June 24, 1962, Warden LeCorre heard that Gunn was in hospital and visited him there. Gunn answered the warden's question as follows: "I have been beaten up, Mr. LeCorre, look at me; but I gave them quite a good fight."
Warden LeCorre had been appointed to ;St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary only two weeks before the riot broke out. He knew iew of the officers and he was forced to follow
IMr. Pearson.]
the procedure laid down by his predecessor. He had heard rumours of "goon squad" and "muscle men" in the institution, but had not time, prior to the riot, to investigate.
After his interview with Gunn, he attempted to find those responsible for beating him up, but was not helped by the staff and Gunn could not name his assailants. As his inquiry was getting nowhere, he issued, on June 28, 1962, a directive to the staff, in which he stated, in concise terms, that brutality would not be tolerated. The directive stated, inter alia:

"It is not a matter of settling personal scores or of brutalizing those who took part in the riot. I do not want any unfortunate incident on the part of officials. Those who make abusive use of force, especially when it is not necessary, lower themselves morally in the eyes of all. To punish or harm anyone in any way will not solve any problem and, on the contrary, will create new difficulties we certainly do not need. Let justice take its course, even if sometimes you find it too slow or too lenient. Not only is it not your responsibility to solve that problem, but you will only interfere with it if you act unwisely.
It is a matter of restoring order as well as fair and equal discipline in the institution, and we start immediately."

In July 1962 an official inquiry was held at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the riot. Gunn volunteered as a witness and appeared before the board on July 25, 1962. He gave approximately 2,000 words of testimony and the only reference he made to a beating is as follows: "I was not a victim of that 'goon squad'. A few days after that 'bingo' I was the No. 1 victim." He did not pursue the point and the board of inquiry, being more interested in the causes of the riot, did not question him further on it. It should be noted that Gunn appeared before the board on July 25, 1962 and, except for a skin abrasion on his face, seemed in good physical condition.
The warden interviewed Gunn on other occasions between July 1962 and October 1963 and never was the beating mentioned.
The commissioner, in his report to me, repeats a report made to him by the regional director of penitentiaries for Quebec:
"It is my impression the officers guilty of unlawful and excessive use of force in the case of inmate Gunn (and possibly other inmates) during the critical period which

followed the riot of June 16, 1962, were members of the so called "goon squads" which operated inside the institution prior to the appointment of Mr. LeCorre as warden and which were referred to on several occasions in the course of the investigation into the riot carried out under the chairmanship of the director of inmate training, Mr. J. C. A. LaFerriere, last summer."
Warden LeCorre has not allowed excessive use of force in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.
This most unfortunate incident emphasizes the need for a proper staff training program in the penitentiary service. I am pleased to announce that, on October 8, 23 young recruits for the penitentiary service in the Quebec region commenced eight weeks formal training at the Quebec penitentiary staff college prior to commencing work inside the institutions. This period of training for all newly joined custodial officers will, as soon as possible, be increased to three months.
The new staff training program, which will be country-wide by April next year, should do much to preclude incidents similar to this one at St. Vincent de Paul, which, in themselves, are the result of staff not trained properly to perform their duties.



STEPS TO ENCOURAGE CANADIAN SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the present tight world sugar supply, is the government willing to consider additional encouragement and stabilization of the sugar beet industry in Canada with a view to expanding our domestic supply of sugar?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This question involves, of course, an important consideration of government policy with which I could not deal on orders of the day. If my hon. friend will put this question on the order paper I will do my best to get him a comprehensive reply.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio, who is the future minister of agriculture for eastern
Abandonment of Defence Projects Canada, and it looks as if he is going to remain a "future minister" for a long time.
Could the minister tell us if he supports the request made by 55,000 eastern farmers for a federal agency to look after the transportation, storage, pricing, control and purchasing of feed grain for eastern Quebec or eastern Canada?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the brief submitted by the Catholic farmers' union of the province of Quebec is now being studied by the Department of Agriculture and a new policy will be announced by the Minister of Agriculture in the near future.



The house resumed, from Monday, October 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Churchill and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Caouette.



ABANDONMENT OF DEFENCE PROJECTS AND INSTALLATIONS

Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada stated, on October 9, speaking precisely on the storing of nuclear arms in Canada, in answer to the present Leader of the Opposition:
If the right hon. gentleman-
And at that timb, the Prime Minister was referring to the present Leader of the Opposition-
-will raise this question on the supply motion next Monday, we can go into the record.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this question of nuclear arms is raised on a motion that the house go into committee of supply. Therefore, we hope that the Prime Minister will take this opportunity to go into the record regarding the storing of nuclear arms on Canadian soil and that he will clear up the matter. It is not the only time that such a promise has been made.
On May 23, 1963, the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleehe (Mr. Chretien)-and I quote from the official report for May 23, at page 187-said:
I believe that problem is important, and the Prime Minister undertook to give us an opportunity for a full debate, not only an afternoon sitting.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have today the opportunity to discuss that problem. I see that the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche nods assent to what he said then, but I find that, at page 187, right hand column, he also stated:

Abandonment of Defence Projects
During the campaign, I took a position by saying that I was against nuclear arms.
That is what the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche said on May 23, 1963, as reported in Hansard at page 187, right hand column.


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I would like the hon. member for Lapointe to read in full the sentence he has just begun to read, in order to report exactly the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, according to the record of that day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I must admit frankly that the text from the member for St. Maurice-Lafleche is four pages long and I do not think it is important enough to deserve a full reading.
Mr. Speaker, it means one thing, and it is that the members from the province of Quebec themselves-since the member for St. Maurice-Lafleche said it repeatedly-have stated they are opposed to the storing of nuclear weapons on the territory of the country, and especially on the soil of the state of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members will have the opportunity, tonight, by their vote on the subamendment proposed by the Ralliement Creditistes, to express their opinion flatly, categorically and clearly against the storing of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.
The Minister of National Defence told us yesterday we had made commitments, and he added: However, to be useful to us, they- that is, the Americans-furnished what they believed at the time was a semblance of protection. Therefore, the Minister of National Defence himself thought that the Bomarcs and the Voodoos were a semblance of protection. It is thus for a mere semblance of protection that we would jeopardize the role that Canada could play for world peace, and nuclear disarmament.
Mr. Speaker, the commitments were referred to on both sides of the house here. When the Liberals were in the opposition they requested the party in power to table the commitments of the Conservative party, but as soon as the Liberals assumed office, they, in turn, were requested by the Conservatives to table, to make public the same commitments.
If the Liberals refuse or object and contend that it is not the way to promote public security, there is a continuing contradiction on both sides of the house.
Those commitments were never produced, because they do not exist. As we said yester-

day and continue to state today, Canada's part is a peace role through a disarmament program at home-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: This is the second time he stands up.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member for Lapointe has quoted words I said in this house. His quotation was as follows:
During the campaign, I took a position by saying that I was against nuclear arms but that if Canada had been committed to acquire them by the Conservative government, I did not want the Liberal government to fail to respect those commitments, or to do in public life what we do not do in private life.
It is a question of privilege and honesty. The hon. member for Lapointe should at least read the whole paragraph, and not only two parts of a sentence. I demand that the hon. member for Lapointe retract by reading the whole sentence.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, there is one point that the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche has forgotten, and it is that this government never proved that Canada had committed itself under the preceding administration. The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: How do you expect me to answer your question of privilege? If Canada had been committed by the Conservative government, has it been proved that there had been a commitment? No evidence has ever been submitted in that respect. There has never been any evidence submitted to the house that commitments had been made by the Conservative government of the time with regard to the storage of nuclear weapons in the country.
If the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche wants to be honest, he will admit that these commitments have never been proven and that the sentence-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member for Lapointe gives me the opportunity to ask for explanations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that is quite enough argumentation between two hon. members, and I suggest we get on with the subject at hand.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am very, very conscious, indeed, that the motion which is being discussed today cuts to the quick certain hon. members from the province of Quebec.

We still remember what the hon. members said during the last election campaign. They proclaimed: "Nuclear weapons, no, but work for everybody, yes." This slogan was repeated by representatives of all the political parties in the house, and more particularly by the hon. members of the Liberal party.
These same representatives-again mostly on the Liberal side-have now an unhoped for opportunity to leave once and for all a servile and subservient party.
In the motion, we said:
-subserviently agreeing to the storing of nuclear arms.
Mr. Speaker, I would like, in a few words, to establish that the Liberal party is indeed subservient, obsequious to financial interests;
I	hope that the Liberal members might then see things more clearly, and vote against the subserviency of their party to big financial interests.
And we notice this subservience within the Liberal party by the acquisition of nuclear arms, even though the people of Quebec do not want them on their territory.
It is to be noted also that the Liberal party dawdles as much as it can in order to maintain all the international sugar trusts.
You have noticed also that since the new session the present government managed, in its subservience to high finance, to impose an
II	per cent sales tax on building materials. This is another example of its subservience to the financial community.
The Liberal government found it possible also to increase the income tax rate by 1 per cent. And the yearly budget deficit will hit a new high.
What about unemployment? It is well known that the province of Quebec has 40 per cent of the total number of unemployed in Canada, that the unemployment situation is not improving and that eastern farmers are constantly flouted by the servile government we have at present-


Mr. Jean Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Longueuil rises on a point of order.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the hon. member for Lapointe is out of order since there is no connection between his remarks and the amendment or the subamendment under consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I feel that my remarks are relevant since the subamendment deals with the servility and the subservience of the Liberal party and that is precisely what I want to prove.
Whether they like it or not, this increases their subservience in the nuclear field.
Abandonment of Defence Projects
Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the lot of the eastern farmers who are scoffed at and whose claims are ignored by the present government.
We also note the servility of the present government in other fields. In fact, it is sufficient to consider the patronage being practised at the present time by the Post Office Department.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for the hon. member from Lapointe to come back to defence and the subamendment, and stop insulting in vulgar terms honest people on this side of the house?

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member for Lapointe to continue his observations in a more polite manner.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I admit that the truth hurts, especially when you are not the shepherd, but just one sheep in the herd.
Another evidence of the servility of the Liberal party is the patronage now going on in the Post Office Department; it is claimed to be a good patronage although it is nothing but shameless patronage.
And how about the centralization carried out by this government in every area?
That, Mr. Speaker, is the sad record of a really sad Liberal government over the last six months.
Members of the Liberal party, now that we are unfolding under your eyes the deplorable achievements of your government in less than six months-and believe me, real genius was needed to do so badly in so little time-we are going to read to you once again what the electors in the province of Quebec think of it. This is an editorial published last July 3 in La Terre de Chez Nous, a farm newspaper:
The Catholic farmers' union wishes to join with all the voices which in all objectivity and in good faith objected to the acquisition of nuclear arms by our country. The C.F.U. invites the government authorities, the town councillors, the representative groups and all the citizens to take a similar stand.
Mr. Speaker, we want the government to consider these remarks. We heard all social classes demand that our country do not accept the stockpiling of nuclear arms on our territory.
The part we ought to play should favour nuclear disarmament.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal women of Canada are just now holding a convention in Ottawa, and they must feel embarrassed by the fact that the Liberal party declared itself in favour of acquiring nuclear destructive arms, whereas we know that the mothers of families objected to our acquiring such means of
4138	HOUSE OF
Abandonment of Defence Projects annihilation. This glimpse of our country's future is hardly an enviable prospect.


An hon. Member:: Do not make us cry.


David Réal Caouette: You are going to cry all right at the next election, do not worry.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, without getting sentimental, but to come back to hard facts, I think that all hon. members of the province of Quebec-and I appeal to them now-should make it their duty vigorously to protest against the acquisition, by this country, of nuclear arms or the stocking of such nuclear arms on the territory of the state of Quebec, by voting with courage and determination in favour of the subamendment we introduced.
If they do so, they will deserve the respect and consideration of their fellow citizens. On the other hand, if they abstain from doing so, they will be blamed for their action all their lives.
Let them learn to stand up. Serpents love to crawl on their bellies, but the proper attitude of man is to stand erect. It is, indeed, a happy feeling to stand up, but some men go on crawling like poisonous snakes.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words at this time with respect to the Penhold airport. It was said during yesterday afternoon's debate that this R.C.A.F. station is being seriously considered for closure by the Minister of National Defence. However, many things remain to be said, and I wish to put on the record some of the economic factors which, as a perusal of the record will show, will be consequent upon such closure.
The Penhold airport is a well developed base which cost in the neighbourhood of $40 million to $50 million. If any hon. member has seen the base he will bear me out when I say that the living accommodation there is second to none; the dwellings constitute the finest in living quarters. All of this cost a tremendous amount of money, in addition to the provision of runways, hangars, and all the other facilities necessary to an airport.
If this Penhold airport were to be scrapped, what would be the scrap value? Having had some three years of experience with airports which were sold through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, I can tell the minister that the scrap value of Penhold once it has been closed would be not more than 10 cents on the dollar. If three years pass and the paint starts to peel and other things go wrong, the scrap value will be about 5 cents on the dollar. That was the experience at Fort Macleod airport, at the Vulcan airport, and


also at the Claresholm airport. All these airports had splendid locations, with wonderful runways which could be lengthened to accommodate jet flying without trouble because the airports are located in areas where the ground is as level as a billiard table.
If freedom of airways and safety are factors, Mr. Speaker, why not take a good look at Claresholm or Fort Macleod as a jet base? If it is a question of saving money and greater safety, why not take a look at either of those two airports? However, I am of the opinion that it was neither a question of safety nor, in the strictest sense, a financial consideration; it was other considerations which led the minister to make his decision regarding Penhold, and I intend to go into some of them.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it seems to me that the hon. member's speech is completely irrelevant to the subamendment which is now before the house. I suggest that he direct his remarks to the subamendment.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Perhaps my hon. friend's intervention is completely irrelevant too. Adjacent to Penhold is the city of Red Deer. That city has become adjusted to a $4 million pay roll. Over 700 service personnel are located at Penhold and there are 250 civilians. The Department of National Defence has encouraged the Vista village community, which consists of 60 large units many of which are now occupied by R.C.A.F. officers. The Department of National Defence has guaranteed a ten year occupation term to the builder. Why was it not known ahead of time that the government was going to close the base, before all this additional equipment was provided?
Fifteen miles east of the airport and connected to it by a new government built road is a multi-million dollar radar station which is tied in with R.C.A.F. activities. Adjacent to the airport are two other huge defence installations, an underground shelter for heads of government in case of attack and a communications centre which would take care of the province's communications work also in the case of attack. If that station were closed it would mean a loss of $4 million to the area. It would mean about $1 million loss in housing construction, and it would mean hundreds of thousands of dollars lost through repairs and maintenance. Above all, the building trade of the area would be dealt a mortal blow. The excess of housing would be apparent to anyone, and the future of the building trade in the area is likely to feel the effects for many years to come.

