1963-05-21

Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement respecting the surcharge on imports order that was passed by the previous government on June 24, 1962. As hon. members know the legality of this order has been challenged, and the matter is before the courts.
This poses a difficult problem because in many cases those who paid the surcharges, and who might now be entitled to claim refunds should the order be found to have been invalid, passed the amount of such surcharges on to their customers. These customers in turn may have passed the amount of the surcharges on to their customers, and so on. It would not be possible to unscramble a situation of this kind.
Accordingly I should like to inform the house that the government will be recommending legislation on the surcharge order. One effect of this proposed legislation would be to prevent any massive attempt at obtaining refund of moneys in fact paid by now unidentifiable Canadians, an action which would not be in the public interest.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of an economic council of Canada and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman, directors and other members of the council and for the payment of the remuneration of the chairman and directors and of certain other expenses of administration of the council, to provide further that the council may engage the services of such advisers and staff as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its duties and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to promote increased employment in Canada by the provision of financial assistance by way of loans to municipalities, the object of such loans being to enable municipalities to augment or accelerate their capital works programs subject to the approval of the provinces concerned; and for this purpose to provide a special fund in the consolidated revenue fund not exceeding four hundred million dollars to be available for the making of loans to municipalities and certain other municipal authorities for specific municipal capital works projects; to establish a municipal development and loan board to administer the fund so provided; to authorize the acceptance of municipal debentures for any loans so made; to authorize a measure of forgiveness in respect of any loans so made, depending upon the date of completion of the projects for which such loans are made; and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure (a) to establish a department of industry to be presided over by a minister of industry who shall be appointed under the Great Seal of Canada, to authorize the appointment of a deputy minister by the governor in council, and to provide for the appointment to the department on a temporary basis of persons having special knowledge of manufacturing industries to assist in the work of the department; (b) to provide for the establishment under the direction of the minister of an area development agency and to provide for the appointment of a commissioner and a deputy commissioner for area development; and (c) to make a consequential amendment to the Salaries Act to provide a salary for the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: that the house go into committee at

Introduction of Resolutions the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the Department of Agriculture, to provide that the department shall be presided over by a minister of agriculture (east) and a minister of agriculture (west) appointed under the Great Seal of Canada, and to make a consequential amendment to the Salaries Act to provide salaries for both ministers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act to increase the number of members of the Atlantic development board from five to eleven; to establish as a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund an Atlantic development fund to which shall be credited the sum of one hundred million dollars to be used for the purpose of financing or assisting in financing programs or projects that would contribute to the growth and development of the economy of the Atlantic region and for which satisfactory financing arrangements are not otherwise available; and to provide that the said act shall expire on the 24th day of January, 1969; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the said act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The Prime Minister:
That a special committee be appointed to consider matters relating to defence and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon: that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses; that it be empowered to adjourn from place to place; that standing order 67 be suspended in relation to the committee; and that the committee consist of 18 members to be designated by the house at a later date.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next

sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Act and to rename the said territories, and to effect certain consequential changes in the statute law with respect thereto, inter alia to increase the number of elected members of the council of the territory from four to five, to establish a separate territorial revenue fund and to provide for the transfer thereto of a portion of the amount standing to the credit of the Northwest Territories revenue account in the consolidated revenue fund upon the coming into force of the said measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Arthur Laing: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a new territory under the name of Nunassiaq territory and to provide for the government thereof and the administration of justice therein; to provide inter alia tor the appointment of a commissioner and deputy commissioner of the territory, the establishment of a council of the territory, the appointment and election and the tenure of the members thereof, the sessional indemnities for the elected members and one of the appointed members thereof, the travelling and living expenses of the members thereof and the legislative powers of the commissioner in council; to provide also for the payment of territorial revenues into the consolidated revenue fund and for the establishment therein of an account to be known as the Nunassiaq revenue account, to which shall be credited amounts equal to the territorial revenues paid from time to time into the consolidated revenue fund and all moneys appropriated by parliament to be credited to the said account; to provide also for the payment, out of the consolidated revenue fund, of money required for the territorial purposes specified in ordinances of the commissioner in council or, until the establishment of the first council of the territory, in orders of the commissioner, all such payments to be charged to the Nunassiaq revenue account; to provide also for the establishment of a territorial court and for the appointment of a judge and a deputy judge thereto; to provide also for the appointment of police magistrates in and for the territory and for the fixing of their salaries and allowances; to provide also that the governor in council may appoint justices of the peace in and for the territory and authorize payment of their remuneration and travelling and other expenses; and to provide further that the governor in council may appoint a clerk of the court, sheriff and such other officers as are deemed necessary for the administration of justice in the territory and fix their salaries and allowances.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether following his recent visit to the brigade in Europe he has made a decision to replace the non-explosive warheads on the Honest John rockets with atomic warheads, and permit the rocket battery crews to conduct practice shooting with live ammunition in order to complete their training.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: The question of the arming of the Honest John is one which is now under active consideration by the government and a decision will depend, I am sure, to a considerable extent on the outcome of negotiations now being carried on by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



PROTECTION OF MILITARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: wish to direct a question to the minister of defence. Have any additional security measures been instituted to protect military installations in the province of Quebec and, if so, what is the nature of these extra precautions?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Additional precautions have been taken but I am not in a position to advise the house exactly what they are because to do so would, I believe, prejudice the security which they afford. I hope they will be successful in discouraging the type of incident we have been experiencing. Everything possible is being done and every co-operation is being given to the government and premier of Quebec in the hope that this situation can be brought under control.



NUCLEAR WEAPONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask whether, as a result of his recent visit to Canadian military establishments in Germany, he is in a position to advise the house whether the ammunition dumps for nuclear warheads which were planned in the fall of 1961 have now been constructed, or what is the position respecting construction at each location?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably knows, one of the ammunition dumps which would be used by the Canadian brigade group if a bilateral agreement is signed with the United States is located at Hemer, and that has already been completed. These ammunition dumps are constructed under the infrastructure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and are not under our national control. Those for the air division have been approved, and one or two of those are now in the early stages of construction.
(Translation):



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the ministers in his cabinet, who were directors of companies or chartered banks, have given up their directorships in these firms following their appointments as ministers of the crown?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is a question on the order paper dealing with that matter.



DEFENCE RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. First, has the government of Canada received any communications from the government of Great Britain with respect to the possibility that the United States space needles project may be hampering scientific research of other nations? Second, has the minister received any information or advice from his scientific advisers in this respect?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: With regard to the second part of the question, I have had some discussion with officials in the Department of External Affairs. As to the first part of the question, I have not received any information.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: wish to direct a question to the Minister

Inquiries of the Ministry of Mines and Technical Surveys. It was recently indicated in the press that the minister visited Elliot Lake to discuss with municipal officials methods to improve economic conditions in the depressed uranium mining area. Would the hon. gentleman tell the house whether his efforts to improve the sale of uranium have been successful and the amount of any new contracts negotiated as a result of his visit?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question a few moments ago. Shortly after my appointment I did visit Elliot Lake in company with the minister of industry and resources of the province of Ontario, Mr. Robert Macaulay, and officials of both governments. We are looking into this question very seriously at the present time.



INQUIRY AS TO RETURN OP MINISTER PROM GENEVA

Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the newspaper report in this morning's press is correct, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is leaving Geneva and the GATT conversations there, and will be back in the house on Thursday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is anticipated that the minister will be in the house on Thursday.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND QUEBEC PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he recently been in touch with the premier of Quebec about a new taxsharing scheme?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member asked exactly the same question yesterday. The same question cannot be asked two, three and four times.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I put that question to the Minister of Justice but, since then, statements have been made to the effect that the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Quebec have had a telephone conversation on that subject; I am now seeking from the Prime Minister himself information on that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister can answer that question if he wishes, but he is under no obligation to do so this morning. (Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did have a telephone conversation with the premier of Quebec-I think it was last Friday evening-when we discussed matters of mutual interest.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Was a new taxsharing scheme included in these matters of mutual interest?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I noticed a report in this morning's Toronto Globe and Mail to the effect that the Prime Minister would be having discussions with Premier Lesage of Quebec concerning tax concessions. Will these discussions take place with a particular premier for a particular province prior to discussions with the other provincial premiers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am always happy to meet the provincial premiers on matters of mutual interest. Of course the question of fiscal relations with the provinces is one which should be discussed with all the heads of the governments of the provinces at a conference.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government during this session of parliament to introduce legislation requiring in federal industries a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour and hours of work, as promised last March in Hamilton by the right hon. gentleman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, who would normally reply to this question, is not in the house, being away on official business, but it is the intention of the government to deal with this matter as soon as possible.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of

the change of government some doubts have arisen with regard to the continuity of work on the Stanley park sea wall at the entrance to the harbour of Vancouver. Would the minister please clarify the position of the government in relation to the federal sea wall grant for this year?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. An item is included in the 1963-64 estimates of the department to continue construction of the Stanley park sea wall. Subject, of course, to the approval of parliament this amount will be available this year.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whom I wish to congratulate on his appointment. Can the minister tell the house what progress has been made by the international joint commission in their discussions on the advisability of developing a Richelieu river waterway?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. The house is already aware that, on July 5, 1962, the governments of Canada and the United States of America asked the international joint commission to examine this project under section IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty (1909). The commission is busily carrying out its review. In the course of its proceedings it intends to hold public hearings in that area during the week of September 16. These hearings will be held in Saint John, Sorel, Montreal, Plattsburg, Burlington and Albany, so as to enable individuals and private and public organizations to put forward their point of view. In July the commission will issue notices giving all the necessary details on those hearings.
(Text):



CAPE TORMENTINE, N.B.-BORDEN, P.E.I.   CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FERRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has construction of a
Inquiries of the Ministry new vessel to operate between Cape Tormen-tine, New Brunswick, and Borden, Prince Edward Island, been approved by the government?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Ask the Solicitor General. He knows.


John Angus MacLean: I should like to ask an additional question related to this matter. How is it possible that the minister does not have the answer readily available, when the announcement has already been made by one of his colleagues?



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Could he inform the house whether the government is contemplating action toward the implementation of any of the recommendations of the O'Leary report on publications?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is now under consideration, but I can tell my hon. friend that no action is likely to take place in the first part of the current session.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the wheat referendum in 21 states of the United States is being held today and there can now be no risk of being charged with interference in the affairs of a friendly nation, would the minister make a statement to the house as to the position of the Canadian government on this matter, and at the same time give some indication to farmers both east and west of action to be taken to meet the impact of the United States decision, whether yes or no?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, may we take this question as notice.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to direct a
question to the Prime Minister. In view of

Inquiries of the Ministry the fact that the wheat referendum being held in the United States today now puts the matter beyond any question of interference by any friendly nation, may I ask if this matter and the impact on Canadian agriculture was discussed with President Kennedy or any of his officials at Hyannis Port?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman may rest assured that agricultural problems of interest to both countries and other problems in the same category were discussed with the president at Hyannis Port.
(Translation):



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell us whether an agreement was signed between the state of Quebec and her department in respect to the program for fitness and amateur sport?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Chapleau for giving me notice of that question. The answer is, not yet.
(Text):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister who speaks for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a question relating to certain uncertainties that exist in St. John's, Newfoundland, which I know he will appreciate. Can he tell us whether and when the C.B.C. is to begin construction of its new television station in St. John's?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the B.B.G. made a recommendation shortly before the 8th of April and that the matter was then remitted, as it has to be, to the Department of Transport where it is under study by the technical officers of that department. I cannot give any further information until that study is completed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question.
Could the minister indicate, as the minister 
from Newfoundland, whether he and the government are in support of this particular project?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman's question raises a very important constitutional point, and that is whether Your Honour feels it is proper for ministers to be questioned on matters that are not directly concerned with their responsibilities to this house merely because of the geographical location of their constituencies. I believe this is an important point, not in this particular case but in others, and I believe your predecessors have always ruled that it is not proper to ask ministers questions in the House of Commons except about those matters for which they have a constitutional responsibility to the house.
As to the substance of the hon. gentleman's question, the matter has not yet been considered by the government, and until it has been considered I would not presume to speak for the government.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON MINIMUM PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact the farmers in the west are now in the midst of seeding operations and a reply would have a bearing on the amount of wheat sown, would the minister indicate to the house whether the government intends to introduce legislation at this session of parliament to provide for a minimum of $2 per bushel for wheat, to take effect immediately, or does he not consider that important enough to be decided within the 60 days of decision?