This airport was approved by the former government, and it was also approved by this government, for operation as a jet training base. The minister said that Penhold is the logical site for a jet training base, and the people of Red Deer, from the information I have been able to gather, are still infuriated over the decision of the Minister of National Defence. Let me put on the record what they are saying, as appears in an article in the Edmonton Journal of October 1, 1963:
Despite his-
-meaning the minister-
-denials it seems fairly obvious that it is pressure from Calgary and Edmonton, funnelled into the cabinet through agricultural minister Harry Hays, that has caused the change in plans. Mr. Hellyer has fired a torpedo into the economic life of Red Deer and central Alberta.
The minister has advanced as a reason for closure the matter of safety. Let us take a closer look at that. Take, for example, the Winnipeg base. All hon. members at one time or another have no doubt flown out of the Winnipeg base, and are well aware of the fact that huge airliners carrying more than 100 passengers are only a few hundred feet above residential areas when climbing into the air. So far no one has suggested that the Winnipeg airport ought to be closed. Mention has been made of a 20 mile buffer zone, but nowhere in the regulations of the department of defence or the Department of Transport is there any reference to a 20 mile buffer zone. Therefore I ask what foundation there is for the suggestion that safety is the overriding factor. As I understand the buffer zone idea, it means between the air space allocated for jet training, and controlled air space. They argue that it did not leave sufficient air space for jet training to be carried out. This provided a good talking point for the public and an easy point to sell to the public, and was used as an excuse for closing the airport. If safety is the factor involved here, are the same rules to be applied elsewhere in Canada? Is this safety factor, which has been seized upon here as a precedent, to be the overriding factor to be considered from one end of Canada to the other? If it is, I wish the minister and his officials would take a look at what is happening at Moose Jaw, Portage la Prairie and Gimli. These places do not have a 20 mile zone. I should say not. Take the case of Moose Jaw which is only eight miles from one of the busiest airways in Canada. Portage la Prairie is less than 15 miles from the busy Trans-Canada Air Lines route. Gimli is about 12 miles from the main airway. Each of these airports is within 20 miles of the main airway. In view of this does the minister continue to rely on this one factor as 28902-5-265
Abandonment of Defence Projects his excuse for closing down Penhold, or does he intend to think up another manoeuvre which, he hopes, will get him off the hook?
Civilian air training is another matter which has been mentioned. Well, this is going on in every airport in Canada. Students with only six hours' training are landing and taking off at all airports which big jets are using. How can it be said that safety is the overriding factor which caused the minister to issue the order concerning Penhold? Did these considerations of safety only just come to life, despite the fact that the whole matter has been under review for many months? The Department of National Defence knew, and the minister knew, that planes were flying between Calgary and Edmonton on regular routes before they called for tenders to increase the length of the runways. They knew these facts before they called for bids to construct additional buildings. How, in the name of good sense, can the minister come before us now and say that the overriding factor responsible for his decision was the question of safety? The hon. gentleman has known about the situation there ever since he became minister.
The people of the Red Deer area are firmly convinced that there is a nigger in the wood pile, that some other consideration is involved. What they are after is to find out a little more about the unexplained motives. There are reasons which still remain hidden, in the opinion of many people. I have before me an article which appeared in the Edmonton Journal of April 1 entitled "Safety? That Excuse is Nonsense". Here is what it says:
Central Alberta has been sold short by Mr. Hellyer for political purposes and the repercussions will be felt for many years to come.
To illustrate once again feelings of the local people, I wish to quote from the Calgary daily Herald of October 2, 1963 in which an article appeared stating:
The Red Deer chamber of commerce strongly suggests that the reasons given for the government's reversed decision are evasive, and that we have a right to know the background of so serious a matter to our economy. We intend to pursue this matter until we are satisfied not only for our own selfish reasons but for all the taxpayers of Canada.
The people of the Red Deer area have adjusted their economy to the presence of this airport, and what is taking place there will vitally affect their well-being.
May I say in conclusion that, although the interests of safety have been advanced as the overriding reason for closing this airport, we feel there must be other factors. We have not yet heard the minister tell us in detail how the safety factors are to be applied to other airports-whether the same ground-rules are to be used in all the airports of Canada. The inconsistencies in this respect

Abandonment of Defence Projects certainly destroy the argument that safety is the overriding princpile behind the closing of this airport. The motive of safety is simply being used as a flimsy excuse. The people want to know from the Minister of National Defence and from the Minister of Transport what the reasons really are-and I mean the reasons deep down-which have caused the government to bring forward this decision concerning Penhold.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that this debate is untimely and premature. My reason for taking this attitude is the fact that the special committee on defence has not yet produced a report which can be intelligently discussed in this house. For this, the committee can hardly be blamed. It was given a heavy task to perform and it hopes to be able to make a report in December.
In the second place, the minister has given us no statement of policy relating to Canadian defence, nor any indication of an over-all military doctrine in the light of which the decisions of the government announced from time to time could be properly considered. In all fairness, we cannot condemn the minister for this failure. I would be the first to complain if he, disregarding the committee on defence, were to announce his version of Canada's defence role. He has promised a white paper on defence by January and I hope by that time-


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: On a point of order, is the hon. member who now has the floor making a speech or is he calling attention to some irregularity in our procedure?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood stood up to make a speech.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I did not hear the interruption.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not miss much.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I was pointing out that we were debating in a vacuum because we have not heard a statement on military policy from the minister. I have said that no blame attaches to the hon. gentleman in that regard. Speaking for myself, I believe we must reject the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) because he has made it quite clear, implicitly if not explicitly, that in his view the whole purpose of the defence committee has been frustrated by announcements made by the minister. I do not share that view, and I do not accept the defeatism and pessimism of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre with regard to the work of the committee. It is my conviction that, notwithstanding any statements made by the minister or leaks to

the press from his office, some of which I regret, the defence committee still has a vitally important role to play in helping to develop something which has been so sadly lacking in the whole Canadian defence picture. The fundamental lack in the past has been a clear definition of what Canada's defence role should be. Until that is decided we are going to continue to flounder around with piecemeal and often misguided decisions, with cancelled programs and with tremendous economic waste. It is to supply this need for a statement and a clear definition of Canada's role that I believe the defence committee can be of real value.
We have had before that committee already distinguished, capable and experienced witnesses. Nearly every one of them has stressed the need for a clearcut decision as to Canada's defence role and an up to date appraisal of the kind of war or conflict in which Canada's forces are likely to be called on to engage in or play a part, and where they can fit in.
I should like to refer to three of the witnesses in this regard. I do not propose to discuss their evidence in detail. That, of course, is a task for the committee to concern itself with. However, I should like to refer to the evidence of General Foulkes, former chief of the general staff of Canada and a distinguished soldier. As found on page 501 of the evidence before the defence committee he said that these are the questions that have to be considered:
What will be the defence requirements in the seventies? Where and from what direction will any challenges to the peace be likely to occur in the next decade? What will be the state and condition of our alliances on which we now depend for our security and to which we make defence contributions? What should be the character, size and composition of our contributions to these various organizations in the seventies? These are some of the questions that must be considered or at least some indications of the answers foreseen before decisions are taken as to whether frigates, submarines, aircraft or Bobcats should be ordered.
I venture to supplement what General Foulkes has said by saying that individual, piecemeal decisions without answering the sort of questions that the general has posed will continue to produce chaos in this particular field. As found on page 506 General Foulkes spoke of his answers to some of these questions and I want to refer very briefly to them. He said:
Now I should like to state some conclusions. Once the long term aims and objectives of the defence policy are determined, it is then possible to derive some guidance as to the equipment and manpower to implement such a policy. From the foreseeable trends, there are strong indications of a movement away from making preparations to fight a major war in Europe and tending toward the more flexible and mobile roles of preventing wars from breaking out in the NATO area, or anywhere in the world under U.N. auspices.

To fulfil any of these roles will require flexible, highly mobile, well trained, lightly equipped forces at high states of readiness and efficiency. This kind of requirement suits Canadian aptitudes and aspirations. It allows Canadian industry an opportunity to provide the equipment and avoids the needs for heavy imported items such as tanks, armoured carriers and nuclear support weapons.
Another very distinguished soldier gave evidence before our committee, Lieutenant General Simonds. I am going to refer only briefly to his evidence. As found on page 453 of the evidence before the committee he acceded to this proposition which he had written some time before:
In the first place, Canada has been muddling along on defence, in the second place, it has been too much influenced by the Pentagon.
He went on to make it clear it was his view that if Canada applied independent thinking to the problem it would undoubtedly determine that Canada's role, the role we would come up with, would be a conventionally armed tri-service, highly mobile force adapted to deal with brush fire wars in support of the United Nations or our allies, and that this would be our most useful role within the alliance.
By the same token, Mr. Speaker, he indicated his agreement with General Foulkes and other witnesses that our present strike reconnaissance role with CF-104's equipped with nuclear weapons, which has already cost this country half a billion dollars, was based on the misconception that tactical nuclear war could be undertaken in Europe without escalating into all-out nuclear war. At page 442 of his evidence he summed up the matter as follows:
We should not be in the nuclear Held at all. The most useful contribution we can make to any coalition or alliance of which we become a partner is in the field of being able to make a contribution to preventing a situation developing which would lead to thermonuclear exchange.
The author of this statement that we should not be in the nuclear field at all is one of the most distinguished generals and military men that Canada has ever produced. Another witness was Mr. John Gellner, a distinguished military writer and analyst. He came to similar conclusions. His evidence has not yet been printed but it parallels an article he wrote for Saturday Night in 1962 to which I should like to refer. In his view the $18 billion we have spent since 1951 on defence has produced nothing adequate or useful. He says that as a result of this expenditure all we now have is:
An air defence organization with very limited capability for the one task which North American air defence can possibly have today: that of deterring a bombing attack against this continent.
Overseas forces designed and trained to deter, and fight if need be, a type of war (limited nuclear) which will not occur, or will not last as such if it does.
28902-5-265J
Abandonment of Defence Projects
Intervention forces of the Canadian army at home, whose effectiveness is greatly reduced by lack of transport, and partly of air transport ability, and tactical air support.
A civil defence set-up which appears to have deliberately stopped short of the most important, the crucial measure of protection: the training of all citizens to help themselves in case of nuclear war.
Then he proceeds to say:
If these are facts-and we believe they are- then much of the Canadian defence effort in the last seven of the 11 years since 1951 has been to no good purpose. The questions now are: how and why did it happen? There is little doubt that the main reason was that we swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the American defence policy that grew out of the frustrations of the Korean war.
So Mr. Gellner and these other witnesses who have appeared before this committee have made it clear that before we can discuss intelligently what contribution we can make to defence we have to determine the role which we have to play. I believe that the discussions of the committee, which have been conducted on a non-partisan basis, and the evidence presented to it can lead to a sane, a practical and a nationally chosen role that will enable Canada to make the maximum contribution to the security and peace of Canada and the world. For this reason I believe that the amendment we have before us today is very premature in that we are asked to declare that this committee of the house cannot perform the task that has been put before it.
I seem to have caught the ear of the minister for a moment. I regret that he has found it necessary to make piecemeal announcements about policy, but I am prepared to accept his statement and those of other members of the government that they will pay attention to the decisions and conclusions of the defence committee on the major strategy which should be applied to Canadian defence. If it turns out that he or the government are unwilling to do that, I will then be prepared to criticize them for failing to do so.
Before I part with the general question of the role which Canada should play I should like to refer to what I believe is the most useful contribution that has been made by any Liberal member of the house on the subject of defence. I have reference to a speech made by the present Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) on December 14, 1962, when he was a private member. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) to reread what his colleague said at that time, because it made excellent sense in determining the role that Canada should play and because it is quite inconsistent with what the minister said in the house yesterday, namely that there was some good purpose to be served apparently by our continuing to