Harry William Hays: I think this question has already been asked. This is a matter of government policy and will be dealt with later.



REQUEST FOR PROMPT DELIVERY OF &quot;HANSARD&quot; TO MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the Secretary of State and house leader if, for the orderly and efficient conduct of business in the house, he will see that Hansard is available to all members prior to the opening of the daily sitting, and not to just a few as occurred today.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister will allow me, I may say I was advised this morning that Hansard would be late in arriving. It will be on the desk of every hon. member by noon today. I was asked also to request hon. members to leave their Commons Hansards here in the Commons for personal reference so they may be filed from day to day. (Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell us whether it is true that the president of the Canadian National Railways would be soon replaced by the present Minister of Justice?
(Text):


George James McIlraith: I would point out at once that this is not the proper form of question to ask of a minister, whether some statement he has made is true. If I were to reply truthfully to a question in that form I would immediately be in violation of the rules by making remarks about the hon. member.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: A further question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us when the term of office of the present president of the Canadian National Railways will expire? (Text):


George James McIlraith: I should like to check the date, and I can give the hon. member an answer if he will put his question on the order paper in the ordinary way.
(Translation):



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who is responsible for the administration of Indian affairs. Does the minister intend to recommend to the government that it should comply with the wish of the government of the province of Quebec so that the administration and education of the new Quebec Indians may as soon as possible come under the sole jurisdiction of the Quebec government?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, I may say that the problem
Inquiries of the Ministry concerning the education of Indian children is under consideration at present, as well as other matters of policy relating to Indian affairs.
(Text):



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has a comprehensive investigation been instituted by the present government into the potential of the Chignecto complex?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I was unable to hear the hon. member. If he could pose his question in a slightly louder voice, having regard to my infirmity, I might hear him.


Some hon. Members:: Which one?


Robert Carman Coates: Perhaps if I were given a better seat on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, it might help. I asked whether a comprehensive investigation had been instituted into the potential of the Chignecto complex by the present government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No survey has been undertaken by the present government, but my recollection is that the previous government boasted that this matter had been under consideration for the whole six years they were in office.


Robert Carman Coates: Since the Atlantic development board has been left in such a state by the amendments that are proposed by the present government, I wonder if the government could now try to get an investigation carried out by whatever is left of the board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be delighted to take the hon. gentleman's suggestions under consideration.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question relates to the civil service pay increases that were announced by the previous minister of finance on December 10. Have the various groups of civil servants who were not given pay increases at that time received them in the meantime? If not, will the gaps be filled soon?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance): The Civil Service Association of Canada has asked for consultations on the question of pay increases. These consultations began last week, and there is another meeting called for this afternoon. I hope the matter will be cleared up very soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. What about the various groups of employees of the House of Commons? Have they all had their increases?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That also is under consideration.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question I feel would be best directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday I had a desk delivered to my office in which I found a rather valuable item, and possibly the minister could direct me to the owner.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Malcolm MacInnis: The item can be identified by looking at it, because it says "Paul Martin for prime minister".
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister apprehend an inflationary pressure in Canada due to the overgenerous dividends paid by his party during the last election campaign?
(Text):



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister. This question is related to the question asked of the Prime Minister concerning meetings with the premiers of the other provinces. Has the premier of the province of British Columbia yet replied to the letter from the Prime Minister concerning a meeting about the Columbia river?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1 think the premier would have received my letter only yesterday or the day before. I have not had a reply from him as yet.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Miss Pauline Jewett for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to the speech from the throne delivered by His Excellency the Administrator at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefen-baker.
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was dealing with some of the more glaring omissions from the throne speech. I said that in the light of those omissions, and in the light of the number of questions to which the government in the last two or three days has answered that government policy would be announced in due course, I hope that the 60 days of decision are not to be replaced by 60 weeks of indecision.
The government cannot be allowed, and
must not be allowed, to dawdle. It is in a position in which it must either perform or perish. Earlier in my remarks I said that the opposition groups have a responsibility not to indulge in frivolous obstruction, and that the government in turn has a responsibility to tackle aggressively the problems facing the country and to consult parliament on major policies.
Mr. Speaker, I want to place before the house my contention that the government has already shown a callous disregard of parliament and parliamentary institutions. What is the role of the executive in relation to parliament, and particularly the role of a minority government in relation to parliament? I cannot give the house any better statement than to quote from the speech made by the leader of the Liberal party, addressing a meeting of Liberal M.P.'s and their supporters in the metropolitan area of Toronto on September 18, 1962. This is not taken from a press report but from the press release actually issued by the office of the leader of the Liberal party. At that time the present Prime Minister said:
The other aspect of the election to which I wish to draw special attention is the complete contempt of parliament shown by the Prime Minister since he was left as the head of a minority government; and this by the man who cannot make a speech without boasting how he has restored the rights of parliament.
Responsible government, which was not gained in Canada without bloodshed, is the foundation of our independence and our democracy in this country.
What do we mean by responsible government? We mean that the Queen's ministers are responsible to the elected house of parliament. They have the

right to remain in office only so long as they have the confidence and support of a majority of the elected representatives of the people.
In a parliament where no political party has a clear majority, this confidence cannot, of course, be taken for granted by the government.
The first such parliament in our times was the one elected in October, 1925. At that time Mr. Mackenzie King decided to remain at the head of a minority government until parliament could meet and decide whether or not his government should continue in office. But, and this is in strong contrast to the conduct of the present Prime Minister, Mr. King's government made no appointments and took no action beyond that required for the day-today routine business of government until parliament had met and decided the question of confidence.
The leader of the Liberal party went on:
As soon as it met the acting prime minister, as leader of the government in the house, sought at once to get a vote of confidence without even waiting for action by the opposition. After a very lengthy debate the government was sustained by a vote of 123 to 120. The essential point is that the Liberal government of that time did not presume to do more than to act as a caretaker government until the ministers were assured of a majority in parliament, and took steps to decide that point at the earliest possible moment.
The statement goes on:
I insist that nothing should be done in this parliament or by this parliament until the question of confidence has been settled in the proper constitutional way.
Unless that question is settled first, the right of parliament to control the executive will have ceased to mean anything. No plea of urgency and no excuse should be accepted by the elected representatives of the people, for any further delay in settling the question as to whether or not the Diefenbaker government possesses the confidence and has the support of a majority in the new House of Commons.
I agree with that statement. If the leader of the Liberal party meant it, then it is a ringing declaration of faith in parliamentary government. If he did not mean it, then it is nothing more than hypocritical claptrap, and only time will place this statement in its true perspective.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister and his colleagues have not made a very good start in this direction. I refer to two matters. First of all I refer to the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs that they have decided to accept two recommendations by the international north Pacific fisheries commission to permit Japan to fish for halibut in the east Bering sea and for herring off the Queen Charlotte islands. Apart altogether from the merits of the case, surely it would have been proper to have allowed this house and the fisheries committee of the house to go into this matter and express an opinion. Surely the request of the fishermen involved that they be allowed to make representations to the House
The Address-Mr. Douglas of Commons committee on marine and fisheries was not unreasonable. What was the hurry? I think we have a right to know.
Does the government intend to deal with this matter by an order in council, a minute of cabinet or an executive order, or does it intend to refer this matter to parliament? If it intends to refer it to parliament, then why has a decision been made before parliament has had any opportunity to express its opinion?
An even more glaring example of this disregard of parliament is the government's announced decision to acquire nuclear arms for Canadian forces in Canada and Canadian forces in NATO. In this connection I refer to the speech from the throne, where it says:
For this purpose, the armed forces of Canada should have available the modern weapons necessary to perform effectively the defensive tasks which Canada has undertaken in the alliance.
In this context modern weapons can only be interpreted as referring to nuclear arms. Therefore I wish to move a subamendment.
We cannot support the amendment proposed by the leader of the Conservative party. There are two statements in particular in that amendment, one of which speaks of Canada's economic growth during 1962 as exceeding that of any country in the western world. I would challenge that statement on the basis of growth in terms of constant dollars, taking into consideration price changes. Certainly countries in western Europe with more pronounced economic growth and with unemployment of less than 2 per cent could hardly be said to have had less economic growth and stability than Canada.
I also refer to the last phrase, "to give the people of Canada full opportunity to continue the social advances and economic growth of the past year". I would point out that these social advances and economic growth still left over 500,000 unemployed in this country and large areas of our population with a very low standard of living. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "address" and by substituting therefor the following words:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have indicated their intention of acquiring nuclear arms for Canadian forces, thereby lessening the chances for nuclear disarmament and increasing the danger of nuclear war.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words as to how the government have dealt with this matter since they took office on April 22. Within a few hours of being sworn in the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) announced on television that nuclear

The Address-Mr. Douglas arms would be acquired for Canadian forces in Canada within six weeks, and for NATO forces in Europe within six months.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, that is not what I said. I wish the hon. gentleman would quote me accurately if he is going to quote me at all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will have ample opportunity in the course of this debate to tell us what he said, but certainly I listened to the broadcast, and a great many of his supporters listened to the broadcast and telephoned me to tell me of their amazement because they had been told by the leader of the Liberal party that nuclear arms was not an issue, and yet one of the first things announced by the minister was the intention of the Department of National Defence to acquire nuclear arms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The week end before last the Prime Minister had conversations with the President of the United States, and he is reported as having announced that the decision had been made to acquire nuclear arms. The Toronto Star of May 13 says:
Prime Minister Pearson said today Canada's acquisition of nuclear weapons did not require formal parliamentary approval.
The report continues:
Unless acquisition of weapons for Canadian forces needed a formal treaty, there was no need for formal parliamentary approval, Mr. Pearson said.
That is a strange thing coming from one who talked about the rights of parliament and the need for preserving parliamentary democracy and making the cabinet responsible to the elected representatives of the people. The Prime Minister professed to be amazed that the New Democratic party had protested this decision prior to consultation with parliament, because the Prime Minister contended that he was simply carrying out a commitment which had already been made.
When was this commitment made, Mr. Speaker? The strange thing is that neither the leader of the Liberal party nor any of his supporters seemed to be aware of this commitment prior to January 12 last, when the leader of the Liberal party changed the party's policy in this respect. I have here the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 29, 1962. Mr. Pearson was speaking to the University of Saskatchewan students, and this report says:
Mr. Pearson drew loud applause from the students when he told them he was "definitely opposed to the acquisition of nuclear arms by Canada".
The report continues and quotes the Prime Minister as saying:
"I am opposed to nuclear weapons because, if we allowed such armaments on Canadian soil,

we could never take the lead in the United Nations in persuading non-nuclear nations to refuse to adopt nuclear weapons".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why did he change his
mind?


An hon. Member:: Adlai told him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Six weeks later the leader of the Liberal party made a complete reversal of his position. What happened in those six weeks to suddenly convince him that there was a commitment-


An hon. Member:: A Gallup poll.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -that he must carry out?


An hon. Member:: Paul went to Paris.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the leader of the
Liberal party made his switch he then proceeded to say that those of us who were opposing nuclear arms were seeking to promote the first objective of Soviet policy. That was a contemptible statement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Terrible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have no right to deny the Prime Minister the privilege of changing his mind, but I deny him the right to impute motives to those who support the position which he abandoned only a few weeks ago. By whom was this commitment made? It was certainly not made by the government that was in office at that time. They said they had made no such commitment. Certainly parliament made no such commitment. By whom was the commitment made? It is true there were arrangements between the Department of National Defence of this country and the department of defence of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that no commitment can be made on behalf of this nation except by this parliament, the elected representatives of the people.
I can recall that only a few months ago Liberal members in this house excoriated the government of that day for imposing $250 million worth of surcharges without the approval of parliament. I agreed with them. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that surely imposing nuclear weapons is a much more serious matter than imposing surcharges, and I contend that if taxation without representation is undemocratic, then annihilation without representation is tyranny.
The government of this country has no clearcut mandate to impose nuclear weapons on this country. Only this parliament can give them that mandate. We in the New Democratic party believe that the acquisition of nuclear arms by Canada will increase the danger of nuclear war and will lessen the chances of nuclear disarmament. We contend that this is a fateful decision which is being

made, and that this decision cannot and must not be made without being referred to this parliament. We believe that the members of this house should have an opportunity to state in clear and categorical terms whether or not Canada should acquire nuclear weapons at home or abroad.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I have moved this subamendment, in order that the house may have an opportunity to tell the government exactly where it stands on the matter of nuclear arms. In so far as this party is concerned, our position is unchanged. We believe that acquiring nuclear arms will add nothing to the military security of Canada. It will add nothing to the effectiveness of the NATO alliance. We believe that, on the contrary, it is a retrograde step; that at a time when the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom has made an appeal to the Soviet union not to extend nuclear arms to other countries which do not possess them, Canada might well set an example by saying that as far as we are concerned we intend to keep this country out of the nuclear club.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, may I join in the numerous congratulations which you certainly must have received on election to your present office. May I also extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address. The trepidation they must have felt on making their maiden speeches in the house is certainly shared by myself at this moment.
Many of the members on this side of the house-I am referring especially to the newer members-have had backgrounds in academic circles and in the public service which make us proud to be associated with them. They will undoubtedly contribute a great deal to debate in this parliament and to public life in Canada.
The constituency which I have the honour to represent is one of the ten largest in Canada, and for 96 years it maintained its allegiance to one political party. I do not think the voters of Carleton can be accused of contributing to splinter parties in a house of minorities, to use a phrase which I believe the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) used yesterday. They do not lightly change their allegiance, but this riding has undergone profound changes, especially in the post-war period. It now includes a substantial portion of the national capital region and the city of Ottawa in addition to a large rural and agricultural area. In Carle-ton there are no strictly rural interests or strictly urban interests; one blends into the other. We depend upon each other. It will be my privilege to serve all the residents of this riding, both old and new. It has been
The Address-Mr. Francis represented in this house by many distinguished men who rose to high positions, including Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Robert Borden. It is a great honour to succeed them.
One of the matters concerning which legislation is to be placed before this house, as indicated in the statement of the administrator, is the redistribution of electoral boundaries. I hope it will be possible to agree upon action in this field early in the session. Generally speaking, the people in our cities and new suburbs have been seriously under-represented in this house. Nearly two years have passed since the last census, and it is clearly time for action. Since this task is to be undertaken by an independent commission, a considerable number of months must elapse before redistribution can be brought about, so I sincerely hope it will be possible to introduce the measure at an early date.
The statement of the administrator also indicates that the standing committee on privileges and elections is to examine the Canada Elections Act. It is interesting to note that both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister have agreed that campaigns should be shortened. I feel this is much to be desired. There is also agreement that some limitation on election expenses will have to be imposed. I think, also, that the recent legislation which has been introduced in the province of Quebec will have to be examined closely. In urban ridings the principle of dual enumeration has worked extremely well. I suggest we might consider extending this principle so as to have the deputy returning officer named by one party and the poll clerk by another. This would reduce the number of election day workers required. Provision should be made to allow many persons, including civil servants and their families as well as persons in hospitals, to mail their ballots if they are unavoidably absent on election day from their normal places of voting. I think, too, that free radio and television time should be used as far as possible to promote debates on an interparty basis between candidates in the ridings and the leaders of the national parties. Those of us who have had any familiarity with this medium are concerned about the effect of a trend toward placing it in the hands of public relations experts, who tend to produce a calculated image. A return to debates of a more spontaneous nature would, I think, be welcomed as being generally to the good.
The proposal to establish a municipal development and loan board will be welcomed, I am sure, by all municipalities across Canada. Those of us who have served on municipal councils know the tremendous demands on them for new works of all kinds, such as
88	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Francis sewage disposal plants, sewers, water mains, roads, bridges, recreational facilities and a thousand other things. Measures such as federal loans to municipalities with forgiveness clauses for the development of sewage disposal facilities have set a pattern which has worked well. There is, I think, every reason to consider extending this pattern to other types of public loans. Careful administration, in co-operation with the provinces, of applications from rapidly growing communities whose credit has been strained to provide those municipal services now considered essential, will ensure success. New jobs will be created, and the burden of municipal property taxes lightened. Care should be taken not to disrupt local bond markets, or to make credit so easy that it would disrupt sound management of municipal budgets.
Closely associated with the program of the municipal development and loan board should be an expansion of federal assistance for urban renewal purposes. Older blighted areas should be redeveloped, but this requires capital on a scale not presently available to many municipalities.
The city of Ottawa, on whose council I have had the privilege of sitting for some years, should benefit from the new municipal development and loan board. The city of Ottawa has, however, a special and in many ways unique relationship to the federal government as part of the national capital region. As a municipality in its own right, the city of Ottawa is part of the national capital region. To members of the city council, members of parliament appear generally to be critical of city administration, especially of the potholes on Ottawa streets. The same members of parliament do not seem to be aware that the city borrows to the absolute maximum of its credit as permitted by the Ontario municipal board, and is seriously hampered by the inadequate grants in lieu of taxes paid by the largest employer in the area, namely the government of Canada. This chief employer makes demands for services, such as new bridges, which a private employer paying full taxes would have a right to expect. But the federal government does not pay what a private owner of property would pay to the city, and members of this house do not always seem aware of that fact.
Tonight I am offering my resignation to the council of the city of Ottawa in order to devote my full time to serving the city and the rest of the riding of Carleton as a member of this house. One of the matters which I hope the government will re-examine in the months ahead is the basis on which grants in lieu of taxes are paid by the federal government toward the development of the


national capital. The federal government develops its plans for the national capital through the national capital commission established by federal statute. As the administrator noted in his statement, these are times of great change, times that test old virtues. Great changes have occurred in this metropolitan area of the national capital region. The rate of growth in the years between the censuses of 1956 and 1961 was exceeded only by two metropolitan areas in Canada. It is time to re-examine the relations between the national capital commission and the elected municipal government, and indeed between municipal governments themselves. This task will involve close liaison with provincial and municipal representatives.
The members chosen by the federal government to sit on the national capital commission should be chosen on the basis of their ability to contribute to the development of a national capital. Narrow political loyalty should not be the basis of selection, nor should reward for party service, and I am confident that future appointments made by this government will be on the basis of ability to make contributions. The long term development of a national capital which will be a source of pride from one coast of Canada to the other suggests, I think, that appointees to the national capital commission should not engage in active campaigning on the hustings at election time, and should observe after appointment a rule of non-partisan behaviour in so far as this is possible.
Mr. Speaker, our party, through its most capable leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, is alive to the needs of our changing times. A program to restore faith in Canada, to relieve unemployment and to promote national development is being laid before this house. The task before us is a very great one indeed, a challenge as strong as that which any generation has ever faced. I am confident that this government and this parliament will be equal to it.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join those who have preceded me in this debate on the speech from the throne and congratulate you on your appointment to your high office. May I say that it is not an easy office to fill with impartiality and recognition. From long experience and training I am sure you must have been taught to look straight ahead, but if it were possible to have a third eye on this side of your head, we over in this comer of the house might receive equal recognition with other members of the house. However, this is something which is impracticable, and whichever way you as Mr. Speaker work out the problem, it will be greatly appreciated by

those of us who sit in this corner. It might be suggested that you consult some of the women and get some sort of a rear view mirror arrangement in order that you may see all parts of the house at the same time. Whichever way you arrange it, we in this corner will be very appreciative.
I should also like to add my words of congratulation to the hon. member for Northumberland, the mover of the speech from the throne. I do so for two reasons; first because she made a wonderful speech, to which I listened with great attention. She had the information there, and her speech was brief and to the point. Second, she is a person who has had advanced training in political economy and economics. She is one among us in that field, and I hope that over the years she will be able to make that contribution which she is capable of to the thinking of the party in power.
Before going into the throne speech I should like to make one or two observations concerning some of the things which were said by the leader of the Social Credit party in his talk to this house yesterday. May I quote what he said, as reported on page 68 of Hansard:
The real cause of the failure of the twenty fifth parliament was indecision and the lack of leadership given to that house of minorities by the government. I am not making these remarks to dig up the past, but what happened ought to be a lesson for the future to the present government. If the former government had laid a positive program before the house-
-and so on. We were all in the house on February 5 and know what took place. We know that on the evening of February 5, between six and eight o'clock, the deputy leader and the members of the Social Credit party from Quebec made a decision which was not altogether the decision of the leader of the Social Credit party. The deputy leader and his followers reached the conclusion that it would be better to have an election at that time and come back with 65 members rather than keep the then government in power. This was the reason for voting against the government and not the cover up statements made yesterday by the leader of the Social Credit party. These statements which were put before this house yesterday by the leader of the Social Credit party were for no other purpose than to give the impression that it was the things which he said, not the real political reason concerning his own party, which precipitated the last election. He went up and down the country, and I have heard him several times over television, repeating the story over and over again so that he actually believes it himself. The time has now come when the public should be put straight on the matter.
The Address-Mr. Kindt
Who leads whom in the Social Credit party? Is it Mr. Manning? Is it the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette)? Or is it the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson)? All through the last session the hon. member for Red Deer led about three people in the Social Credit party.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not think the hon. member has the right to blame any member of parliament or any other person in this House of Commons.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I will deal with the hon. member a little later. During the last election campaign in the speeches made by the leader of the Social Credit party he said a week before the election that he was even going to be prime minister. He made statements of that sort to an audience in High River. Some 400 people turned out on a Saturday evening in High River to hear him, but 250 of them were Progressive Conservatives, and he left the meeting before any one of them could ask him a question about what he had said.
Now, this old idea of going up and down the country preaching debt-free money-


An hon. Member:: What is that?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: -which in essence is nothing more than the old Aberhart $25 a month with a new twist.


An hon. Member:: What a twist.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: As one Alberta farmer said, "If you go back to the time when Aberhart first promised us $25 a month, that would amount to around $9,600 by now, and with interest it would amount to around $14,000." He said, "If they will pay the $14,000 they promised I will get up on the table and shout hallelujah."
There is one other point. If you want to learn the truth about Social Credit, if you have not been living with it as we have in Alberta, you should read the report of the New Zealand royal commission a number of years ago and satisfy yourselves as to the false position of these Social Credit doctrines. You should also obtain a copy of a book by F. J. Docker called "Douglas Delusions". For the benefit of my friends down in the corner let me read this concluding statement:
But it has been proved, it is hoped conclusively, that the bankers, when they issue credit, do so upon the individual credit of the person to whom the credit is granted, and as evidenced by the character of the security that is offered. It is not the general credit upon which the loan is made. Douglas, therefore, is left without any source for his distributions of dividends, or issues of "discount vouchers." The adoption of his

The Address-Mr. Kindt theories in any community could have but one result: chaos and irretrievable ruin tor the unfortunate country that ventured upon the experiment.
I could quote other parts of the book. If these gentlemen in the corner would spend a little more time reading on the subject of economics instead of going out and preaching doctrines that are false, then the people of Canada would have the benefit of truthful statements.