Abandonment of Defence Projects maintain, through NORAD, an answer to the bomber threat, and nuclear weapons to back it up.
I should like to read now a paragraph from page 2683 of Hansard and I ask the minister to consider it. This is the present Minister of Defence Production speaking. He had set out five tests of what Canada's military role should be. In my opinion he set them out very admirably and I suggest they deserve consideration now. Then he went on to say:
I would suggest that perhaps consideration of the criteria I have suggested, when applied to our apparent dilemma in North America, might shed some light on this problem.
In respect of NORAD we perform two functions. One of them corresponds to all the tests I have outlined and the other does not. The military task of identification and warning which is NORAD's main task does correspond to the criteria I have just outlined. The function of aircraft interception and destruction-more particularly aircraft destruction-with nuclear weapons, does not correspond-
He goes on to express his disapproval of that function. I hope the various words we have heard from time to time from the minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and other persons to the effect that this government is generally reconsidering the role that Canada should play, really mean what they say. I hope the government will not go on tying us up with agreements that will make it difficult for us to adopt an intelligent role.
It may be apparent to hon. members that my voice is not in the best condition today. I should like to go on and deal at this stage with the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). We in this party would certainly not have worded the amendment in the way in which the hon. member for Villeneuve has. We very much regret that the terms of the amendment refer to Quebec alone, and to the introduction of nuclear weapons in the territory of Quebec. So far as we are concerned, for the purpose of defence as well as for many other purposes, there is no distinction to be drawn between the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada. I suggest we are concerned, in our party and in this house, with the defence and security of Canada as a whole. What makes sense for Quebec, makes sense for Canada. We in this party have made it clear from time to time that we do not think nuclear defence makes sense for Canada, and therefore it makes no sense for any part of Canada.
Our view in the matter has been powerfully reinforced by the evidence given before the committee, and particularly the evidence of General Simonds. He pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the nuclear tipped Bomarc missiles are designed to shoot down manned


bombers that might come over from Russia. He said that this was not a real threat at all. The Russians, he said, would be crazy to send manned bombers to attack North America and, he added, they are not crazy. Our warning system spread around the North American continent would enable the targets of the manned bombers, namely the nuclear retaliatory forces of the United States to be off the ground and out of harm long before the bombers arrived. Any all-out nuclear attack, if it could happen at all, and if the Russians are not crazy, would necessarily be an attack by I.C.B.M.'s, against which we have as yet devised no defence. If the Russians contemplated a second blow with bombers, they would knock out the Bomarc bases first, cooking them, as the technical term goes and as General Simonds has said.
In any event, the Bomarc would knock out only a proportion of the bombers, and the small proportion that came over would be armed with megaton bombs which would wreak universal havoc in our country and in the United States. General Simonds concluded by saying that the idea we should involve ourselves in heavy expenditures directed against a bomber threat that was non-existent at this particular time did not make sense. It is in the name of common sense that I suggest, Mr. Speaker, this role should be abandoned and that the amendment, which objects to nuclear weapons in Quebec, should be extended to the whole of Canada. I say if it makes good sense there, it makes good sense in the rest of Canada.
The minister disagreed with General Simonds. Apparently he still sees some useful role for the Bomarc. If I did not misinterpret him, the minister suggested that we must continue with this role to satisfy our United States allies and live up to our commitment. I am sure he is familiar with the words of secretary for defence McNamara who says that the Bomarc is virtually obsolete; it is only being continued because there has already been a large expenditure of $2 billion on that particular system, and maintenance does not cost very much, so we might as well keep it going for a little while longer. Are we required by any treaty or engagement to keep in effect a weapons system which the United States secretary for defence has described as obsolete? This is the prime question, Mr. Speaker. Has any effort been made to ascertain whether or not the United States government is insisting upon the maintenance of this particular effort? I must say it appears to me that the adoption of this role and the conclusion of an agreement to bring these nuclear weapons under United States custody on Canadian soil arises far less from any need of our allies or any sensible

analysis of our position, and far more from the need to satisfy Canadian political exigencies, to satisfy the misguided impressions of a section of the Canadian public that these weapons are useful to the defence of Canada or the United States. In fact, they are not useful at all.
In so far as the introduction of nuclear warheads into any part of Canada is concerned, in our view that is clearly based on an obsolete, impractical military doctrine because it is meaningless in terms of effective defence. We feel we are bound to support the amendment, based on its application to all of Canada as well as the province of Quebec.
Something has been said, Mr. Speaker, about the wording of the amendment and particularly the reference to the "state of Quebec." This certainly is not language which we would be familiar with or would use in this party. I do not think that language has any particular significance; but a very distinguished, leading Liberal, the premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage, habitually refers to the state of Quebec. If the expression is good enough for him, I do not see why it should not be good enough for the hon. member for Villeneuve and, indeed, for the members of this house. I do not think it has any more significance in relation to the status of Quebec within confederation than a reference to the state of Pennsylvania would have in the United States. I think any attempt that may be made later to concentrate on this particular form of expression would be a red herring tending to obscure the real meaning of the amendment, which is in opposition to the useless nuclear installations in the province of Quebec and, I assume, by the extension thereof, in any other part of Canada.
In this party, we have consistently opposed nuclear installations in Canada, not for sentimental or emotional reasons, or simply moral reasons. We have opposed them for sound common sense reasons that have commended themselves to General Simonds, General Foulkes, Mr. Gellner and other witnesses to whom I have referred. We believe our views have been confirmed by common sense and the evidence that has been heard in the committee. Our opposition to nuclear weapons has been established and we shall cast our vote on this motion in the light of that well known opposition.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this discussion and to indicate that I associate myself with this government's defence policy; this should prove to the hon. member for
Abandonment of Defence Projects Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that I am not afraid to express my views and opinions in this house, even before tonight's vote.
When I was appointed to the committee on defence, several of my voters rejoiced at my being a member of such an important committee. And tonight, I am given the opportunity of making my views in defence matters known to the people who elected me as their representative as well as to all hon. members of the house.
The hon. member of Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) did not surprise me at all when he criticized this government's actions in defence matters, and still less when he introduced his non-confidence motion. The hon. gentleman, who is a member of the defence committee and a former minister of national defence, was often disappointed with the way that committee went about its business, because he would have liked us to rehash all those disputes which arose during the months preceding the defeat of the Conservative government, so that our committee would have become a political arena with regard to defence matters. The committee members preferred to limit themselves to their terms of reference, by making a complete analysis of the present situation, so as to familiarize themselves with the subject matter and be able to make the appropriate recommendations with regard to the whole defence problem in this country while helping establish a Canadian policy in this field.
I consider that at this stage, the committee was far from being ready to come to a conclusion on the general purpose frigate program, no more than we are ready, as regards the unification of the three arms or their integration into a very mobile force, because the members had not yet started a discussion on the various testimonies given in the last few months.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that even the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who just spoke before me, could himself express an opinion on behalf of the defence committee because he only quoted the evidence that he saw fit to quote.
I think that the members of the defence committee still have much work to do. They have to exchange ideas and concepts. As far as I am concerned, I know that some of my original ideas might have changed or evolved and I even know that if, on some other matters, I think I have a very clear idea at the present, I am still ready to discuss them and I hope that the other members of the committee will keep up the same spirit. This will make room for a thorough discussion and at the same time will enable us to

Abandonment of Defence Projects arrive at really constructive and far reaching suggestions.
Mr. Speaker, after several months of hesitation and indecision-and here, I do not blame the former minister of national defence-on the part of the previous administration, this government could not afford to wait very long before reaching a decision. I must therefore commend the Minister of National Defence for the serious work he does as the head of his department where an exhaustive investigation of the present defence policy was undertaken to give it a new direction if need be, taking into account the importance of curbing some expenditures and of eliminating some others which could be considered as less vital.
I cannot see how the performance of the department could come in conflict with the defence committee, because I am convinced that eventually, both will meet at some crossroads and then, we shall be in a better position to judge the efficiency of the work done and the ground covered.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Canadian people would have been really justified to be shocked about the implementation of a program which was to cost $452 million, which completely ignored the investigation now under way on defence questions and which was devoid of any planning.
I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to tell us whether, in his opinion, a single member of the defence committee would have dared defend such a program, especially after the evidence given before the committee by Lieutenant General Guy Simonds and General Charles Foulkes, both of them ex-military men of renown, who occupied the highest post in our armed forces.
As mentioned by the minister in his statement of October 24, this decision was made after a thorough study of the program, and we must admit that the reasons put forward by the minister are fairly in line with certain points of view which were presented to the defence committee. The more so because, on the economic side, the present government still wanted to show the population it took its responsibilities, when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) announced a shipbuilding program, the cost of which will reach close to $110 million, and which shall be completed in the years 1963, 1964 and 1965.
And, Mr. Speaker, what about the statement of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Benidickson) who, this afternoon, announced the construction of 12 additional ships-12 hydrographic research and survey ships-at a cost of $50 million.
We have therefore abolished a program of military expenditures, the cost of which appeared exorbitant, if we take into account

especially the fact that the very efficiency of those general purpose frigates was questioned and that the part they would play was most controversial. We have instead preferred a shipbuilding program originating in the Department of Transport and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, at a greatly lower cost, whereas the ships shall be much more useful to the Canadian people. The building of these ships will start immediately, so that unemployment will not be increased by the scrapping of the program. Common sense and reason have prevailed, and the present government has established that it wants to assume its responsibilities in every possible field.
Mr. Speaker, concerning the subamendment of the hon. member for Villeneuve, about the storing of nuclear warheads in the province of Quebec, my hon. friend has proved once more that he is content to exercise his political action in one province only, and that his dissident group is not capable of grasping the situation in its national context. The hon. leader of the Caouettistes and of the Grego-rians goes as far as to say he is speaking, in his subamendment, on behalf of the Quebec members belonging to the various political parties. I will ask him however, with all due respect, to exclude me from his statement, because I consider it as wholly irresponsible, and tainted with a partisan spirit. I would suggest to my hon. friend to go back in thought to the last electoral campaign. He will remember that the leader of the Liberal party had adopted a very definite and categorical position on the subject of our obligations towards our allies. Some people derided us, when we said that we were anxious first of all to fulfil our obligations- that is precisely what we are doing at the moment-and that afterwards, if necessary, we would revise the situation, and try to establish if it were necessary to re-orient our policy, in order to better adapt it to our desires.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a member of NATO and of NORAD, and I am convinced that this duty and this right are recognized by nearly all Canadians.
When the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) says that we have accepted the storing of nuclear weapons in the face of universal protest, he is not entirely faithful to truth. Our position on that point has been extremely precise; in spite of a few inevitable protests, the people of the province of Quebec have given us their unconditional support. We appeared before the electorate as a fully responsible party; we formed a government which is ready to assume its responsibilities and to meet its obligations. We carry on the

dialogue with our friends, and we hope to continue to do so indefinitely, for we must try to solve together our common problems.
True, because modern technique changes so rapidly, we must constantly study and revise our defence policy, but when millions of dollars are involved, we just cannot keep on disrupting everything, especially when we are part of a defence system that must be as invulnerable as possible.
The storing of nuclear warheads on Canadian soil does not shock me. In my view, such a thing is inevitable. I believe that Canada, being a free country, should play the role it can afford to play in the defence of the free world. It is time we stop playing upon words and even claim we are losing our influence as a pacifist country. Our reputation is well established and the Prime Minister is recognized throughout the world as a man of peace.
Do we or do we not belong to the western bloc? What would have happened if the Cuban crisis had degenerated into a nuclear war, with or without nuclear warheads in storage? If we had had to defend ourselves, I think we would just have stood there gaping, unable to do anything.
Let us be serious. Would we be more to blame for accepting those weapons than for selling the great quantity of uranium used in the manufacturing of American atomic bombs?
The hon. member for Lapointe referred to the unanimous opinion of members of parliament and citizens of the province of Quebec. But when he found that members on the government side did not share his opinion-heaven forbid-he accused us of having sold out to the Americans and went off into considerations of petty politics which are typical of him.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I would be less afraid of American domination than of a dictatorship offered by the Gregoire-Caouette group, which might be similar to that imposed by the idols of the hon. member for Villeneuve, namely Hitler and Mussolini.
Those people do not accept other people's opinion and readily condemn those who dare to think in a different way.
Mr. Speaker, before closing I wish to point out the fact that this country has a role to play in the world, that we cannot be isolationists, neither from the economic point of view nor from the standpoint of defence of the free world. That role must be examined thoroughly and it can be changed according to circumstances. As a matter of fact, I urge the Minister of National Defence to keep up his good work. And, so as to prove to the hon. member for Lapointe that nobody dic-
Abandonment of Defence Projects tates our policy, and that within the Liberal party, every member is free to think as he pleases, I am going to make a suggestion to the Minister of National Defence, that is to consider the possibility of setting up in Canada a system of compulsory military service, which, in my opinion, might benefit directly the Canadian people.
In fact, it is noteworthy that in every country where such a system is in effect, it has fostered unity and has proven profitable to the nation. Indeed, a stay in a disciplinary corps is, in my opinion, a supplementary training which is a good preparation for the future, inasmuch as it instills into a man a bit of discipline and a sense of responsibility, which is something that our young people need today and which is also lacking in the Caouette group.
This service should not be on the same basis as service in an emergency but it should be oriented so as to provide the young people with the opportunity of attending trade or specialization courses, as well as civil defence classes, all this without interfering with a general education. In other words, a formula related to that of our military colleges but very much simplified.
It would be, in my opinion, a contribution to the economy, that is an expenditure which would benefit directly the Canadian people and which would, at the same time, alleviate unemployment among our young people.
Mr. Speaker, the people are watching the House of Commons, wondering certainly what is in the minds of the opposition parties, at a time when the government shows increasing evidence of its ability to give our economy the guidance it needs.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my first grievance today will certainly be directed against the party in power, because it is due to the absence of fifty-odd Liberal members that we are still discussing today a subamendment which has already been put to a vote, no matter how the hon. members for Lapointe and Villeneuve (Messrs. Gregoire and Caouette) feel about it, without the approval or support of the members of the Social Credit party. But it is not for me to teach the members of the party in power a lesson; I guess that was taken care of, and strongly too, at the caucus this morning.
In any case the party in power gives us the opportunity to talk again about nuclear arms, and I think we are about to have a little fun.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go over the whole story from 1957 to 1963, because a series of contradictions coming either from the party in power or the opposition would