An hon. Member:: How about studying finance instead of economics.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: 1 have already taken finance, my dear boy. Even with all the things the leader of the Social Credit party said to the people, he barely squeaked by in the Red Deer riding, and instead of their party getting 65 seats in Quebec, lo and behold they came back with what; 18 or 19 from Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: How many did you get in Quebec?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Instead of having one party they have three parties now, and I should like to know who leads whom in the Social Credit party. To come back to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Leboe:: You are doing fine. Why bother about the throne speech?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I could say a lot more, but it would cut into my time. I am loaded for bear, and I do not have the time to talk too much about Social Credit. I want to go into the question of chopping up the Department of Agriculture. In one fell swoop the marketing of grain was chopped off and put under the Department of Trade and Commerce again. That left production and certain other relatively small phases of marketing under the present Minister of Agriculture.
I go one step further. They have taken the remaining 50 per cent and chopped it in two. We are going to have an eastern minister of agriculture and a western minister of agriculture with equal status. In other words we are going to have a kind of east-west Grey cup game where there will be plenty of followers on each side, and I can assure you they will be rooting for their particular side. This action, instead of uniting Canada and bringing about a united country, is going to sow the seeds of dissension and division. It cannot result in anything else.
I have been asked a number of questions by farmers. One farmer asked me this question. He said, "If they are cutting the department down to one quarter, what is the reason? Have they cut it down to fit the size of the man available to fill it? If so will they cut the salary to one quarter?" So far as I know
[Mr. Kindt.)

there is only one country in the world that contemplates having two ministers of agriculture, which is what this government intends to do in Canada. This action is certain to promote nothing but confusion among the farmers and people generally. When our farmers want to know something about marketing, where are they going to go? If they want to know something about production, where are they going to go?
In other words, the department has been chopped up. If you look at the table of precedence as found on page 3 of the debates of the Senate for May 16, 1963 you will see that agriculture is 26th. It is right at the bottom of the totem pole. It is the caboose. In other words the government has ranked it as the least important of all departments in order of precedence. That is what this government thinks of the Department of Agriculture and the problems of agriculture.
We in western Canada all remember the three periods we have gone through. First of all there was the C. D. Howe period. The deputy minister to Mr. C. D. Howe is now the new Minister of Trade and Commerce. We all remember Mr. Howe's famous statement:
We have the best wheat in the world and if they want it let them come and get it.
There was no effort to get out and sell wheat. They simply took orders. Quotas were down to four bushels. Many farms in western Canada were abandoned. The cost-price squeeze forced them out of operation. As one who lived through that period I want to say that there was terrific distress among the farmers of western Canada. The bins were full of wheat, and all you have to do is talk to the farmers to know what took place during the C. D. Howe period. They depended upon the government for action but there was no action.
After the Progressive Conservative government came into power there was agitation to have the Department of Agriculture put back together again. That was done by putting the wheat board and also farm credit under the former minister of agriculture, one of the greatest leaders that agriculture has ever seen, Hon. Alvin Hamilton.
I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what has happened. I do not need to tell you about the sales of wheat to China and Japan, or how the wheat bins out west were emptied, or how the wheels started turning. All I have time to say is this. Under the direction of one man the farmers got results. There was co-ordination among the various branches of government. The minister of agriculture was able to tell the farmers, we want you to grow so much wheat, and if you grow it

we will market it for you. They loved it. They were told also how much barley to produce and how much oats to produce. This one man had his finger on the market and he also had his finger upon production. When you divide these two functions, what have you got? Nothing but chaos, nothing but false starts and stops, nothing but jealousy between departments and inaction.
As you know, since this government have come into power we have entered a third phase. They have torn the department apart again. They have put marketing back under trade and commerce and they have left production under the present minister. Everything is now arranged and they are back where they left off in 1957. The arrangement is perfect for them to go to sleep again. This is what the farmers of western Canada fear, and they might well be afraid of it.
If this government go back to sleep, if they lose these China sales, these 75 million bushels a year, then the quotas for western farmers may drop as low as five bushels per acre. These farmers are now enjoying almost unlimited quotas, say 10 bushels per acre, but they will find themselves in a position where they will have to go back to feeding pigs in order to get rid of their wheat. One of the first statements made by the new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) was to the effect that he would not go behind the iron curtain to sell wheat. He made this clear the second day after he came into office. However, he had time to arrange a trip to Geneva. He put other things first. He also had in his mind, as the government had, that agriculture stood at the bottom of the list in terms of priorities. The minister's Geneva trip was far more important to him than putting forth every effort to retain wheat sales to China.
The government's efforts in so far as wheat sales are concerned are now divided. What the Department of Agriculture needs, what any organization needs if it is going to click, as any businessman can tell you, is one man in authority. One man must be able to wield the whip and get sales. This situation does not mean anything to the present government. They have divided the responsibility so they can all go back to sleep again.
Now I want to spend a minute or two on the question of industry. I notice that according to the speech from the throne a new department of industry is to be set up. According to the speech from the throne it is proposed to establish an area development agency. This agency will work with the provincial governments and other organizations to co-ordinate programs for parts of the country where, because of chronic unemployment, a special thrust for development is needed.
The Address-Mr. Kindt This government is going to use chronic unemployment areas as the touchstone or as the approach in deciding the location of new industry.
Then the speech from the throne indicates that we must create new industries. The fiscal and monetary policies of the government will give priority to the encouragement and expansion of industry. However, two approaches toward the question of the location of industry are revealed by what I see in the speech from the throne. One approach is the chronic unemployment area, and this is the approach this government intends to follow. The other approach, and the method which is usually followed under the free enterprise system, is to locate industries not in surplus unemployment areas but in those areas where they have the greatest economic advantage.
The surplus unemployment areas are mostly in Quebec and Ontario, as everyone knows. There are ten cabinet ministers from Ontario and eight from Quebec. These ministers have fixed up the speech from the throne, and I can see the handwriting of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in it. Instead of deciding to locate industries in places in Canada where they would have the greatest chance of success, they have decided to put them in surplus labour areas. Instead of establishing industries in Alberta, the government intends to put them in Ontario and Quebec. If this criterion is followed the majority of the industries will be in Ontario and Quebec, with a few scattered over the other parts of the country.
If you investigate the free enterprise approach to the location of industries you will note that businessmen try to locate industries close to a supply of raw material. Where do these raw materials exist in the country? They exist in the prairie provinces and British Columbia. There is a great source of cheap hydrocarbons on the prairies. In fact there are tremendous quantities of hydrocarbons that are being flared because there are no industries available to use them. The country, and the people in the west, are crying aloud for new industry, but they are not going to get it under the new department of industry which is to be set up. The speech from the throne says:
It will be proposed that, within the new department, there will be established an area development agency. This agency will work with the provincial governments and other organizations to co-ordinate programs for parts of the country where, because of chronic unemployment, a special thrust for development is needed.
These industries are not going to be located in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia because in most of those provinces there are not chronic unemployment areas

The Address-Mr. Moreau sufficient to justify the expenditure of public funds for new industries. The policy of putting these industries in the chronic unemployment areas is a trick or a method to be used by the government in order to locate industries in the east. Instead of having decentralization of industry and having industries spread all over western and eastern Canada, industries are to be located in Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret
to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: May I just make one concluding remark, and it is this. I notice nothing whatever said in the speech from the throne about the development of the north and this, I claim, is one of the greatest mistakes so far made by this government.


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: would like to offer my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your election to high office, and I also wish to compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Like them I am also a new member in the house, and I hope my maiden speech will approach the standards they have set for debate in this chamber.
The recent election campaign really began in my riding of York-Scarborough when the right hon. Prime Minister made his now historic stand on defence. The Scarborough speech, as it became known, was made at my nomination meeting on January 12, and it played a large part in precipitating the defeat of the last government. For this I believe most Canadians will be eternally grateful, and I would like to extend my thanks to the Prime Minister on his choice of location for that speech.
As most hon. members know, my riding is the most populous in Canada. For this reason I feel I bear a heavier responsibility than most in adequately representing, or attempting to represent, nearly 300,000 people. As a matter of fact quite a number of hon. members now sitting in the house are electors in my riding.
Although York-Scarborough is considered a dormitory by many, it is also a riding with many industries, farms and other varying interests. Its 163,000 electors represent a cross section of our country. Indeed most of them, like myself, are recent immigrants to the area, the largest number having migrated to the riding during the past 10 years. They come from every part of Canada and from many parts of the world, but while they have varying backgrounds and face many different problems they all share one common problem.

We in York-Scarborough live in a rapidly expanding suburban riding and face great difficulty in providing the new schools, hospitals and other municipal services so urgently needed. We know that municipal taxation cannot provide the necessary funds quickly enough. In particular, since 1956 the costs and difficulties of municipal borrowing have been crippling the development of our communities. Indeed, the foreign currency debt of Canadian municipalities is very unevenly distributed in Canada, and in fact three quarters of this debt presently outstanding has been incurred by seven urban centres in Canada, of which Toronto is one. The bulk of this foreign debt was incurred since 1956 and has added considerably to our currency exchange difficulties of recent years. I mention these facts to indicate that the creation of a municipal development and loan fund is long overdue, and it was with great pleasure that I heard the proposal to create such a fund in the speech from the throne.
I also heard with pleasure the announcement of a commission to undertake the redistribution of our electoral boundaries. This is a matter of prime concern to many hon. members from urban ridings, but it is of particular importance to the electors in my riding. Redistribution has been an election issue in York-Scarborough since 1957. Indeed my predecessor made it one of his prime election issues in all four campaigns since that time. Unfortunately he apparently was unable to get his government to give the matter very high priority, because nothing concrete was done. Meanwhile the riding keeps growing, and the problems of representing this large group of electors become more difficult, not to mention the difficulties of campaigning and the expenses involved in conducting an election campaign.
I could draw comparisons with ridings where constitutional guarantees exist, to which I am not opposed; but the inequities of representation even in the province of Ontario are considerable. The riding of Bruce, with a population of 30,000, has the same numerical representation in this house as my riding with a population of almost 300,000 people. At this rate, using 30,000 as the yardstick, my riding should have elected at least nine members, certainly sufficient to have corrected the minority situation which exists in the house. In this respect perhaps we can see a clue to the difficulties my predecessor encountered in achieving any results from his government on this matter.
I might add that the electors of my riding saw fit to give me the largest total vote recorded in Canadian history, really a result of the large size of the riding, and it is an

achievement I would not care to repeat. I am sure my wishes are shared by many hon. members when I say I hope the government will proceed with all speed to introduce legislation regarding the appointment of a commission to redraw our electoral boundaries. I was further heartened yesterday when, in debate, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the government's intention to proceed quickly in this matter.
(Translation):
I was happy to learn also from His Excellency, in the speech from the throne, that the government intends to institute a royal commission to examine the problems of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada. I feel that a solution has to be found for those problems; otherwise, nothing worth while can be accomplished in our country. National unity is a prerequisite to the solution of the other problems which we have to face at this time on the home front.
In my opinion, in the speech he made yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) acknowledged that too small a number of English speaking Canadians understand those problems.
I should like to point out also that I am in favour of the adoption of a distinctive flag. In the course of my work and of my travels in practically every corner of this country, I noticed that most Canadians share my views in this connection.
(Text):
Although no definite policies were announced in the speech from the throne regarding the development of our national resources, I was encouraged by the fact that the subject did merit mention. As a mining engineer, and realizing the importance of the resource industries to our future growth and prosperity, I was naturally most interested in the government's plans in this area. I notice, too, a large number of questions on the order paper dealing with gold production, mainly from the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). I hope the government is giving consideration to revising the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. The very name of this act has lost all significance, in that it indicates that an emergency has existed since 1948. This assistance, in my opinion, should formally be given some permanence in order that the communities involved can make longer range plans for their own development.
I believe also, Mr. Speaker, that some consideration should be given to changing the way in which the assistance is given. At the present time we are paying subsidies based on production costs and therefore penalizing our most efficient producers. It is my belief that an increase in the basic price of newly 28902-5-7
The Address-Mr. Pigeon mined gold in Canada would be a more effective way of giving assistance to that industry. It would encourage efficiency of production and would stimulate much new production of gold in Canada. We can, I am sure, from increased corporate and individual income taxes justify such an increased basic price with no loss to the treasury, not to mention the increased employment which would result from increased production and the improvement of our currency exchange position through production being readily convertible to United States dollars.
There is also, Mr. Speaker, the matter of regulations governing the development of resources on Indian reservations. These regulations, while perhaps designed to protect the interests of the Indians, have so limited exploration on Indian reservations as to have had, in my opinion, the reverse effect. These and other matters dealing with resources development will, I am sure, be given some consideration by the government. I am looking forward to an opportunity to discuss these matters more fully in the future.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my pleasure at the content of the speech from the throne. It included practically everything promised in my campaign literature. It was also my great pleasure, as a newly elected member, to be given the opportunity to occupy my seat in this chamber so soon after the election. This is in quite startling contrast to what happened in the last parliament.
(Translation):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I call it one o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as it is not one o'clock-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do now leave the chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think in the particular circumstances you should call it one o'clock, but I would hope that hon. members who are on the list to speak would be available.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: My first words are to thank the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) for his intervention shortly before one o'clock.