Abandonment of Defence Projects have to be recalled. And to what end? Simply to establish that the Canadian people have been fooled either by one political party or the other. In fact, the people of Quebec did not want nuclear arms and today they find them in their own back yard.
In that respect, I wish to quote words spoken in 1959 by the then prime minister. At that time, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Diefenbaker) stated: Those nuclear arms are not fully effective unless they are equipped with nuclear warheads.
And at the same time, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who could clearly hear the echo of the Voice of Women, and the present Secretary of State (Mr. Pickers-gill), who was writing a book on the philosophy of the Liberal party, both stated:
We do not need nuclear arms in Canada. It is better to be a great power working for defence and peace than a small atomic power.
When a by-election was held in my riding in 1960-I apologize for referring to my riding when I should be speaking on behalf of my party-the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) ranged all over my constituency. During a meeting held in the Mont Laurier parish hall, where I was seated in the first row, the Minister of Justice told the people: Do not vote for the evil Conservatives who want to establish a Bomarc base in La Macaza, because this will kill your wives and children. Do not vote for the evil Conservatives.
Do you know what happened? Well, the people of the riding of Labelle did not vote for the evil Conservatives. They elected the Liberal candidate.
Yet at that very moment, the poor little Conservative candidate was working himself up into a frenzy, expounding lofty principles. As a matter of fact, he was saying: If you want peace, prepare for war.
What do we hear today? We are told: We must meet our commitments, we must join our friends to check the communist bloc.
And the poor little Conservative candidate was saying: This is an economic asset, a huge establishment which will bring prosperity to the riding. But he was defeated while the Conservative party was still in power.
Why was the poor little Conservative candidate defeated? Because throughout the county of Labelle, in 1960, the people said: We do not want any nuclear weapons.
The voters of the riding of Labelle did the same thing again in 1961: We are against nuclear weapons, let us vote for the winner of the Nobel prize for peace, let us vote Liberal.

But suddenly in 1962, the same Liberal candidate who had been elected in spite of the Conservative landslide was defeated. Why? In fact everybody wonders why. Well, the answer is quite simple as far as my constituents are concerned. The leader of the Liberal party had become a little more deaf, he no longer heard the Voice of Women, probably his wife's to begin with.
In 1963, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) completely reversed his policy. In fact, I consulted Hansard from 1959 to 1962 and I could not find anything worse. There were only the words of a promoter of peace, of a politician against nuclear weapons.
But during the election campaign they began saying: We have to live up to our commitments. Our country has to do its share in the field of nuclear weapons.
And then we noted that the Liberal candidate in Labelle had been defeated by the Social Crediter who had only made one promise.
I actually stated everywhere in my constituency during the election campaign: "I am going to Ottawa, I will not accomplish any miracle, but I promise you that I will vote against nuclear weapons".
Furthermore, in La Macaza, a Bomarc missile base, as I have already said in this house and I repeat it, because, in my opinion, it is significant, the Social Credit candidate obtained a majority. Why? Because the voters of Labelle county are intelligent enough to know when a candidate comes and tells them: "Vote Grit", that he wants them to vote Grit, and that if they are told: "Vote Tory", the candidate wants them to vote Tory. As for me, I travelled through my riding of Labelle telling my electors that I would vote against nuclear arms. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was elected because of that and, today, I will respect my mandate precisely for that reason.
Mr. Speaker, why does the hon. member for Villeneuve submit his subamendment today, saying that he blames the Quebec Liberal members for their subservience.
Much to my regret, I must recognize that Voltaire himself had his moments of truth, and I must admit that the member for Lapointe was right this morning. I must admit that if the member for Lapointe never says what he thinks, he always thinks what he says. And when he stated that the Liberal members had been subservient, I believe he was right.
This action is outrageous because we wonder if, in all this, some political parties have not been playing small politics.

But, Mr. Speaker, what about the people in all that? The people whom the recipient of the Nobel prize for peace told in 1960 and 1961 that he did not want nuclear weapons. At that time, the people recognized the defence and peace policy of this good fellow, but today, they realize that they have been misled by the same good fellow who claims he changed his policy because of changed circumstances. But circumstances have not changed and the people have not altered their opinion.
In the issue of the day before yesterday, the editor of the newspaper L'Echo de la Lievre, the official organ of the Liberal party in my riding, wrote: down with nuclear weapons. That is what the people, being the people, have understood. They could have realized that if the situation were to change, a war becoming imminent, the government, on the recommendation of the defence committee, could take a new direction.
But where is war today? I must admit the merits of the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who said: today, hundreds of countries sign a disarmament agreement, and Canada is the only one which accepts nuclear warheads.
If there is a war on today, Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather related to the economy. Seafarers are at war today because they are unsatisfied. The unemployed are at war because they have no jobs. The separatists are at war today because they are disappointed in the stand taken by the federal government. The Liberals are at war today-the federal wing and the provincial wing-because the provincial wing of the Liberal party is not satisfied with the stand taken by the federal wing of the party.
And what about the Conservative party, Mr. Speaker? If they are at war today, it is not so much because they are looking for a leader, but it is the leader who is looking for a party.
We must admit that Social Crediters are also at war, and not because they are looking for a leader, but because they have too many.
It must be admitted that the N.D.P. is at peace, but it is for a lack of fighters; today there are no wars and there will not be any more, since at the present time, as far as the provincial wing of the N.D.P. in the province of Quebec is concerned, the latter manages to avoid any dispute between that provincial wing and the rest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, such is the situation which prevails today. Because of the absence of about 50 Liberal members who could not vote in favour of the Speaker's decision,
Abandonment of Defence Projects which I believed fair, we have to talk two more days on this subject.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the situation has so deteriorated now, if we have to discuss nuclear weapons, I wonder if this has not been premeditated on the part of the government party. Perhaps they figured that instead of being criticized for two days about the bad situation prevailing in this country, about the dissatisfied unemployed workers, about the compelling necessity of fulfilling their promises, they would rather let the house spend two days talking about nuclear weapons, which did not entail any risk since these weapons are securely installed in this country and that nobody can remove them.
Perhaps this is what happened, Mr. Speaker, but I also envision other possibilities. I see my young friends on the other side of the house smiling, but when I look at my old friends opposite, I realize that they seem very sad indeed, and I think that it is about time that the government party, instead of wasting their energies today to support the stand of the Postmaster General, who liberally dispenses patronage, should better listen to the newcomers, who are injecting, and one has to admit it, new blood into the party in power.
These newcomers have brought with them something which we, Socreds, have also featured in this house, namely perhaps a certain amount of guilelessness, but also of honesty. These newcomers like Social Crediters were sent to Ottawa by their constituents to tell the government: things have been lagging long enough in parliament at Ottawa, we will go there and make our contribution.
I am sure that when the present Prime Minister decides that it is better to respect the younger members of parliament and let them take the initiative instead of defending the old party members, who are giving out-of-date direction-


Mr. Auguste Choquetle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to reproach my hon. friend opposite, for whom I have a great deal of consideration, for his disrespect for our leaders who enjoy the respect and admiration of all of us.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) to order and to remind him that he must limit his remarks to the subject under discussion.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the testimony of friendship and respect which the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) has just given to his leaders.
I would only wish that the hon. member would stop once in a while and consider the nefarious decisions and policies of his leaders, such as nuclear stockpiling in Canada.

Abandonment of Defence Projects
Since I must come back to the question oi nuclear weapons, let us take a look at the present situation.
The Leader of the Opposition is and has always been against the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and he does not hesitate to say so.
On the other hand, the government states that it was opposed to the acquisition of nuclear weapons but that it had to accept them to fulfil the commitments made by the Conservatives when they were in office.
Apart from those two parties, there is the N.D.P., the Social Credit party, and the Caouette group who wonder, after witnessing such a performance, where the truth lies. There is the New Democratic party, which at some time said: Let us see the commitments given by the Conservative party and then we will know whether you are responsible or not.
At that time, there was no refusal whatsoever; the national defence minister said: Very well, we shall produce them-no, I think it was the Secretary of State for External Affairs-"We shall produce them; of course, there are certain state secrets that we cannot disclose, but we shall give you the information we can on this matter".
But then, the Conservative party would not have anything of the kind. Oh no. It's all or nothing; it could be discriminatory. But we, Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the people in this house, we ask you, on behalf of the people, to give us the requested information. Do the Canadian people know why we have nuclear weapons at present? No, that is an official secret. They will never know. And yet, they are the ones who elect the government. All of us here, regardless of party affiliations, will have to seek a new mandate from the people at the next election; we will say to our constituents: "Vote for us. Give us your support. But when the time comes to make important decisions, frowned upon by the people, there is no fear of the people, who are told that those are official secrets.
For two years now, the Social Credit party has been advocating in the house the establishment of a national defence committee. I for one know very well that our leader said that it was inadvisable to give a premature reply one way or the other. He said: "Let us wait until the defence committee submits a report after having secured the necessary information."
And did we ever get that defence committee report? All we were able to get from that committee were the press reports which the various papers had published the day before. We never could find out what we wanted to know. Was there a definite Conservative


pledge with regard to nuclear armament or not? Nobody has been able to find out. If we were to know one day, it would explain this government's present position.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, people are tired of being left in the dark with regard to this important matter. I must refute what my hon. friend from Lotbiniere county stated in the last election: "The people of the province of Quebec obviously know that the leader of the Liberal party did not undertake to have nuclear arms", but even without having been in Lotbiniere county during the election, I know very well that most of the Liberal members from Quebec said: "Dear friends, you know that Mr. Pearson is a great man, that he was awarded the Nobel prize for peace, and he said we should get nuclear arms, but as you know very well, only in case of an emergency." Indeed, some went even further, and I would like the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin)-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. What the hon. member for La-belle says is inaccurate. I stated in the county of Lotbiniere, that our present Prime Minister's position was what it is today, and I was elected with such a crushing majority that the Social Credit candidate lost his deposit. The people of the county of Lotbiniere supported the Liberal party's statement. Let anybody try to refute it.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I accept the word of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, and I shall tell him that, if he was elected in the manner he says, the representatives of the three other parties in his county must indeed have been a pitiful sight.
Mr. Speaker, let us now come back to the subamendment before us. I would like to read it once again to hon. members:
I move, seconded by Mr. Gilles Gregoire-
Here is the amendment to the amendment:
-subserviently agreeing to the storing of nuclear arms on the territory of the state of Quebec, notwithstanding the strong protests voiced by the civic and municipal authorities of Quebec, the national societies and the welfare clubs, the labour and agricultural unions as well as by the Quebec members of parliament belonging to all political parties.
If this subamendment is read carefully, Mr. Speaker, one finds something striking about it. Here we have an amendment brought forward by a provincial group made up of provincial members. They are bringing in a provincial subamendment to blame the federal government for having stored nuclear arms in a province.
Now, faced with such a subamendment, we may ask ourselves who must blame the government. Should parliament, today, blame the government for having stored nuclear arms

in the Quebec state? If we apply a contrario reasoning, especially if we should use the reasoning of the hon. member for Villeneuve, we must say that the hon. member for Villeneuve does not want nuclear arms in the province of Quebec but that he wants them in all the other provinces. I said: "if the line of argument of the hon. member for Villeneuve is to be followed".
Then, does it rest with parliament to decide whether it would be advisable to have nuclear arms in the other provinces and not in the province of Quebec? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
Some hon. members have wondered about the words "state of Quebec". As for me, I am proud of the expression "state of Quebec". On the other hand, I know very well that the province of Quebec is not a state. But I know that the words "state of Quebec" are used by Mr. Jean Lesage who is considered as a regular guy in this house, and also by Mr. Daniel Johnson who does not have but enemies here, as well as by all important people in the province of Quebec. Therefore, I feel that the words "state of Quebec" are properly used here.
But one should wonder who will blame the government for having stored nuclear weapons in the province of Quebec?