The Address-Mr. Pigeon
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your election to the distinguished place you now occupy in this house. We have all had the opportunity during past years to appreciate your competence, your knowledge and your integrity. We know that the office of Speaker is one of high responsibility. We of the loyal opposition will look to you for protection and guidance. Since you are bilingual, the debates should not go beyond the limits permitted by the rules or by the need for honest and frank discussion.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased also to congratulate the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux), who now holds the office of Deputy Speaker. I extend to him my best wishes and sincere congratulations.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that you will prove equal to the task, and we are happy to congratulate you upon your appointment to that high office.
(Text) :
We should not become so immersed in the problems of government as to forget what made yesterday. Our party, sitting in opposition, which in itself is an institution in accordance with British parliamentary practice, is favoured by the fact that its great leader has been re-elected. There is no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), even though as prime minister he encountered the most difficult years in the history of our country, performed an excellent job. His name is linked with many important reforms and his fierce struggle during the political campaigns is always, for us, an incentive to fight for the good cause. My right hon. friend had to fight against three powerful parties as well as against foreign capital. He led us almost to victory once again, and nobody doubts that if the campaign had lasted one more week he would still be the prime minister of this country. He is a great leader, and we are proud and fortunate to serve under him.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the head of the present government (Mr. Pearson), made a poor showing during the last electoral campaign. He contradicted himself from beginning to end on the question of nuclear arms. Indeed, according to La Presse of March 20, 1963, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville stated at a meeting which was attended by the distinguished member for Hull (Mr. Caron):
The premier of Quebec will soon become the prime minister of Canada.


Mr. Caron:: That is not what was said.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is what newspapers like he Devoir and La Presse reported. I would not want the member for Hull to insult newspapermen. I know he has a great deal of consideration for them.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to list the reasons of our defeat.
(1)	There was an inflow of U.S. dollars to ensure that Canada would become an American satellite.
(2)	Numerous promises were made.
(3)	Support was given by Quebec.
After the election, American finance was used to try to buy off several members of parliament.
In Le Devoir of May 14, 1963, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) is reported as saying during a caucus in Ottawa, that $50,000 in American funds were offered to him as the price of his open support of the Liberal party. And what about the six Social Credit members?
The premier of Newfoundland (Mr. Smallwood) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who spent some time in Nassau after the election, could shed some light on this matter.
I would recommend that the government convene immediately the committee on privileges and elections to clear up this smelly business and to punish those who have tried to bribe members of the parliament of Canada.
A great deal of publicity was given to the number of Quebec members who were appointed to the cabinet.
Quantity does not mean quality.
I have here an excerpt from the newspaper Le Devoir of April 23, 1963, which I quote:
Has Mr. Pearson chosen the most dynamic elements of his Quebec deputation? One feels that there was a compromise. On the one hand, the old guard: Messrs. Lionel Chevrier (whose selection was a must), Azellus Denis and Jean-Paul Descha-telets (the least that can be said about them being that their selection was not a must), as well as Mr. Lucien Cardin, who replaces Mr. Sevigny.
On the other hand, the newcomers: Mr. Maurice Lamontagne to a position of honour-probably temporary-but not of influence; Mr. Guy Favreau to immigration, and Mr. Rene Tremblay, without portfolio.
Those whose absence is disappointing but can be easily explained: Messrs. Maurice Sauve and Jean-Luc Pepin-the former because he had become the symbol of the new frontier and was sacrificed to the backbenchers, the latter because he has just arrived.
In short, the "young'' team is relegated to the bottom of the ladder. Make way for the good old Liberal stalwarts.
For the moment, therefore, we are gaining in number but very little in quality and in influence.
And I am quoting from the April 27, 1963 issue of the newspaper La Presse:
But what about his actions?

That is the question. If we were right now to judge Mr. Pearson on the appointments he has just made to the ministry, we would have to infer that he has not understood a great deal about the aspirations of the French Canadian people in 1963. He has behaved like a sort of immature Mackenzie King, who has made some progress in arithmetic but very little in sociology-
And the article goes on to say:
Who has been appointed at the head of the departments of Finance, of Defence, of Trade and Commerce, of Industry, and of Defence Production? Messrs. Gordon, Hellyer, Sharp and Drury.
By keeping his French Canadian collaborators out of the departments which have to do with the economy of the country Mr. Pearson is confirming once more the legend regarding our incompetence in such matters, even though the Quebec voters have given three economists to his party: Messrs. Maurice Lamontagne, Rene Tremblay and Maurice Sauve. But Mr. Lamontagne will deal with bicul-turalism, Mr. Tremblay with agriculture, and Mr. Sauve. .. with nothing at all, since the high efficiency and the genius-like intelligence of Messrs. Azellus Denis and Jean Paul Deschatelets were given preference over him. Such a selection obviously made automatic the choice of departments given to them; it is a well-known fact that the Post Office and Public Works Departments have more to do with patronage than any other field of human knowledge-
We must therefore bow to the obvious fact: Mr. Pearson has not understood that since Mackenzie King's time, French Canada has changed.
Mr. Speaker, may I read an excerpt of the speech made in this house by the hon. member for lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) at the end of the last session and in which we find comments which would prove our newspapermen right. This is what the hon. member said on December 18, as can be seen on page 2776 of the official record:
We have often given our mass support to this or that party which has made up the government, but we have given to our partners, to the Anglo-Saxon majority, the right to govern. We have nearly always obtained unimportant portfolios.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the nomination of French speaking parliamentary secretaries, we notice that their number is very small, in fact there are only three of them. Moreover, there is very little competence to be found among them, except for the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), who is well known to me and who was a very active member when he was in the opposition. I want to tell him that I am happy about his nomination as whip of his party and parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, though I think that the people of Hull would certainly have preferred to see him accede to the post of minister of labour, because when he was sitting on the opposition benches, he was the official spokesman of his party on matters pertaining to the Department of Labour. I tender my best wishes to him in his new office and in the discharge of his great responsibilities.
During the last campaign, Mr. Lesage had Mr. Pearson elected in Ottawa so that Quebec 28902-5-74
The Address-Mr. Pigeon might obtain part of its taxation powers, and thus be able to look after its cultural, economic and educational needs. But I am very much afraid that the 12 months of Mr. Lesage's ultimatum are not worth much more than the 60 days of decision announced by the Prime Minister.
The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) is reported to have refused the finance portfolio. In this regard, I quote the following from La Presse of May 20, 1963:
It will be remembered that just before the election, the premier of Quebec requested from Ottawa a revision of the tax structure (in particular 25 per cent of the personal income tax) as a condition for his support of Mr. Pearson.
Mr. Pearson, who no doubt owes his victory to that support, is said to have trouble keeping his word.
Thus, according to well informed sources, Mr. Maurice Lamontagne has refused the finance portfolio Mr. Pearson intended to give him.
Though the member for Outremont-St. Jean felt qualified for such an appointment, he was not prepared to be the scapegoat with regard to Quebec.
In a telephone interview from his home last night, Mr. Lamontagne refused to deny or confirm the information above and simply declared that he had no comment.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean refused to assume responsibilities because he did not want to return to the provinces, particularly the province of Quebec, their sources of revenue.
The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean should immediately tender his resignation.
The speech from the throne is for neofederalism. There is no mention of a decentralization of the powers of taxation. The right hon. Prime Minister is not even aware of Mr. Lesage's ultimatum. The speech of the throne, in my opinion, is essentially a document of centralization.
My fears are well founded if we consider that the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean, who wrote "Federalisme canadien" in 1954, is responsible as President of the Privy Council, for federal-provincial relations, public administration matters and the Canadian economic council.
This is what Mr. Lamontagne wrote in his book:
In short, the right recognized to the provinces by the constitution to use direct taxes is illusory to a very great extent, especially if the federal government is required to perform its duties of ensuring economic stability.
The following is to be found on page 264 of the same book:
Therefore, it seems that the subsidies paid by the central government to the provinces are inevitable at the present time and are firmly established in our political tradition. The system of fiscal arrangements designed to answer the problem of the provinces' financial requirements offers a first solution based on federal grants.

The Address-Mr. Pigeon
Those quotations reveal a great deal of the present government's intentions respecting the new direction to be given to the confederation and its frequent consultations with the provinces. No mention is made in the speech from the throne of constitutional reforms, and even less in the way of a greater degree of decentralization.
Mr. Speaker, the centralization of revenue sources by Ottawa is the main reason for the separatist movement which exists today.
Mr. Lesage and the present leader of the federal government were those mainly responsible for centralization a few years ago, on the advice of the hon. member for Outre-mont-St. Jean. Today, Mr. Lesage is backing out and is becoming an autonomist. I am not blaming him, but I shall question his sincerity towards the province of Quebec as long as he does nothing to force Ottawa to beat a retreat as a Quebec premier did before. Mr. Lesage has not even delivered his ultimatum in writing to Ottawa. Is he being sincere, Mr. Speaker?
The premier of Quebec showed weakness in his demands, that is in asking for the return of 25 per cent of the personal and corporation income tax and 100 per cent of the succession duties.
He should insist upon 100 per cent of the personal and corporation income tax. And should Ottawa refuse to give in, let Mr. Lesage take steps. Then we shall know how sincere he is.
In addition, Mr. Lesage should demand:
1.	That the federal government withdraw from joint programs;
2.	That censure at the C.B.C. come under the government of the province of Quebec;
3.	That the federal government withdraw from the field of education;
4.	That Indian affairs and those of the Eskimos of new Quebec come solely under the administration of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, confederation is now in danger.
Here are, for instance, the amounts collected in Quebec by the federal government in 1961-62 as direct taxes only.
Personal income tax $469,827,176 Corporation income tax 405,352,708 Non-resident income tax 35,540,690 Estate tax	14,991,904
Total	$925,722,478
By comparison, let us note that during the same period the total revenue of the Quebec government from direct and indirect taxes was only $754,107,000. So, the amount paid each year to Ottawa in taxes is larger than the total revenue of the Quebec government.
At present, Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec collects 17 per cent of the personal income tax and less than 11 per cent of the corporation income tax. As far as the estate tax is concerned, Quebec collects about 50 per cent.
Not only the province of Quebec, but every province in the confederation is sinking into debts.
For instance, the province of Quebec, these last few years, has imposed 12 new taxes to meet its needs. First of all, the Quebec taxpayers are bearing a total debt of about $6 billion, if we add up the liabilities of the province, of the municipalities and of the school boards. Second, the direct and indirect debt of the Quebec government will then amount to $3,700 million, that is close to $4 billion. The average per capita debt in Quebec amounts to $675.
For the 1963-64 fiscal year, the Quebec government forecasts a $146 million deficit.
Here is the progression of the deficits:
1957-	58: no deficit, but rather a surplus of $273,014;
1958-	59: no deficit, a surplus of $373,738;
1959-	60: deficit of $303,147;
1960-	61: deficit of $108 million;
1961-	62: deficit of $111 million;
1962-	63: deficit of $183 million.
And the progression of borrowings is also getting larger:
1957-	58: none;
1958-	59: none;
1959-	60: $25 million;
1960-	61: $110 million;
1961-	62: $150 miUion;
1962-	63: $225 million.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Catholic school board cost the taxpayers some $54 million in 1961-62.
The debt is getting larger at the rate of $10 million each year.
Just for the school board of the city of Montreal-and the same is true of all the school boards in the province of Quebec which are threatened with bankruptcy-the increase in the debenture debt of the municipalities and the school boards for 1962-63, in