Who will blame the government? Liberals, yes, but Liberals from Quebec state. Who will blame the government? Conservatives, yes, but Conservatives from Quebec. Who will blame the government? Social Crediters, but Social Crediters from Quebec. Who will blame the government? Caouetters, but Caouetters from Quebec.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, before such a subamendment blaming the government for storing nuclear arms in the province of Quebec, I say to the government: let the members from Quebec settle that matter; let the Liberals from the province of Quebec settle that matter; let the Conservatives from the province of Quebec settle that matter; let the Social Crediters from the province of Quebec settle that matter; and let the members of the Caouette group, from the province of Quebec of course, settle that matter. Thus, Mr. Speaker, the people might find out, a little late perhaps, if today the Liberals of the province of Quebec decide openly to blame the government for storing nuclear arms in Quebec, that at a caucus they tried to prevent the remainder of their members from taking a regrettable decision.
While today the Quebec Conservatives blame the federal government, the people will
Division
surely realize that the deep-set hesitation of their leader was brought about by the fact that the Quebec members were set against nuclear arms. With all due respect to the hon. member for Villeneuve, to the Liberals and to the Conservatives, the people in the province of Quebec remember that the Social Crediters elected to the federal parliament had promised the electorate they would vote against nuclear arms. The people will understand clearly that the Social Credit group in Ottawa cannot work miracles, and has never promised any. The Social Crediters however are doing their best to ensure that the country is well administered. Above all, the people will have to admit that the Social Credit group has not reneged, and that it has voted against the stockpiling of nuclear arms in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I move, in accordance with standing orders, chapter III, section 29, that the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) be now heard.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). Had I voted, I would have voted to maintain your decision.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. If I had not been, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Wait until the pairs are in.


Donald MacInnis: It is on this very business of pairing that I raise a point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: Wait until it is over.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder would all hon. members take their seats for just a minute. I propose to hear the pairs first and then the point of order.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired, or I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to maintain your decision.


Mrs. Konaniz:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I not been, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I was about to raise with regard to the matter of pairing, I bring it up at this time for the simple reason that it is a waste of time going through all the members and hearing them say whom they were paired with, for the very reason that there has been a violation of the pairs on the part of the Liberal members.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary
North.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege, and I do not want to hold up the hon. member in any way. The course followed in this house has invariably been that the Speaker has taken the list of members from the whip. We are being denied, by your action today, the right to explain the vote we are making this evening. I submit, sir, it is most improper, and with great respect I say that to you.
You have denied us by your action the right to have anyone speak for this party and explain the nature of our attitude respecting the amendment to the amendment laid before the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I may have a word on this particular point of order, I attempted to get

up to speak twice yesterday evening. I was informed by the deputy chairman of committees who was then in the chair, not long before ten o'clock last night, that after the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) had finished, I would be next on the list.
I found out today that another list had gone in. I made inquiries and found I was down on this list fifth, sixth or seventh from the position I thought I was going to be in, and then I was finally recognized.
I would also like to say that nobody asked me to give up my place in favour of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), or made any suggestion to me in that regard or anything else along that line. Therefore this whole motion is one which I find very difficult to understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that his remarks were out of order on two counts. In the first place he was reflecting on a vote that this house has just taken, and in the second place he was blaming Your Honour for a decision which was taken by vote of the house. He was out of order and he owes an apology to Your Honour.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I owe no apology for drawing your attention to the fact that you, sir, departed from the regularly appointed plan we have always had, of accepting the nominations of the party whip.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly do not wish to pour any more oil on the fire, but I believe that I have acted in accordance with tradition and precedent. If I may just take one minute I think it will settle the question. Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 121, paragraph 1 says:
There should not be a list of speakers with an order of precedence in the House of Commons. Any member who wishes to speak may rise and endeavour to catch the Speaker's eye. He who is first seen has the right to speak. By old parliamentary usage, a member who wishes to make his maiden speech enjoys the privilege of being first seen by the Speaker, if he rises at the same time as other members; but the privilege will not be conceded unless claimed within the parliament to which the member was first returned.
(2) the succession of speakers is left entirely to the Speaker. If his call is disputed by some member who thinks he rose before the Speaker's choice, a motion may be made under S.O. 35-
-which is now standing order 29-
-that "he be now heard."
Among my papers I have a signed note from the chairman of committees in which is assigned the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), following which was the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). In the circumstances I had no other choice
Abandonment of Defence Projects but to act in accordance with what I considered to be the right thing, and tradition.
The hon. member for Calgary North.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the right hon. Leader of the Opposition complained that no member of his party was given an opportunity to explain their position. If this is true, then the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) is not a member of his party, and I think the house has a right to know that.


Mr. MacEwan:: What party do you belong to now? You should be across the floor.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It
seems with considerable difficulty I am finally going to be able to make my speech.
Mr. Speaker, I could devote all the time that is available to me to a discussion of the arguments and considerations which, in my opinion, made it desirable that Canada should acquire nuclear warheads for certain weapons systems for the use of the Canadian forces. However, for a variety of reasons I am not going to follow that course.
First of all, I spent some two and a half years putting forward these considerations and arguments, and I do not think there is anything to be gained by repeating them once more at this time, especially in view of the fact that the present Minister of National Defence repeated a number of them in his speech yesterday. I can only regret that he and the other members of his party did not come to this same decision some one and a half to three years earlier than they did. This might have avoided the whole subject of nuclear arms becoming the matter of partisan political argument which it did and has become.
I will not follow that course for another reason. Most hon. members are aware that all of the polls held on this subject in the period from six months to a year ago indicated the fact that a considerable majority of Canadians who had any opinion on it were in favour of the acquisition of nuclear arms. Therefore there is no need to make further efforts to convince the general public of that fact. Furthermore, in my view this matter was settled by a vote of the house in the early part of the session, and therefore should not have been revived, as it has been at this time.
There are a few things I would like to say. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) cited several people, whom he looked upon as experts in this field, as saying nuclear arms for Canada were not needed and were not desirable. On any military matter, and particularly on the subject of any type of weapon you will have a variety of opinion so far as the experts, real or so-called, are concerned.

Abandonment of Defence Projects This is inevitable, and one can cite all kinds of people on both sides of the question. However, in my opinion there was no doubt that the great bulk of informed military opinion was convinced of the fact that nuclear weapons were necessary and desirable, so far as the weapons systems in Canada for which they were proposed and for which they are now being put into effect were concerned.
I doubt very much whether anything is going to be gained at the present time by great repetition of the views and opinions of experts on one side of the question or the other.
The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said that Quebec wishes Canada to work for peace. I should like to make it quite clear that I think everyone in this country who is concerned with attempting to get nuclear weapons for Canadian forces is also just as much concerned to work for peace. In fact, I believe quite firmly that the best method of ensuring that we will have peace and that there will not be the outbreak of another world conflict is to keep the western world strong. To do that, each member of the western alliance has to play its due part and take its due burden of responsibility for the defence of the west. As far as Canada is concerned, in my view that involves our making use of nuclear weapons. So much for the nuclear weapons question.
I should now like to say something about the cancellation of the general purpose frigate program. The main point I have to make is that this cancellation is, in effect, a decision to reduce Canada's naval contribution to NATO. Last Friday I asked the minister of defence whether the government had made a decision to reduce our naval contribution to NATO, and his reply was no. I accept that, of course, as the case; no formal decision in that regard has been made. But it appalls me that a decision has been made to scrap the general purpose frigate program without having something else to put in its place, or without the realization that by taking the decision to scrap the program Canada has decided, in effect, to reduce its contribution to NATO, which reduction is inevitable.
Anybody experienced in naval shipbuilding programs is well aware of the fact that such a program is a very long and lengthy process. To begin with, a great deal of time is involved in attempting to assess the best type of ship to build. After that decision is reached a great deal of time is involved in drawing up the plans and finding out where to fit in the multitudinous electronic devices necessary at the present time, the armament, and so on. Then there is a further lengthy period before

construction actually gets under way and is completed. So that a naval building program is a very long term project.
The general purpose frigate program having been cancelled, I think there is no question that because nothing has yet been decided upon to take its place all these lengthy processes I have mentioned cannot be brought under way. As the present ships in the navy are taken out of commission or wear out there will be nothing to replace them. Therefore, Canada's navy in the years ahead will be reduced in size and effectiveness. I think there is no use our blinking at that fact; that is inevitably the situation.
As far as the adoption of any particular ship or weapons system is concerned, arguments for or against each one can be made. As I mentioned before, you can get expert opinion both pro and con in regard to any one of them. What has to be done is that an assessment has to be made of the value of a particular ship or piece of equipment compared with another, and a final decision come to as to which will best meet the general purpose you have in mind. One of the arguments made against the general purpose frigate is that its speed is not as great as that of a nuclear submarine. No surface ship of any size is able to go as fast as the present nuclear-powered submarines can go under water. Therefore, this argument, if made against the general purpose frigate, can also be made against any type of surface vessel of any size. The position may be changed by development of larger-sized hydrofoil vessels, but so far there has been no such development. And whether it would be successful in any event we do not know-especially the development of vessels with a good deal of endurance in the matter of the time they can spend at sea, and other matters.
I do not think that anyone who has had experience in these matters would for a moment become completely wedded to one particular ship or type of equipment and say that that was the only one of any use, that nothing else would do and that we must proceed with it no matter what the consideration. On the other hand, I think that merely to discard a particular type of weapon or particular type of ship, as in this case, without having anything to replace it, is shortsighted policy and one which does not tend to maintain or build up the strength of Canadian forces or to maintain our contribution to the NATO forces of the west.
A considerable number of people in this country would like to see military expenditures of all kinds reduced, and I can sympathize with this view. But the actual fact is that our contribution to the forces of NATO calculated as a percentage of the gross national
41S3

product has been going down steadily. Our gross national product has been going up; the actual forces contributed have remained approximately the same.
We have been able to counter complaints on that score by pointing out that our contribution has been that which we agreed to make, which we have kept up, and so on. If we start to reduce it we will get into the position where we can properly be accused by our allies of not pulling our weight in the total western effort. As a result, I hope the government will reconsider this scrapping of the general purpose frigate program. If they are not prepared to do that, I hope they will be able to produce immediately an alternative in sufficient time to meet the gap which will otherwise exist. However, I do not think that is possible. Therefore, the only way in which our naval strength can be kept up and our commitments to NATO met is to proceed with the general purpose frigate program.
This program, Mr. Speaker, was not conceived in haste. This frigate was the type of ship required for replacement purposes and one which had received a tremendous amount of study and development. All sorts of alternatives were considered, and eventually our naval experts recommended that this type of ship be built, as one which would be best adapted to the needs of the future for the next 15 to 20 years. That opinion was concurred in by the chiefs of staff, a recommendation made to me, and I spent a very long time going into it and subsequently recommended it to cabinet, after being convinced that the alternatives suggested, some of which some people wanted to proceed with, would not be as good.
I do not think that the period of review which the minister mentioned will change the basic situation at all. He can continue to review the subject for as long as he likes, but I think he will still be faced with the identical considerations, and the same decisions which have to be made, as I was when minister of defence. I doubt very much whether any alternative can be produced which is better, and I am quite certain that none can be produced in time.
I do not want to take undue time, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to mention one othe matter, namely the question of the Pen-hold air base which was dealt with this afternoon by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt). I agree with him that the excuse given, that the air base will be closed by reason of safety factors, just does not hold water. One has only to consider the fact that in the city of Ottawa there is a squadron of operational jets based at the same airport used by civilian traffic. No question has been raised
Abandonment of Defence Projects that the airport is not safe with this squadron there. As a matter of fact, the amount of traffic in and out of Ottawa is much greater than the amount of air traffic passing through Penhold. This is another decision which I hope will be looked at and rescinded. A large amount of money has been spent on Penhold and on the new buildings there. If a decision has been made to reduce the number of R.C.A.F. stations, there are other stations, on which a great deal less money has been spent, with largely second world war buildings, and things of that kind. It would be much more economical and sensible to close some of these stations than to close a station like Penhold which represents a very big investment for the Canadian taxpayer.