the province of Quebec, adds up to the colossal amount of $500 million.
Needless to add, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial farm credit fund is empty. Sometimes, the highway department employees do not get their pay. Several classical colleges in the province of Quebec are seeking university charters; such is the case of the Loyola College, the Seminaire de Trois-Rivieres and the College Sainte-Marie.
Everybody is hard pressed in the province of Quebec, for the provincial government has a responsibility and a mandate to fulfil as regards the cultural and educational requirements of the province. But the federal government had centralized all taxation powers. And that is due to ingenuity of the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean.
Mr. Speaker, under the Conservative government, we had started this decentralization. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1963, Quebec received subsidies in the amount of some $517 million while in 1957, under a government of which Mr. Lesage himself was a member, Quebec received only $177 million.
Our government raised from 10 to 20 per cent the deductible portion of the federal income tax for provincial purposes. Today, the province of Quebec collects up to 16 per cent. We wanted to keep on with that decentralization, but with the help of the Social Crediters, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals defeated us and prevented us from going ahead and giving back to the provinces more taxation powers. Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government wants to develop and to take care of the economical, educational and cultural needs of the province. Quebec wants to become a giant within confederation, to save Canada from American annexation.
I am not in favour for a moment of convening of the states-general to review the Canadian constitution.
Ottawa should start proving its good faith and retire from the taxation field which is, in fact, the responsibility of the provinces. Then we could convene the states-general to adapt the constitution to our contemporary life and extend the French fact from coast to coast. Let us first of all come back to the basic principles of Sir John Macdonald and Sir Georges Etienne Cartier. Otherwise, Quebec will separate itself from confederation and we shall, in 1967, witness the disintegration of the Canadian confederation.
The Address-Mr. Caouette
I shall conclude, Mr. Speaker, by quoting from an article published in the local papers of Joliette city and its region, by the "Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste du Diocese de Joliette Inc." I take pleasure in reading out that article published on February 27, 1963 and entitled:
Confederation-The various currents of opinion which are now noticed in Quebec show an evident and generalized discontent among the population. The various positions expressed show the need of reforming the system established in 1867.
We believe that those responsible for Canadian policy will definitely have to undertake an early study of our present constitution in order to give it a new direction.
It is obvious that the present state of affairs does not satisfy anybody now. The statements of French Canadian political leaders and the sprouting of numerous independence movements among our population are an indisputable sign of discontent at this time.
We therefore invite the people to make use of its influence to convince the political leaders of the need for undertaking a complete study of the present problems and to bring about some solution which, while observing the fundamental rights of the various communities, will satisfy their respective aspirations and allow them to develop in harmony and good will.
It is signed:
"La Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste du Diocese de Joliette Inc.; Rene Charette, chief secretary."
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I hope the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean will write another book, and this time give a fair deal to the provinces so as to redress the bad service he rendered confederation. And I say, Mr. Speaker, that, following the advice they got from the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean, those who sit on the other side of the house are responsible for the conflict and the turmoil of ideas which now exist in Canada, and more particularly in French speaking Canada. That is why I urge this government to reverse steam and go on with the decentralization in order to save Canadian confederation.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely regret that the hon. member who resumed his seat did not make a similar contribution some three months ago when he was sitting on the government side.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Read Hansard.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) on his appointment to the high office of Speaker of this House of Commons and I wish to congratulate you also for having been appointed Deputy Speaker.

The Address-Mr. Caouette
I am also pleased to sincerely congratulate the hon. member who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. She did it in a way that was at once elegant, charming and convincing.
I also congratulate the member who seconded the address in reply, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), who is not at his place this afternoon but who publicly thanked before this house, when he made his speech last week, the member for Villeneuve and the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) for helping him so much in the last federal election. The hon. member meant that as a joke, I am sure, because he knew very well that what contributed the most to his election in Lotbiniere-a constituency where perhaps a greater proportion of the people are fighting against poverty than is the case in any other in the province of Quebec-was the distribution in the riding of funds coming I do not know where from, but apparently not from the province of Quebec because that province is not that far ahead financially, and especially the distribution of Quebec social allowances. The whole Quebec electoral machine was at work and the Liberal members from Quebec are aware that all sorts of allowances, especially social allowances were very generously distributed during the election campaign by the inspectors of colonization, the inspectors of all departments who paid amounts of $50, $60 and $75 to needy families in those ridings.
We have had examples of that from the Gaspe peninsula, from the riding of Lotbiniere, precisely the one represented by the hon. member who seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, all that meddling and political scheming leads people to think like the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt), in Alberta, did this morning just before lunch, in attacking the Social Credit party as if we were in power. According to him, the Social Crediters are running the affairs of the state. He reminded us, among other things, that Hon. William Aberhart, the only Social Credit premier in Canada, was promising, during the years 1933 and 1935, a monthly dividend of $25 a month. The hon. member for Macleod was amazed that such a distribution had not been made in 1936 or in 1938, under the Aberhart administration, or was not even being made today.
He added a few words about Social Credit lies, saying that we lied shamelessly, that we

did not know what we were preaching or that we were preaching something we did not understand.
I have here the report submitted in 1939 by the banking and commerce parliamentary committee. I quote from that report:
(Text):
Mr. Graham Towers, the governor of the Bank of Canada, was on the stand giving evidence and the members of the committee questioned him as follows:
Q. I understand you say they-
Referring to the banks.
-could not loan what did not belong to them. Mr. Towers: The banks cannot, of course, loan the money of their depositors ... what the depositors do with these savings is something quite beyond the control of the banks, (page 455)
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) should go to that book and look into it so he might grasp something from it if he could.
Q. So that if they have got up to the point where they have got bank deposits to lend?


Mr. Towers:: Well, they do not lend their deposits of course, (page 398)
Q. But there is no question about it that the banks do create that medium of exchange?


Thomas Gordon Towers: That is right. That is what they are there for ... That is banking business, just in the same way a steel plant makes steel, (page 287)
The manufacturing process consists of making a pen and ink or typewritten entry on a card or in a book. That is all. (pages 76 and 238)
This is not an answer by a Social Crediter, it is an answer by Graham Towers, the former governor of the Bank of Canada.
Q Ninety five per cent of all our volume of business is being done with what we call exchange of bank deposits-that is simply bookkeeping entries in banks against which people write cheques?


Thomas Gordon Towers: I think that is a fair statement, (page 233)
q. . .. when the government delivers a $1,000 bond to the bank, what does the bank use to purchase it with? Is that the creation of additional money?


Thomas Gordon Towers: It is the creation of additional money, (page 113)
Q. ... in other words, when a $1 million worth of bonds is presented to the bank, a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Again assuming that there is no decrease in its other investments or loans.
Q. I mean at the time, at the moment?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes.
Q. It is a fact that a million dollars of new money is created?


Thomas Gordon Towers: That is right.
Q. Yes, now the same thing holds true when a municipality or the province goes to a bank?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Or an individual borrower.
Here is perhaps the most important and significant question of all:

Q. Would you admit that anything physically possible and desirable can be made financially possible?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Certainly, (page 771)
Q. Will you tell me why a government with power to create money should give that power away to a private monopoly and then borrow that which parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?


Thomas Gordon Towers: ...Now, if parliament wants to
change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of parliament. (page 394)
Those are the answers given by Graham Towers.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, those are replies to the questions which several candidates asked the people during the electoral campaign. They were reported on television, for instance, and on the radio-as did the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis)-thus leading the public to believe that the Social Credit party would print money inconsiderately and without restraint and that we would flood Canada with currency as was the case in Germany in 1923 and 1924.
There was never any Social Credit party in Germany. If the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville is honest, he will admit that Social Credit never existed outside of Canada. That is a fact, but it does not mean that it will not expand past our frontiers in the future.
Thus, the problems which face us at this time and which are mentioned in the speech from the throne-to which I will come back in a few minutes-those situations and problems to which there are no solutions, as I say, are due to a financial system which has grown fatter on its deathbed than when it was born.
Mr. Speaker, all kinds of things were made up in the province of Quebec. My Liberal friends in that province bought full pages in La Presse, Le Devoir and other large newspapers in the province of Quebec to insinuate, for example, that Social Credit would create misery and inflation in Canada, whereas inflation is the result of an administration such as the present one.
When a municipal council borrows $300,000 or $3,000,000 to build a city hall, at a yearly interest rate of 5 per cent for a period of 20 years, the taxpayers have to pay back $600,000 for a $300,000 loan and $6 million for a $3 million loan. The $300,000 city hall will never be worth $600,000; on the contrary, it will be worth less and less as the years go by. But the people will still have to pay $600,000. That is true inflation. That is the kind of administration that the Conservatives and the Liberals have given us in turn.
The Address-Mr. Caouette
Mr. Speaker, I will now deal with the speech from the throne, which talks glibly about biculturalism, the co-existence of the two great nations in Canada, the French and the Anglo-Saxon nations.
On the day parliament opened, together with our colleagues from all corners of the house we attended the splendid reception offered to the representative of Her Majesty.
The guard of honour and what was presumably its own brass band, faced the parliament buildings. His Excellency the Governor General-who, 1 trust, will very-soon recover-was represented by an Administrator, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We witnessed an impressive state pageant, truly beautiful and imposing. We welcomed Her Majesty's representative with the hymn "God Save the Queen", and I think this was as it should have been.
However, I wonder why we did not also hear the strains of "O, Canada"?
If, as we are told, it is essential that our two cultures should co-exist in Canada, we from Quebec have absolutely no objection to the "God Save the Queen"; but we feel that on such an occasion we should also have heard "O Canada", so dear to the heart of all Canadians, our national anthem.
Mr. Speaker, we also did note the absence -and I can just see the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), who is always somewhat nervous in similar circumstances -and this was so much the case when he heard "O Canada" being sung that he could not but smile.
Why did we not have a distinctive national flag at that time? I remember that in 1956-57, when the Conservatives had taken over, we expected to have a distinctive national flag. I hope that during all those years in the opposition the Liberals had the opportunity of studying the feasibility of giving Canada a distinctive national flag and a national anthem.
During the month of February, I had the privilege, right at the start of the election campaign, of visiting a country which is part of the British commonwealth of nations. I went to Jamaica. Now the first gesture of the Jamaican government when that country became independent in August 1962, was to adopt an authentic national anthem for Jamaica, as well as a distinctive national Jamaican flag. So the first gesture of a small country, practically trailing behind all other commonwealth countries, was to adopt its

The Address-Mr. Caouette own flag and anthem, without a single emblem, either English, or French, or Spanish, without any outward sign of assimilation.
Now, we are asking for the same thing in Canada. We do not want a flag with a French emblem. As far as France is concerned, we have great respect for that country, in the same way as we respect England. But, we are first and foremost, Canadians. We want, in the first instance, Canadians to understand each other. We are not separatists. We want a Canada where people may understand one another, where Canadians would be able to speak to each other-a thing which is but rarely found here, in spite of all the election shenanigans we witnessed on April 8 last.
Mr. Speaker, another point to which I want to call the attention of all hon. members, whether they be French or English speaking, is that when we use the parliamentary telephone for a long distance call, nine times out of ten, we are told: "I'm sorry, I do not speak French. Would you like a French operator?" That happens nine times out of ten. I do not care in the least whether the operator's name is Bradshaw, MacDonald, Choquette or Dupuis as long as she is able to talk to me in my own language.
I think we should start by bringing about a respect of our country's dual culture within the parliamentary framework-not because we bear a grudge against those who do not know French, but because we want to be up to date in our demands with regard to the respect due to the two elements of Canada, which should be placed on an equal footing.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne mentioned many fine things, serious and elaborate, which we mentioned many times ourselves in this house. I see, for instance, the following words in the speech from the throne, and I quote:
These are times that test old virtues. They are times that open up new opportunities. Familiar ways of thought and action are becoming less certain guides.
The familiar ways of thought are personified by the economists of the Liberal party.
The familiar ways of thought and action are becoming less certain guides.
We are not certain anymore.
Many old paths are no longer open to us. The task before us is to seek out with wisdom and imagination-
Where will they take that imagination, since they have had none for the past 50 or 75 years? Is it with the kind of imagination they displayed in the province of Quebec dur-

ing the last election that they will make us believe they are serious and sincere, when they say that those new paths will lead us surely forward?
What are those new paths? Is it the moon, the planet Mars or some space system? I do not know. Nothing definite, nothing factual.
They talk about new paths while we have been saying ourselves in the province of Quebec for the last 20 years, and also across Canada, that the present old finance system can only lead to complete and total failure. That failure, the previous government did not want to face it and if this government faces it without taking drastic measures to bring the finance system to reason in Canada, it will soon be the end of the road for our staggering democracy. And as long as they keep going over the same path, it will be a huge and total failure. And later on, it is said:
But they depend on our overcoming serious problems. It is only with courage and perseverance and hard work that we will achieve the better life that is within our power, for ourselves and for our children.
Which Canadians are lacking courage and perseverance? Which Canadians have refused to work for the development and progress of our national inheritance? I think I have a right to say that those who lacked courage are the representatives of the people in the federal government, and also the representatives of the people in the federal parliament have lacked perseverance. And I think that the governments which succeeded each other since confederation have failed to work with zeal.
Our progress is the work of all the people.
At last, here is a true fact.
The determination of my ministers is that the government through its policies will contribute the leadership, the purpose, the decision that are its responsibilities to the people.
The people have been waiting for a long time and are more and more anxious. For a long time, the electors have been looked after only at election time and in order to juggle the popular vote, all that is done is to try and make them believe that the government in power is the one which received a mandate from the nation, when in fact, the votes of the people are obtained through fear, under threat, under the threat of losing their jobs or their pensions, and it happened in Canada on April 8 last. This is a sharp contrast with the fine wording of the speech from the throne.

Mr. Speaker, a great many matters are mentioned in the speech from the throne, but no details are given. When the government states for instance, that:
It will foster the spirit of co-operative federalism, fully respecting the rights of the provinces while safeguarding and extending the equality of opportunity which properly belongs to all Canadians in all parts of our country. In these purposes, as in others, my ministers will seek frequent consultation with the governments of the provinces.
We are in favour of respecting the rights of the provinces, but let not the federal government assume alone the right to determine the needs of the provinces without consulting them. While listening earlier to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon), I was thinking that they should have initiated those consultations themselves since they were in power from 1957.
In particular, my ministers will strive to lessen international tensions and halt the arms race by seeking measures of controlled disarmament, including a treaty to end nuclear tests under reasonable safeguards.
For this purpose, the armed forces of Canada should have available the modern weapons necessary to perform effectively the defensive tasks which Canada has undertaken in the alliance.
Mr. Speaker, that is a bit steep.


An hon. Member:: That is a good one.


David Réal Caouette: It certainly is. On the one hand, we must strive to lessen tensions and on the other hand we must arm.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) deals with nuclear weapons. We in the province of Quebec, together with other Canadians across the country, have taken a stand in that regard. We have stated our opposition to armaments and war, and I will tell you why.
We do not believe in the possibility of nuclear war any more than we believe in the possible use of bacteriological gases such as those which were used in the years 1914-18. As soon as the Russians, the British and the Germans realized that the winds could turn and push the gases back to their senders they met and decided: "Let us not use gas warfare, it is too dangerous. We can throw gases which may come back in our own face and then we may turn out to be the loser." The same situation would develop as far as nuclear warfare is concerned.
But nuclear weapon manufacturers are interested in producing such weapons. In my opinion, instead of following the path of destruction, the Canadian government should
The Address-Mr. Caouette play the part of a peacemaker and invite all the nations of the world, including Russia, to promote peace and to guarantee the security and freedom of men, putting nuclear power at the service of men, instead of preparing it for the annihilation of humanity. That simply is the position we have adopted in defining our aims and our ideal in Canada and in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, when I had the privilege of visiting Jamaica, a small and poor country where there is extreme poverty, I noticed that people in that country were not asking at all for nuclear weapons or atomic bombs but quite contrary they needed money that we now appropriate for atomic warfare. That money would help them to buy bread, butter, clothes and houses because they too are entitled to live as men, as creatures of God. And if our country undertook to do that it would give an example of true peace and of unity in the brotherhood of nations and that can become a reality provided we act in good faith.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne also deals with industrial expansion. Now, I come from an industrial area, the mining area of Quebec where there are gold, copper and zinc mines. There are also to be found vast forests and large farms. But the economy of the area, and more particularly that of the counties of Villeneuve, Chapleau and part of Temiscamingue, is based on mining.
Our area has a great number of mining prospects and it would only be delighted to increase their development. The prospectors could make more discoveries, and the industrialists could set up more mills; should the government decide immediately to raise by $10 an ounce the price for Canadian gold, we would see a great number of new mining companies spring up in our area. Thousands of people would thus find profitable employment, while thousands of others would continue to manufacture other products in that area, which has been practically undeveloped so far.
I would also suggest that the government grant a yearly increase of 3 per cent to new production of gold. Such a step would revive the economical life of our area, especially in the riding of Villeneuve, and nobody would suffer from it. Moreover, the setting up of these new mining companies in our area would bring additional revenue to the government and would help to create more jobs for the people who are now loafing in certain towns, in the northwestern part of the province of Quebec, and throughout the province.

The Address-Mr. Caouette It is beyond doubt that such a policy would bring about employment opportunities, and we would thus contribute to the revival of the economic life of our area and, indirectly, to the improvement of the whole Canadian economy.
The same suggestion could apply to the Elliot Lake district where hundreds of houses, now empty, had to be taken over by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The people who bought those houses five, six or seven years ago have lost all their life's savings. Citizens are idle in an area where it would be possible to set up new industries or promote the re-opening of mines which are already shut down, by signing agreements or contracts with the United States, England or other countries where uranium could be used, just like copper and zinc are being used today to bring about new production opportunities in our country.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne does not contain any definite statement on the setting up of a department of industry. What will be the functions of such a department? What will it promote? Will it set up an organization to which industry can look for advice? Industry is ready to do everything it can to increase production.
As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), our leader, mentioned last night, Mr. G. L. Barber, an economist, and professor at the University of Manitoba, spoke to the point when he said that the injection of $1 billion into the Canadian economy would contribute to its recovery and to its continuous development. That theory is not very remote from the policy the Social Crediters have long advocated.
Instead of considering national production on a productive basis or with regard to the potential production, we should consider the whole of the economy of Canada from the point of view of the consumer, for it is the consumer who, after all, will get the whole Canadian industry moving. The consumer who will have sufficient purchasing power to buy the products manufactured for him shall order from industry; industry will be operating and thousands of unemployed will become employees who will contribute to the development of our common inheritance and who will help to establish peace, justice, security and abundance for each and everyone of us.

(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, this may sound repetitious, but I should like to add my congratulations to yourself upon your unanimous appointment as chairman of committees of the whole and Deputy Speaker of this House of Commons. I am certain you will find the experience most interesting and exhilarating. Through you, sir, may I convey my congratulations to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Mac-naughton) on his appointment to Speaker of this house. I convey these congratulations with a great deal of sincerity because of my association with our present Speaker during the time he was chairman of our public accounts committee. It must have been a most unique experience for the hon. member to be the first opposition member in the history of this house, as far as my knowledge goes, to be appointed chairman of such an important committee. I can say, sir, without any hesitation whatsoever that I think it was the leadership he gave us and the impartiality he showed which made the public accounts committee over the years one of the most interesting, influential and powerful committees ever known in the history of this House of Commons. I know that the impartiality, understanding and compassion he showed in that committee will be carried forward into his honoured position as our Speaker.
Although this may sound a little impertinent or impudent, Mr. Speaker, may I say, in concluding these remarks and anticipating that he will do such a remarkable job that in so doing he will have to find, as experience in this house has already shown, firmness together with impartiality and compassion, otherwise a few individuals may try to take advantage of his compassion and reasonableness.
This leads me to the next subject about which I should like to make a few remarks. I sincerely hope that all the words which have been spoken in this debate will be followed through with action in the appointment of a committee of this House of Commons to make an early study and, I hope, early decision on the standing orders and procedures of this house. Sir, I have had a little experience in parliament, always in opposition, although there is always the hope of a change. Because of that experience I must say that we are 265 directors of the biggest business of this country. Therefore it is without doubt somewhat difficult to work out standing orders and procedures which can cover everything. However, I have no hesitation in saying, even if I may be called an independent thinker and something of a renegade, that we can do a lot more than we have ever done in the past

toward expediting the business of the people by some reforms in our procedures and standing orders.
I hope, although this might be considered to be almost rebellious, that in the considerations of this committee-which I hope will be appointed very soon-they will give real study to the problems of expediting the business of the people as well as the necessity of all members having full rights of expression. I hope, sir-and may I say that I am speaking personally; I have not taken it up with the other members of our group-that some way will be found to stop some of the useless repetition that holds us up for days unnecessarily in the house. I hope some method will be found of outlining in detail just what is a question of urgency under the orders of the day. I hope some method will be found whereby those things that belong on the order paper will be put on the order paper, and some method of deciding just how many supplementary questions should be asked on one question under orders of the day.
I also hope, sir, that something will be done toward giving consideration to the appointment of select standing committees of this house. To me, quite bluntly, it has always been, I would say, stupid and asinine to have under our standing orders, as we have under standing order 65, committees of this house composed of 50 or 60 members of whom 10, 15 or 20 shall constitute a quorum. It is my firm conviction that serious consideration should be given to some revamping of standing order 65 in order that we may have not only committees which work efficiently but committees with as close to full attendance as possible, and not attendance just once in a while when decisions are made-which has happened in the past- when it comes to a vote, by members who were never in the committee when the data, information and facts were before the committee. These, sir, are some of the things which I believe should be considered. If considered properly and efficiently and decided upon by the members of this house in a responsible way, we can do much to expedite the business of the house and see that we achieve a great deal more efficiency than has been possible in the past.
Since this session opened, Mr. Speaker, I have been most interested in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne. It would be almost amusing, if it were not tragic, to note what has transpired thus far. Why do I say it would be amusing, if it were not tragic? Well, I do not think I have been absent from this chamber for many minutes since the session opened, and we have seen members of Her Majesty's most loyal official opposition rising in their places and 28902-5-84
The Address-Mr. Winch challenging the government to consider and act upon problems and policies which they supinely refused to deal with in the six years they were in office, when they had the power to tackle them.
Then, of course, on the other side of the picture we have Her Majesty's government, who in the previous six years sat on this side of the house and raged and railed against the Conservatives when they formed the government about the way in which they answered questions. They said it was undemocratic, impossible, denying the rights of parliament and the rights of members. Hansard is full of such expressions day after day and month after month. In this twenty sixth parliament of Canada we had just got down to orders of the day when we could ask questions and, lo and behold, we found this government giving exactly the same answers that were given in the previous six years by the Conservative cabinet.