Léon Balcer: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, just before I came into the house, a friend of mine told me: "After what occurred this afternoon, your speech had better be interesting."
I must say that if I speak tonight, it is because I understand deeply the problems facing the house at the present time. Some people even say that the government may be overthrown by the vote on the subamendment, but I do not think it will, because the group who moved the subamendment merely used a trick as old as the hills, namely submitting a question of policy to the house, but surrounding it by all sorts of qualifications which ensure its rejection even before it is submitted.
I declare that the subamendment moved by the Ralliement Creditistes is an underhanded one, the result of which will be to maintain this government in office.
As far as we of the Conservative party are concerned, we are anxious to overthrow the government as soon as possible. We are not afraid of a general election; we hope that it will come soon. The subamendment, as drafted, is contrary to all parliamentary government principles of a federal state. And at this stage, may I be allowed to read the subamendment:
Through the servile acceptance of nuclear arms stored within the territory of the state of Quebec, in spite of the vigorous protests-

Abandonment of Defence Projects
I think that this subamendment is completely inconsistent. In brief, what our friends of the Ralliement Creditistes are saying is that they are a little against nuclear arms, and that, in a certain part of Canada only. That reminds me of someone who had travelled in Europe and had visited the place des Pyramides where the statue of Joan of Arc was erected. And when he came back, if someone asked him whether it was an equestrian statue, our traveller answered: "It is a little bit equestrian".
Such is the stand taken by the members of the Ralliement Creditistes. They are against nuclear arms, but only a little bit.
If you analyse the observations made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) this afternoon, and if you consider the terms used in the subamendment itself, without any consideration for constitutional points of view or for national unity-matters which do not seem to concern our friends in the Ralliement Creditistes-you find out that if the subamendment were passed, that would mean that the house decided there would be no nuclear arms, only in the province of Quebec, but it would also mean that our friends sitting in the far corner of the house are in favour of nuclear arms for the rest of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Léon Balcer: What an inconsistent attitude.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the fact that there are only a few minutes left, I think we could allow the hon. member for Three Rivers to proceed with his observations.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, if the house adopted the subamendment, would that mean that the house is in favour of nuclear arms in North Bay, Edmundston, Ottawa, but not in Hull?
At once, you can see the inconsistency of the subamendment which I think is absolutely ludicrous. We, Conservatives, have objected to nuclear weapons throughout Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, on Vancouver island as well as in Newfoundland and this before, during and after the general election.
As for our Liberal friends, they are in favour of them today, but they were strongly against them before the last general election.
This afternoon, someone quoted the speech made by the member of Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) during the memorable election campaign in the Labelle constituency where he drew a frightening picture of the La Macaza base. He then stated that the Bomarc base in


La Macaza would result in the death of thousands of persons in Labelle and that for that reason, the constituents should vote against the Conservative candidate.
And it is that same member for Laurier who said before 4,500 people during the last election campaign, as evidenced in a newspaper article:
Chevrier. No atomic bomb in Canada ever.
Mr. Speaker, that is what happened during the last election campaign, and I understand the concern of many citizens about the shifting of attitude of this government.
As far as the amendment to the amendment is concerned, I repeat that it is irresponsible, contrary to common sense and that its only result would be to maintain the Liberal government in office. But, what is worse, this subamendment runs counter to Canadian tradition and national unity. In fact, it reveals an anticonstitutional attitude. It is a subamendment that I would describe as separatist, moved by people who claim not to be separatists.
They want legislation which would apply only in the territory of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the way to build a country. Are we going to have ten family allowance acts? Are we to have different rates in the different provinces of Canada? Are we going to set up different federal tax structures in Manitoba, in Vancouver and in Nova Scotia? That would create utter confusion, Mr. Speaker.
Worst of all, sir, is the irreparable wrong that subamendment, and everything it stands for, can do to national unity, to the ties of mutual friendship, respect and pride that every member should be duty-bound to promote in Canada.
We have not been elected to bisect the country, but rather to consolidate and favour mutual understanding not only between the two great races which form it, but also between the different provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I am a member-


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Léon Balcer: I am a member for Canada, I have been elected in Three Rivers, a city 97 per cent of which-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Léon Balcer: -97 per cent of which is French speaking. The people I represent do not have any inferiority complex. I am proud of being a French Canadian and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member for Ville-neuve is rising on a question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Three Rivers is giving a dishonest interpretation of the subamendment. There is no suggestion of a division in the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Three Rivers has the floor and I would suggest he continue with his remarks.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am not here to legislate only in matters of interest to my province. I am here to take an interest in the affairs of the whole country. I know for a fact that the province of Quebec will be strong and prosperous inasmuch as the whole of Canada is strong and prosperous, and vice versa.
I am here to lend a hand to all members, be they French speaking or English speaking, who want to work for the good of our country. Indeed, such are the basic principles of the Conservative party which led to the birth of confederation as we know it today.
Mr. Speaker, we are against nuclear stockpiling anywhere in Canada, especially when it is forced upon us by foreigners.
One of the members of the Ralliement Creditistes claimed that he was the spokesman for the province of Quebec in the house. Well, it would be most depressing, to say the least, if this ridiculous subamendment expressed the views of the people of Quebec.
We are glad that the province of Quebec is undergoing great social changes at present. French Canadians intend to exercise all their rights as citizens of Canada, and they are willing to assume their responsibilities. The French Canadians I know wish to play a role of national importance; they will not be confined within a ghetto as the Caouette group advocates.
Mr. Speaker, if the latter had wanted to defeat the government, they would have moved a subamendment which would apply to the whole of Canada. Instead, they propose a division of Canada which would turn the province of Quebec into a reserve.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 8.15 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 (d) of standing order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment or amendments now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Halifax.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis).


Margaret McTavish Konantz: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Margaret McTavish Konantz: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Pension Legislation Delayed



PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the house
reaches a decision on the main motion I rise to register a grievance. The grievance I wish to raise is that we have been completely unable in the latter part of this session of the House of Commons to get a clear statement from the government that it is going to proceed at this session of parliament with one of its own major pieces of legislation. I refer to the Canada pension plan. Every hon. member in this house knows that the Canada pension plan was a major point in the platform of the Liberal party during the election which the Liberals won on April 8 this year. I do not think it would be out of place to say that if it had not been for the precise nature of that promise, the clearcut way in which it was put, and for the assurance to the Canadian people that the Canada pension plan would be brought in right away, there is every possibility that the Liberals would not have won the election on April 8. It was the keystone in the arch of their program, and I submit that we in this house and the people of this country have a real grievance because of the delay on the part of the government in proceeding with this plan. Moreover, the government is still unwilling to tell us that the plan will be proceeded with at this session of parliament.
It is very popular in the House of Commons, particularly just after an election campaign, to produce the election literature published by other parties. I have in my hand a copy of a leaflet put out by the National Liberal Federation of Canada entitled "Better Pensions for All".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I note the support which there appears to be on the Liberal side of the house for this plank in the Liberal platform, and I hope those on the treasury benches will note the support of the backbenchers and give them a chance at an early date to vote for this plan. I note that that request which I have just made on behalf of the backbench Liberals to their cabinet ministers has been endorsed by the backbench Liberals.
In this leaflet the details of the proposed plan were spelled out quite fully, and I notice in the leaflet these two significant sentences:
This plan has now been developed. A new Liberal government can act promptly.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that everyone in Canada, both those who supported the Liberals and those who were opposed to them,

Pension Legislation Delayed believed that the Liberals meant this promise, and that they would act upon it in this session of parliament. So when we came here for the opening of the session on May 16 we were not surprised-indeed we were pleased-to hear in the speech from the throne read to us in the other place, as recorded on page 7 of our own Hansard for May 16, the promise that this Canada pension plan would be implemented. The paragraph reads in these words:
My ministers have undertaken to establish a comprehensive system of contributory pensions. The new pensions will be co-ordinated with the existing provisions for old age security, for the purpose of enabling all Canadians to retire in security and with dignity. While the arrangements required for this great advance in the social security of our people are necessarily complex, the legislation submitted to you will be designed to make the new pension plan operative as soon as possible.
A few days later, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), when taking part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, uttered these interesting words as reported in Hansard for May 20, 1963, at page 57:
We said during the campaign and subsequently -and, indeed, earlier in this house, in more detail, I believe, than any opposition party ever gave before, what we would do and in what order we would do it. Now we are taking steps to do what we said we would do. The intentions of the government as set out this year in the speech from the throne are not vague aspirations to be acted on some time, maybe never. We have set out simply in the speech the main matters we intend to bring forward during this session.
There you have, Mr. Speaker, a clear confirmation of the Liberal promise during the election campaign to bring in the Canada pension plan, a promise set out in the speech from the throne and confirmed by the Prime Minister in his first major speech in this House of Commons. Despite that kind of assurance, some of us have had previous experience in parliament of the Liberal party. I recall particularly their first announcements and promises to the Canadian people in the field of social security. They were made in 1919, and some of us know how long it took to get some of those promises implemented. We are still trying to get implementation of some of the things promised in 1919.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question. Would he mention a single piece of social legislation promised by the Liberal party in 1919, or even as late as 1945, which has ever been introduced and enacted in this parliament by any party other than the Liberal party?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Secretary of State seems to be proud of the way in which the Liberals have been prodded by opposition parties into bringing forward some of the measures which

they themselves advocated. In 1919 the Liberal party promised old age pensions, unemployment insurance and health insurance. It was seven or eight years before we got old age pensions. It was 21 years before we got unemployment insurance. We are still waiting for health insurance. So I suggest that if the Secretary of State has any more questions he might word them more appropriately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I notice the hon. gentleman did not answer my question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because of this experience, some of us began early in this session trying to pin the government down, to secure a firm undertaking that the government would go through with the implementation of the Canada pension plan. The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows what she said when I asked her the first few times about the plan. She told me to contain myself in patience, that I would soon see the bill. I kept on asking her. I put questions to her on this subject on May 20 and May 22, and each time I was told the legislation would come soon. Then, on June 8 the hon. lady went to Hamilton and made a speech before a Liberal organization down there giving details of the Canada pension plan which was to be introduced in the House of Commons. A couple of days later I asked her if she would be good enough to tell the house what she had told the Liberals in Hamilton. She assured me that the details of the plan would soon be placed before us. On June 19, incidentally, the 59th day this government was in office-everyone knows how those first 60 days went by-the minister did succeed in giving notice of the resolution preceding the bill to set up the Canada pension plan. It appeared on our notice paper on June 20, which was the 60th day the present government was in office. And the government was very proud that it had got that far in the first 60 days. But all of this is to be seen in the light of the election promise that Liberal government would be prepared to act promptly in this matter.
On June 21, the resolution was transferred from government notices of motion to government orders and it looked as though we were making progress. A few days later the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) sent his famous letter to the premiers of the provinces about questions of social security beyond old age security and beyond the Canada pension plan, which seemed to me to suggest that a way was being opened up for delay. So I asked the Prime Minister on June 26 whether the result of his letter might be to cause delay in the implementation of the Canada pension plan. The right hon. gentleman assured me that such would not be the case. That is the story over a considerable period of time. There was

the promise of action, confirmation of that promise, assurances that if we would just wait we would see the bill and get going. Finally, on July 18, the motion respecting the resolution preceding the bill to bring in the plan was moved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As hon. members all know, we had that one day's debate, and that is all the opportunity we have had for discussion of the matter in this house.
I would remind hon. members opposite that during the debate of July 18 the hon. lady said some interesting and significant things. She said the plan had been worked out in considerable detail, and I agree with her. She said that, provided the house could move with reasonable expedition in passing this legislation, it would be possible for contributions to the new plan to commence in October, 1964, and for certain of the benefits under the plan to begin in January, 1966. There were two main benefits which were to start in January, 1966. The first was to be payments under the pension plan itself of say, $10 a month, to people who had contributed for a couple of years and who had reached the age of 70. The other benefit would be the right of people to take a pension at an earlier age, such as 65 or any age between 65 and 70.
The point I wish to make is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare made it clear that, in order to get the plan going so that contributions could be made in October of 1964 and so that people could begin deriving benefits by January, 1966, the legislation had to be put through parliament as expeditiously as possible. Yet here we are at the end of October, having waited since July 18, and this house has not been given an opportunity to proceed further with that legislation.
All of us know what has happened in the meantime-the furore which has been raised about the plan, notably by the insurance companies and other private interests who think that pension plans of this sort should not be handled by the government. We know there have also been complaints by some of the provinces which resulted in this question being discussed at the federal-provincial conference held while the house was in summer recess. I recognize that, as a result of what took place at that conference, certain decisions were made and certain changes were made. It was decided at that time, I think partly because of what happened at the conference but partly because of protests which came from opposition parties and from people throughout the length and breadth of the country, to separate the $10 increase in old age security benefits from the Canada pension plan and to put it into effect forthwith. That was a good decision. That increase
Pension Legislation Delayed was brought in on September 30, or at least it was first moved on that date, and now it is part of the law of the land. But one of the byproducts of this change has been that nothing further has been done to go ahead with the Canada pension plan itself.
The minister may say there was an undertaking to consult with the provinces and that there is another federal-provincial conference coming up in the month of November to discuss this plan and other related matters. But surely we have the right to know the intention of the federal government with respect to this legislation, which is still on our order paper and concerning which nothing has been done since July 18. Attempts which have been made since we resumed on September 30 to extract from the Minister of National Health and Welfare or from the Prime Minister any kind of assurance that the measure will be proceeded with at this session have been utterly unsuccessful. This is so, despite the fact that the hon. lady herself pleaded, on July 18, for expedition so that the benefits of the plan could reach our people at the earliest possible date. On September 30, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare introduced a resolution providing for the $10 increase in old age security payments she said this, as reported in Hansard at page 3038:
This present measure is a solid step in the right direction but the government sincerely hopes that the Canada pension plan will be introduced before too long to provide adequately for the retirement of our older people.
During the election campaign there was no doubt about it. It would be done. According to the speech from the throne, it would be done. According to the speech made by the Prime Minister in the debate on the address, it would be done. Throughout May and June the minister told us to possess our souls in patience, because it would be done. But on September 30 the hon. lady merely hopes it will be introduced before too long.
By October 15 I was finding it difficult to possess my soul in patience much longer. So I asked the Prime Minister whether he could give us an assurance that the plan would be proceeded with during the present session. In reply, as is reported on page 3579 of Hansard for October 15, the right hon. gentleman said:
We intend to proceed with legislation In this matter as soon as possible.
The exchange continued:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would it be possible for the Prime Minister to say whether that "as soon as possible" means this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It depends among other things on the hon. gentleman and all hon. members of the house and how long we take over the legislation we are now considering.

Pension Legislation Delayed
This refers to legislation which had been promised, legislation which was considered so important that it was the keystone in the arch of the Liberal victory in April; it was something many people had counted on; it was legislation which they had been led to expect would be enacted promptly. Yet now it is given such low priority that time spent by hon. members in discussing almost any other matter is allowed to stand in the way of its implementation.
On October 18, as reported at page 3735 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister, because there had been a statement on this subject by Premier Robarts, whether we could have an assurance that the plan would be proceeded with at this session of parliament. His answer was:
I have already indicated that the Canada pension plan will be proceeded with as soon as possible.
I then asked as a supplementary question:
Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that that answer has been interpreted as meaning the plan is to be put off until a later session? Can he not give a definite answer with respect to this session?
To this, the Prime Minister replied that he was not responsible for other people's interpretations. When my hon. friend from Bur-naby-Coquitlam made an observation to the effect that this interpretation was apparently being made by none other than the premier of Ontario, the Prime Minister replied:
Any interpretation of that kind that the plan will not be proceeded with at this session would certainly be premature.
He did not deny the interpretation. He just said it was too soon to put that kind of interpretation upon it. A few days later I asked the Prime Minister if he would give the house a line-up of the business to be dealt with during the balance of the session, and he indicated he would. It is no secret that one of the things I hoped he would include in that list was the Canada pension plan legislation. I got no satisfaction in that respect. On the orders of the day this afternoon, I asked the question whether in view of the statement which the Minister of National Health and Welfare made to the national Liberal women's federation yesterday, that the plan would be proceeded with either this session or at the next, the Prime Minister could tell us which it is to be-this session or next. He gave the same answer- "as soon as possible".
The other day in another exchange the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that the government is as interested as ever in the Canada pension plan and is discussing the matter with the provinces. Surely, Mr. Speaker, my grievance is quite clear that there is a world of difference between the assurance in the election campaign that it would be


proceeded with, between the categorical statement in the speech from the throne that it was coming, between the Prime Minister's assurance in his speech that these things would be proceeded with at this session, between the earlier statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare that her career was tied to this pension plan and if the pension plan went down she would go down too, between all of these assurances and the statements we are now getting that it will be as soon as possible, maybe this session, maybe next, and that the government is still interested in the Canada pension plan.
I think that statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is really the pay-off. This is the government's baby. This is the keystone in the arch of the Liberal success at the last election. This was the one precise proposal. Most of the rest of the things that the Liberals talked about in the campaign, apart from the position they were going to take on nuclear arms, were in vague generalities. Here was something that was precise. But now, instead of its being something about which we can get a firm answer that the government is going ahead, we are told by the responsible minister, the minister who was prepared to tie her career to this, only that the government is still interested in the Canada pension plan. We contend that this house deserves more than that from the government. We contend that the people of Canada deserve more than that from the government. We contend that we have the right to the assurance that this plan is going to be proceeded with at this session of parliament.
As I have already said, the Minister of National Health and Welfare herself gave a timetable when she spoke on the 18th of July. Surely this makes it quite clear that if the plan is not proceeded with at this session, if it is put off until 1964, the whole timetable will have to be pushed along. That will mean that contributions will not start in the fall of 1964 but will start in 1965 or 1966 or 1967. Every year that the beginning of the contributions is put off puts off the first year in which benefits will be enjoyed by people who are reaching the age of 70. If the plan were carried forward as promised it would mean that people who are now 68 years of age could count on an addition to their old age security out of the Canada pension plan when they reach 70 and, of course, people 67, 66 and down could all count on such a supplement. But if the plan is put off it means that the 68-year olds can kiss that idea goodbye. It means it is gone for the 69-year-olds. It means we will have again another round of the whole need for raising the flat rate benefit of old age security itself.

I should like to stress this angle, that the whole question of getting our old age security on a good, firm, sound basis ought to be by means of combining a contributory plan with the flat rate benefit, and unless we do it at a time like this we are going to have to change the relationship, change the calculations, increase the old age security benefit again and go through the whole round with all the difficulties we have had.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that not only was this one of the major promises in the Liberal platform at the last election, but that it is the most important domestic issue that has been placed before parliament. As I say, it was put on the order paper back on the 20th or 21st of June and was first debated on the 18th of July. But now it stands waiting while the government tries to make up its mind whether it is just interested in the plan or whether it is really going to go ahead with it.
A good deal gets said in the course of all this about the position of the province of Quebec and the position of the province of Ontario. The federal government talks more about Ontario than it talks about Quebec, although Mr. Lesage is making it just as difficult to bring this plan into being as is Mr. Robarts. But I should like to make the point that Mr. Robarts' statements have been pretty clear. There was a real fight over this matter in the recent Ontario election and an attempt was made to cast Mr. Robarts in the role of being an opponent of the Canada pension plan. Maybe in some respects he was. Maybe he preferred his plan. But since the election he has given a clear indication that if the Canada pension plan is going to be brought in his government will delay the implementation of the portable pension plan proposed for Ontario. But he has said that if the Canada pension plan is not put through at this session, if it is shelved, then Ontario will have no option but to bring in its plan and to provide for it to become effective perhaps in 1965.
It seems to me that is not a threat on the part of Mr. Robarts. I am the last person in the house who feels any need to defend Mr. Robarts, but I suggest we need to look at this thing fairly. He has not posed any threat. As a matter of fact, he has left the door open for the federal government to bring in its plan at this session. He is trying to hurry the federal government along. I understand that the Ontario government has named its members to a committee to discuss the technical aspects of the whole business with the federal government, and it seems to me that so far as public representatives are concerned, so far as the public view is concerned, the time is ripe for the plan to be proceeded with at this session of parliament.
Pension Legislation Delayed
I urge, Mr. Speaker, that we do not continue to be given these "as soon as possible" answers, that we do not continue to be told that the government is merely interested and, above all, I suggest that the government must not use the excuse that it cannot get on with this business because the house does not deal with other matters as expeditiously as it would like. As I pointed out when I put a question to the Prime Minister the other day, there are 20 or 25 items of business on the order paper. When house business is announced there are never more than four or five referred to. There are another 15 or 20 that are never suggested. We may get some light on the government's intentions on Monday, but so far we have no list of priorities. We feel this subject should be given top priority and that there should be no further delay in assuring the house that it will be proceeded with at this session.
I am prepared to hear the government say that the motion cannot be proceeded with until after the federal-provincial talks have been held in the month of November, but there is no question but that this session of parliament is going to last quite a bit longer than that. I think we are all assuming we will be here pretty well up to Christmas eve, if not longer, and I think we should have the positive assurance of the government that as soon as the November talks are over this plan will be proceeded with.
Obviously some changes are going to have to be made. The resolution that is still on the order paper and which was debated on the 18th of July does not take into consideration the fact that a $10 increase has now been made in old age security payments. It does not take into consideration the opting out that Premier Lesage has expressed on behalf of Quebec. These facts have got to be met. Let us have them met. Let us have a new resolution introduced. Let us have a new actuarial report similar to that excellent one prepared by the government actuary, so that we will have that picture up to date.
In my view the Minister of National Health and Welfare has done a good job in trying to answer attacks on the plan by the insurance companies. The speech that was made in her name in Toronto on Monday, September 30, by her parliamentary secretary, was an effective answer to the insurance companies' attacks on the plan. But in the meantime we read in the column in Maclean's magazine written by no less a friend of the Liberal party than Peter Newman that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has only five other members of the cabinet who still support her on this plan, and at the same time the Prime Minister himself says only "as soon as possible".

Pension Legislation Delayed
This, Mr. Speaker, is not good enough. This is an important item in the Liberal government program, but it is more than that. It is something that now belongs to the House of Commons. It is something that now belongs to the Canadian people. The responsibility for any further delay rests upon the government and I call upon the government for a clear statement that the plan will be proceeded with at this session of parliament.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has raised as a grievance this evening the Canada pension plan and the fact that it has not proceeded through all stages in the house. He has asked as well for a clear statement that the government will proceed with the plan during this session which, as my hon. friend knows, perhaps has only another month or two to run. I should like to draw to my hon. friend's attention the agenda already before the house involving business which must be done, including even supply motions and all the estimates which must be brought forward and discussed.
My hon. friend will realize how little time is left for legislation between now and the end of this session. I ask him to bear that in mind as a framework in listening to the remarks which I should like to make this evening regarding the present status of the Canada pension plan.
There is no suggestion in the mind of the government that the plan is to be shelved. I know my hon. friend has spoken as he has and has raised this matter and sought an assurance from the government because of his interest in this social legislation. I know he does not raise it in an attempt to harm the possibility of such legislation being enacted for the benefit of the Canadian people. My hon. friend knows, I think, Mr. Speaker, that I am not, by nature, a patient individual. Indeed, some misguided individuals in this country have called me precipitate on occasion. Surely then, as the minister responsible for this legislation my hon. friend must realize that my inclination would be rather to press on with the matter. This being the case he will, and perhaps other members will, understand how if I am prepared to be patient, I have the temerity to ask him and other hon. members also to be patient.
In July of this year a resolution which was on the order paper was opened for debate, and a one day debate only was had upon it. This debate occasioned the rather unusual step, namely, the introduction of a white paper on the plan in order that information might be had abroad in the country as well

as in the house as quickly as possible concerning the framework of the Canada pension plan. My hon. friend knows the steps of legislation in this house much better than I, and he knows that normally we would have proceeded through the stages of the introduction of a bill in order for this amount of detail to be given. Since it was felt by the government that the details should be available as fully and as quickly as possible, a white paper was prepared and introduced on the first day of the resolution stage. This white paper set out broadly, and in some particularity, the intention of the government in respect of this legislation.
This was a matter which had priority; this was a matter included in the speech from the throne. But, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, there is a new spirit of co-operative federalism abroad in this country, one which requires and demands further consultation with the provinces than perhaps ever before occurred. I think my hon. friend will agree with most hon. members on both sides of the chamber that such consultation is good. The federal government must bear in mind that its responsibility is to enact federal legislation. But surely, sir, it is clear that when such legislation can be of the type which could collide with provincial legislation in some field it is necessary, so far as possible, to dovetail actions on the two levels.
Until this house rose for its adjournment, no new action had been taken in the pension field in the provinces. When this government came into authority, there had been a recent enactment by the province of Ontario. My hon. friend has made a study of pensions, I know, throughout much of his public career. He is aware of the type of legislation which was enacted, but is not yet in force, in Ontario. This particular type of legislation applies to only about one half of the labour force of that province. It incorporates, so far as it is possible in a province, that principle to which I think members on all sides of the house adhere, the portability of benefits from one job to another. But it is necessarily confined only to the province of Ontario.
It has still another problem which does not attract support to it from many quarters, that is it is not a state plan as such, not introduced, funded or supported in any way by a provincial government, but is a regulatory system only. It requires any employer of 15 or more people to bring into force a contributory pension plan calling for contributions, in most cases, from both employee and employer but without stating the amount of those contributions and setting minimal standards. The minimal standards would call for in some 40 years the payment of about

$80 a month to the individual contributor. There is nothing, of course, in the legislation to prohibit any employer-employee arrangement to provide for a greater pension. But because it is compulsory on the group with which it deals, care must be taken not to require too heavy a burden, particularly with the impact all at one time, upon the Ontario employer and employee.
Now, Mr. Speaker, at least the principle of a plan which is available to every person in the labouring force of Canada, to all 6.5 million people, is the kind of principle to which this house should be addressing itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear; now it is unanimous.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The figures to which I have had recourse are from a 1960 publication by the dominion bureau of statistics. This indicates that about 1.7 million people in our labour force have some kind of pension plan. This does not mean that they have a full pension plan with a decent standard of repayment, but simply means that they have some kind of a plan. 1 do not believe that 1.7 million people out of a labour force of 6.5 million is anything near sufficient opportunity for our Canadian labour force.
Within the province of Ontario, were the Ontario legislation to be proceeded with-and I do not suggest it is bad legislation-I would suggest that type of legislation does not go far enough. By virtue of the fact it is not compulsory for all the labour force, it does not occupy the field in so far as legislation for old age purposes is concerned. Therefore, there has been an invitation to Ontario to set aside to some degree its own legislation-this after all is a decision of the Ontario legislature and not even of the federal members from Ontario-in order that a truly universal Canadian pension plan might be brought into being.
My hon. friend has referred to some recent comments by the premier of Ontario. He knows that as a result of the conference which was set up in September of this year between the officials and ministers of each province and the federal government there arose, after two days of discussion, a decision to set up a technical committee to attempt to find a solution to the problems existing as between the Ontario and federal plans. I reported, I believe the other day, and can now tell my hon. friend, that the first meeting of this technical committee will be held this week. It is not a meeting of ministers or prime ministers but of technical people only. This will, in effect, be the third time upon which there has been some kind of dialogue between Ontario and federal authorities in the field of pensions.
28902-5-266
Pension Legislation Delayed
The first, brief though it was, was at the conference held shortly after the introduction of the resolution on the Canada pension plan, in which the premiers attended with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and had some opportunity to deal with this situation. Hon. members will recall that the matter of the municipal loan legislation was also before that meeting, and because there was such a shortage of time it was agreed that there should be a further meeting at the department level. This was held early in September. Following it, as I say, there was a decision to set up the technical committee which is now meeting.
I think it is no secret to any member of this house that in the interval there has been a provincial election in the province of Ontario, and that while an election is in progress there is a hiatus in the provincial or federal field during which no decision can be made. Accordingly, we are encouraged that the technical committee which was set up will be meeting this week and we will have a further opportunity to discuss this matter in depth with all the provinces at the meeting, which is being held to discuss all facets of dominion-provincial relations, and particularly the economic facet. This meeting is to be held here on November 25. Presupposing there was complete unanimity between the provinces and the federal government, this meeting would probably take about a week.
My hon. friend will see, then, that there would be some three weeks left in the life of this particular session. I believe my hon. friend has been watching with some care the developments in relation to the Canada pension scheme and has seen, in fact he referred to it, considerable pressure built up against it in a lobby outside of this House of Commons. While all parties have been committed to the principle of a Canada-wide contributory pension scheme, we do not know and cannot know until a vote is called in the house, how each and every member of the house is committed to either this or some other comparable scheme. It is no secret that members have been receiving a considerable amount of correspondence, and in some cases visitations here and in their constituencies from individuals whose purpose is to see that the plan is not enacted.
Some of the remarks which have been made outside this house have been unhappily most intemperate. I do not attempt now to say that some of the intemperance is not on my own part, but I feel very devoutly about this type of legislation and the necessity for its immediate introduction for the welfare of our people. If I need to make an apology
4184	HOUSE OF
Pension Legislation Delayed to the people of this country, it is only because I am so anxious they will have this opportunity that I have been perhaps somewhat intemperate in my remarks. But there are others who have far less excuse, others who from their position in years alone might be expected to deal with the matter in a different way.
We have had a type of document sent around the country which says, "let us create a storm"; language which has been careless in the extreme, and which on occasion has gone out of its way to indicate one point of view only, and to leave unsaid all those things which might be said on behalf of this type of scheme.
A government cannot at this stage use public funds or hire any individual to start producing glossy literature. A government has only its spokesmen and its members; but hon. members of the house have not seen the Canada pension plan, and indeed should not until we reach that stage of the legislative process where it is produced. That being the case everyone, and to some extent even the minister concerned, must feel in a vacuum, because until questions are resolved between the provinces and the federal government it is unfair to ask me to be dogmatic about certain points with respect to the plan.
I know members of parliament in all parties are anxious to go out on the hustings and talk to people in their constituencies about the benefits to be obtained, benefits which can only be obtained from a state run, universal, contributory pension scheme, but it is necessary for them to wait until that stage in the legislative process where the bill will be before them.
In the meantime public opinion is being engendered against such a scheme, and we have seen representatives of at least one industry producing material, sending it across the country, and attempting to influence people in a quasi-govemmental position in our communities. Many of the individuals who produce this material do so in good faith. They simply disagree violently with this in principle, and as free citizens in a free country they have a right to say so. It may be of some concern to some individuals as to exactly whose money they are using to promote their ideas, but that is not for them to answer in the House of Commons. They have to answer for that somewhere else.
There has been fear in some parts of the country that there may be an intolerable burden introduced upon the shoulders of the manufacturers, and a fear as well that the government has acted precipitously and without understanding the problems involved, and without the requisite amount of work.


Paul Raymond Martineau: That is right.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, someone says that is right. I can only assume the hon. member did not take time to read the very lengthy document which was circulated. Surely no member of the house in any party can object to the way the government has treated all hon. members in this regard. Not only was the white paper produced in both our official languages and sent to every member but, during our adjournment, the actuarial report, prepared after months of work by first class people in our public service, was sent to every member of parliament for perusal and study.
My hon. friend who speaks for the New Democratic party has himself on one occasion during the question period given an indication that a well known actuarial firm in its monthly newsletter referred in glowing tones to the government's actuarial report, and it is a fact that not one solitary voice in this country has demonstrated in any way or even attempted to attack the actuarial basis of the pension plan as being incorrect or fraudulent. The only attack upon this document has been made with respect to certain assumptions which have been made.
I am not an actuary, Mr. Speaker. My knowledge of pensions was practically nonexistent before I took this post, but I have done what I thought necessary and have worked to try to learn everything I could about pensions. However, I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have the utmost faith in those who prepared the actuarial report, and who prepared it without instructions as to what assumptions they would make.
I do not often use this word with approval, but the only instructions given the actuaries were that they were to use conservative estimates, and this they did. They prepared conservative estimates high and low. They showed to all who would read it what the plan would cost and, Mr. Speaker, we did not project it ten years, 25 years or 40 years. We projected it for nearly 100 years so that people could see what the basis was and, bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, not one person has attacked the reason for that plan.
Some assumptions have been attacked, one in particular with respect to the amount of unemployment in the short term. I repeat that no instructions were given by any representative of the government to the actuaries. They were told to use a conservative figure, and they used a figure of 6 per cent. Mr. Speaker, look at the figure produced the other day with regard to unemployment in Canada last month. I suggest to you that 6 per cent is, under a Liberal government, a

most conservative figure. Obviously therefore, if there are more people at work there will be produced, at the same rate of contribution, more money for the basis of the plan.
There were other assumptions which were attacked, some with respect to the longevity of our citizens and some with respect to the rate of immigration and the rate of fertility. These are actuarial assumptions and, in effect, as would be the case whether prepared by our actuaries or anyone else, these assumptions are educated guesses, because how can anyone in 1963 know with any degree of certainty what will be the situation of this country in 100 years? We do not know what the flow of immigration will be and what advances will be made with respect to the longevity of our people. But conservative estimates have been made, and high and low figures have been produced to indicate what the contribution rate will be.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in a personal attempt to find out everything I could about pension schemes, and as much as anything else to test my own belief in the public servants who were preparing this plan, I took three weeks during our break this summer and went to western Europe, to countries which are most closely comparable with Canada, to countries with which we must compete, to industrial countries, every one of which has in existence a national contributory pension scheme.
There is no question that the country to the south of us has had a similar type of scheme for some 30 odd years. The countries of Australia and New Zealand have also adopted such schemes, and they have realized, as has been suggested here, that flat rate pensions are not sufficient. I went to find out what the arguments against the introduction of such a scheme had been in countries like West Germany, Britain, France, Holland and the Scandinavian countries, and I found out that the spectres raised here were the same spectres raised by much the same interests in those countries prior to the adoption of their plans. I asked some things of government officials and ministers.
I should perhaps point out to hon. members that these plans have been enacted by almost the whole spectrum of governments in Europe, from rightist to leftist; but I asked why certain things were done, questions which cannot be answered by an exchange of correspondence but only by face to face confrontation. I at least satisfied myself that the people who worked out our plan knew exactly what they were doing. They had recourse to information respecting all these European plans, and we selected and put together what we thought was the 28902-5-266i
Pension Legislation Delayed best package possible for the people of this country.


Georges-J. Valade: May I ask the minister a question. Just as a matter of clarification, since she went to find out all the objections in European countries to this kind of scheme, could she explain to the house if she found out the real objections of Mr. Lesage and, if so, could she elaborate on this point?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am glad my hon. friend raises this because I regret that I neglected to mention Quebec, in this particular context. Originally the question was asked of me why it was that I was directing fire against Ontario and not against Quebec. I should like to make this clear, because there is a simple answer. I am sure most hon. members of the house know the provisions of the British North America Act amendment which was enacted at the time the flat rate $40 a month old age security was brought into effect. Many people on the benches opposite and on these benches were here then. That rather peculiarly worded subsection says that there is concurrent jurisdiction in the provinces and in the federal government to deal with old age security, but that no federal legislation may affect present or future provincial legislation. Opinions have been taken as to what "affect" may mean- legal opinions from our department and the Department of Justice. It appears clear, however, that if the province occupies the field, covers it for all those in the province, makes it compulsory to all, and provides a sufficient plan, then there is no room for anyone else. There would be no room, in law, for the Canada pension plan, and not only might it be a danger to attempt to enforce it within our constitutional framework because of the social implications, but also because of the legal implications. For had the province of Quebec then attempted to fight off legally the Canada pension plan, it might have been decided to be ultra vires the federal parliament not only for Quebec but for all of Canada.
Accordingly when the resolution was enacted by the provincial legislation with Quebec declaring, as they have every right to do-and hon. members may look at the language-that they would enact a universal comprehensive plan, the federal government, in light of the legal situation and this one narrow piece of the B.N.A. Act, had absolutely no choice but to stand back from the borders of Quebec with respect to Canada pensions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the hon. lady a question. Does the government consider a resolution expressing an intention as occupying a field?

Pension Legislation Delayed


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I can only say this, that the resolution was passed unanimously by the provincial legislature, and that statements have been made by the premier which indicate that if the federal government acted precipitately to come into the field, a special session would be called and legislation introduced in Quebec. I suggest it really would not matter, because even if the Canada pension plan were first enacted and subsequently a provincial plan were enacted in the province of Quebec, the same effect would follow because of the phraseology of the B.N.A. Act. There is no question that I would prefer, and I think all hon. members would prefer, to have one plan to embrace our country. This is not possible under the present circumstances unless, as they may do, and as they have the right to do, and as I would entreat them to do, the representatives of Quebec within her provincial legislature reconsider the matter and come under the umbrella of one Canada-wide plan. This and this alone is the reason why no attack has been made on Quebec, why no entreaties have been held out to her, because her legal position is so very different from that of the province of Ontario.
I was speaking before about the attacks made against this scheme. I think at least a couple of hon. members have put a motion on the order paper asking for production of correspondence dealing with the Canada pension plan. We in my department have taken a box score of how these have been running. Letters from individuals have run three to one in favour of the Canada pension plan. However, I must confess that from organizations such as insurance companies and trust company offices almost the opposite ratio has been true. It now remains to educate those in the insurance and trust company field.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the hon. lady a question. If the government has given the plan such thorough study as the minister has indicated, why is it now proposed to refer the matter to a committee?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thank my hon. friend for his question, with which I was just about to deal. I should have thought from what I have said that it was clear that it was now necessary to educate insurance men and trust company men, and the only way we can educate them-


Paul Raymond Martineau: It is the government which needs educating.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I realize we cannot get them elected to the backbenches in time to deal with this plan, but we must give them the opportunity to appear before the hon. members of this house, and I would hope of the
XMr. Douglas.]

other place, who would take under their hands the study of this legislation. There has been a request from many sources in the country for a study of the Canada pension plan by a committee of this place. This government has no intention despite this minister's personal desires for precipitate action, to stampede into action which is misunderstood and against which there has been a deliberate lobby of misinformation. Accordingly, there is only one way for the people of the country to understand what this plan is, and that is to lay it before the people's representatives for study. I would hope that that committee would be set up and would call before it those who have made public statements against the principle and the details of this legislation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, may I say to the house that I will, as I have in the past few weeks, make available all the information possible to any and every member of this house in order that they may discuss it with their constituents and with those who would oppose it. The government will take every opportunity to discuss the matter with provincial governments, for we hope that this will lead to close co-operation and the early introduction of the legislation and, in conjunction with the studies conducted by the provinces, provide the house the opportunity for further thorough study.
I still hope this plan can be brought in and passed by all members of this house in order that the timetable which has been referred to will be met. If I may mention the timetable, it may be recalled that the registration was to be in March 1964. We hope that registration will be proceeded with, for its purpose was not only for the Canada pension plan but for a couple of other governmental purposes, namely that of the unemployment insurance commission. It is our intention to proceed with the numbering or renumbering in early 1964, provided we are able to obtain the understanding of the provinces, and to have a thorough discussion of the question in committee. There seems no reason to suppose that we will not be able with care to make the original timetable. In short, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to my hon. friend that I am indeed grateful for this opportunity to clarify a few matters in the House of Commons, and to say that it is the intention of the government and of my ministry to continue with this legislation, which we believe will be for the betterment of all of our Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Motion (Mr. Gordon) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $976,200.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $9,913,200.

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, $5,270,500.
Proceedings reported.

Mr. Nowlan:: Before the house rises, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house leader would tell us with what business we will be dealing during the rest of this week?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I would be happy to. It is the intention of the government, as soon as we reach orders of the day tomorrow, to go on with the second reading of the Income Tax Act, and then with the committee stage as soon as the second reading has been adopted. That will be the business also on Thursday. I have spoken to the hon. gentlemen opposite to whom I usually speak about these matters, and I understand there would be no objection, if the income tax measure should not be completed before five o'clock on Thursday, to going on with it on Thursday evening until such time as it is completed. If it should be completed before the end of the evening on Thursday I would arrange to have one of the ministers ready to go on with estimates for the rest of the evening until 10.30. Of course, on Friday evening we will take estimates. What I have in mind would be the Department of Forestry, with the estimates of the Department of Public Works available when the estimates of the Department of Forestry have been completed.
Business of the House


George Clyde Nowlan: When the leader of the house suggests we continue on Thursday evening until the income tax measure is completed, he is suggesting, I take it, we go on until the usual hour of adjournment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Knowing how anxious hon. gentlemen opposite are to get on with the business of the country, I naturally assumed we would complete it.
Perhaps I should indicate what business would probably be taken up after the completion of the income tax measure. There is, I think, an understanding in all parts of the house that the motion in the name of the Solicitor General to refer the consumer credit question to a committee could be disposed of after one speaker from each part of the house has spoken for not more than 10 minutes. On that understanding, once the income tax measure has been completed, the government would be prepared to make this the next item of business. We would like to get the committee on the C.N.R. set up if it seemed feasible to get it through fairly quickly. We would like to oblige the hon. member for Brandon-Souris by getting second reading promptly of the two bills respecting the territories so that the committee can go on with them without delay; and there are one or two other matters which the government is prepared to move forward if there is an opportunity, so that we may get on with the Canada pension plan more quickly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What estimates will be taken on Thursday night?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to consult my colleagues, to see who would be free, and I should also like to consult with hon. gentlemen in other parts of the house.


George Clyde Nowlan: Are there to be estimates on Thursday night?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Only if we get through with the other business.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, Oclober 30, 1963