Mr. Robichaud:: Explain.


Harold Edward Winch: There is no question about it; just look at Hansard. In all seriousness and sincerity, and not temerity, I say this is the kind of political hypocrisy which makes a sham of parliamentary democracy. What we need, whether we are in opposition or government, is a sense of responsibility and a sense of principle. I have long felt that one of the most important requirements to improving parliamentary democracy is that we do not say in opposition what we are not prepared to do in government.


An hon. Member:: Have you tried it?


Harold Edward Winch: No, sir, I have not yet had the opportunity of trying it, but you may bo surprised how soon we may have the opportunity.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You would be surprised.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at this time the 265 members who make up this House of Commons have greater responsibility than ever before, because for approximately 18 months the business of Canada was brought to a halt. For almost 18 months there was too much rehashing of the previous election and campaigning for the next. There are too many problems which have to be faced- too many decisions which have to be made. It is, therefore, my sincere hope, and I know it is the hope of this group in the House of Commons, that we shall face our responsibility in a proper manner as Canadians elected to do a job first and to be political partisans second. I have already said that I feel a good deal of time has been lost in previous parliaments because of unnecessary and useless repetition. I do not want to be

The Address-Mr. Winch guilty of that myself. Therefore, I do not intend to comment at any length on what is contained in the speech from the throne. The most important aspects of the attitude taken by this group have already been outlined by our leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). All I wish to say is that I find myself in agreement with his general statement that there are a number of proposals in the speech from the throne which could undoubtedly prove of benefit in the long run to the Canadian economy and to the Canadian people provided the legislation itself, when it is brought down, embodies the principles contained in the government's program. We shall therefore have to wait until the legislation is introduced before we are in a position to make specific and detailed comment.
However, much as I agree with long range planning-and such planning has been required for many, many years-I do want to say I was bitterly disappointed that there was not some indication that the government intends to put into effect the immediate measures which are required to handle some of the problems facing Canada. It is all very fine for the Liberals to campaign for one million jobs in five years. It is very fine to have something in the speech from the throne about long range planning through the establishment of councils or boards which will have an impact in years to come, as I hope it will. But, Mr. Speaker, that does not clothe and shelter the half million persons presently unemployed.
I should like to say-and I say this with full knowledge of what I am saying-that I had the privilege of spending 20 years in the parliament of British Columbia and I have now spent 10 years in this House of Commons. But never as in the two months preceding the opening of this house did I have as many visitors or phone calls to my home from people unemployed saying: "For God's sake, Winch, can you get me a job?" Nor did I have so many who were going off unemployment insurance because their payments had run out, or who were already off it. And what could I as an individual member of this house give to those heads of families in need of immediate attention? The Liberals said that they had the answer, and they did not say during the campaign that the answer would be forthcoming three or five years from now. They said they would have the answer when they took office. Mr. Speaker, there is not a thing in the speech from the throne to indicate any action to take care of the immediate problem of the half million unemployed and of those who are in a different category.

That brings me to something else. I do not know what was said by the Liberals across Canada during the campaign, but I do know that in B.C. in general, and in Vancouver in particular, they were interested in the training of our youth, in higher education for our youth. They were interested in seeing that our youth had the opportunity, irrespective of their family income, of getting that education. Yet I can assure you, sir, that each day before I came back to this house I had boys and girls coming to my home who were going into their last year at university, whose parents were not able to pay for that last year and to maintain them. They were themselves unable to obtain employment. Are they to be denied? While the Liberal party said they had the immediate answer in British Columbia, and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) said they had the immediate answer in Vancouver, that there would be 10,000 scholarships and the opportunity to take care of these people, the payment of their fees and their maintenance, I find no word of this in the speech from the throne. We have had no indication yet from anyone on the government side of the house as to what is going to be done for those young people in their last year or their second last year at university.
Surely, sir, it is not carping criticism, it is not irresponsibility, for us to draw this to the attention of the government and to ask them when they are going to act and how soon. Because the need is now, not three, four or five years from now. We agree with long range planning, but we do not want people to starve to death and not be able to take advantage of it in, we hope, the not too distant future. In the few days which lie ahead during this debate we hope that we will hear something from the government about the immediate emergency plans for those in need now, both with regard to the unemployed and with regard to education.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the balance of time at my disposal I want to comment on the subamendment moved by our leader. May I remind you of the wording:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have indicated their intention of acquiring nuclear arms for Canadian forces, thereby lessening the chances for nuclear disarmament and increasing the danger of nuclear war.
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter not only of major concern to every member of the New Democratic party, but also to the people of Canada, and indirectly through this Canadian House of Commons to the people of the world. I had the honour of being a Canadian delegate-observer at the United Nations in 1960. I have followed the speeches at the

United Nations by Canadian delegates since 1960. I was a very proud man to hear the representations made in the United Nations by Canadian official spokesmen. I heard them in plenary session and in the No. 1 political committee speaking on subjects such as the cessation of nuclear testing, no expansion of the nuclear club, and general and complete disarmament along the lines laid down by Mr. Wadsworth when he was the United States ambassador, and which, it was suggested, could be accomplished in five or six years. Being so proud of the Canadian stand I would go into the lounge or into the corridors and hear the Afro-Asian delegates say: "You in Canada speak with a forked tongue. You talk this way at the United Nations, you act this way in the disarmament committee in Geneva, but at home you purchase weapons which can only be utilized if they have a nuclear warhead". Mr. Speaker, that was a keen disappointment to me and I maintain a double cross of the people of Canada, because you cannot speak one way outside of Canada and act another way inside Canada. Nor can I see any difference between the preceding government and the present one as regards talking with a forked tongue.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the statements we have received thus far that decisions have to be made because of previous commitments. I find that what I heard when I attended as a delegate to NATO in 1961 and what I heard from NORAD in no way coincides with the position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). If I may briefly refer to that, with regard to NORAD it was my understanding from reading the newspapers that the Minister of National Defence said we were going to have nuclear warheads for our Bomarcs in Canada because this was a commitment made by the previous government. If the present government says that it is a commitment, then I cannot understand why on January 9 General John K. Gerhart, commander of the north American air defence system, said that there was no commitment to NORAD that Canada assume nuclear weapons or nuclear warheads.
This morning I had the opportunity of doing a double check to make sure that I had this correct. The Ottawa Journal of January 9 reports General Gerhart as having said:
Lack of nuclear arms in Canada has not altered NORAD'S over-all planning. General Gerhart made his comment while here to inspect the Bomarc and semi-automatic ground environment defence complex which form part of the NORAD set-up. The U.S. army officer stated Canada was not committed to nuclear arms under NORAD and this position was well known when NORAD was formed.
Surely General Gerhart, commander of the North American air defence system, knows
The Address-Mr. Winch what he is talking about. I presume he does. He also said, and this is in quotation marks:
"Whether we have them here in North Bay or not is not germane to our planning."
On that basis I fail to understand why our Prime Minister, a Nobel peace prize winner, says that under NORAD we are committed to equipping our weapons with nuclear warheads. Moreover, the Bomarc is a defence against the manned bomber. Will he please explain this? I have here the Vancouver Province of January 31 last containing a Washington news service dispatch in which United States defence secretary McNamara makes it very clear that the problem in a future war is not the manned bomber, but the missile. I am not going to quote the article but it is here. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that McNamara said this on January 31 last.
Did hon. members read the Globe and Mail this morning? What does secretary of defence McNamara say in appearing before a congressional committee?
The great problem is that in a missile age we must assume the Soviets will first attack with missiles before their bombers attack and almost certainly among the targets for their missile attack would be our SAGE centres, in which case they would be out of operation before the bombers arrive.
Warning against an intercontinental missile attack comes through huge, powerful radar fences constructed in the far north, in Alaska and Greenland. No accurate western way of shooting down these intercontinental ballistic missiles exists yet.
Here we have Mr. McNamara, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, saying that any attack will be a missile attack first. The missile attack will be on our SAGE installations of which Canada only has one, that at North Bay where we have the Bomarc, and that installation will be blown up before the manned bomber comes against which the Bomarc installation is supposed to defend us.
We simply ask in all reasonableness that the House of Commons be taken a little more into the confidence of the government on this matter and that we be given a little more information.
What I have said about NORAD also applies to NATO. I am sorry I only have another four minutes. It is difficult to say in four minutes what I want to say about NATO but I am going to try. NATO was formed as a military alliance, perhaps a necessary and essential one at that time. I had the privilege of being one of the House of Commons delegates to the NATO parliamentary association meeting in Paris in November of 1961. The other delegates must confirm what I am about to say and if they do not they had better watch out because on my desk I have a transcript of every word said there.

The Address-Mr. Pearson
Information was given us in 1961, not only by General Norstad, then the commander of NATO, but by leading speakers from other countries in NATO, that perhaps too much emphasis had been placed on the nuclear deterrent and that the great need was the building up of conventional forces. It was said at that conference that the country that could perhaps best build up the necessary, mobile, trained, conventional force was Canada. That is on the record.
Much has been said in recent weeks by NATO members and in the United States by the president himself about the need for the building up of a conventional force because any move in Europe outside of an all-out war will be a probing attack, and such an attack will be by conventional weapons. In 1961 at the NATO conference it was said that such an attack must be repelled by conventional weapons because if we use tactical nuclear weapons that will bring about a strategic nuclear war. This is all a matter of record. Why do we not follow it up?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry also, sir.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to intervene again in this debate but the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and the terms in which he moved it, with some challenging references to myself, make it necessary for me to place before the house the position of the government in respect of the subamendment, which is very clear indeed in its terms, Mr. Speaker, though not, as I hope to point out, quite so clear in its implications.
I regret that the hon. member who has just sat down was not able to complete his remarks because they are always interesting and always listened to with attention by members of the house. He emphasized that he will perhaps forgive me for calling the righteous consistency of his party in these and other matters. It is interesting to recall, though I did not have very much opportunity to do as much research as I would have liked in recalling it, the position of the New Democratic party and its predecessor, the C.C.F. party, in respect of this matter of nuclear defence.
As I ventured to say earlier in this debate, NATO accepted a nuclear commitment for the alliance as far back as December 19, 1957, when at the council meeting of that year the communique stated, and I repeat, that NATO, not any individual member but NATO, "has decided to establish stocks of nuclear warheads which will be readily available for the

defence of the alliance in case of need". Was there a violent or any other kind of reaction in this house from the C.C.F. party of that day to that communique, to that result of the NATO council meeting of that time which was reported in this house four days later by the prime minister of that day on December 21, 1957, in terms set out at page 2721 of Hansard"! This is one paragraph only from his statement:
We had to ensure that the NATO defence structure, first erected to meet the needs of 1949, was adjusted to meet the needs of 1957, to render impregnable, as I said a moment ago, the defensive capacity of the Atlantic community in the nuclear era.
That statement was made by the prime minister of that time after a decision taken by the government of that day to agree to NATO taking on a nuclear commitment for the coalition; and I would have thought, if my hon. friends were as consistent as they boast about being, that they would have reacted to that first commitment by Canada to NATO nuclear defence as they have reacted recently to statements from this side of the house. But, Mr. Speaker, there was no such reaction. There was no reference in the debate from which I have just quoted to the fact the government of the day was irresponsible or contemptuous of parliament in not consulting and getting the approval of parliament before it made this commitment. The government of that day had the right to take on that commitment as a member of a coalition, come back to parliament as it did and make the announcement of what it had done. It was the right of parliament, then, to accept or repudiate that commitment. This is responsible government, as I ventured to point out last night when quoting the prime minister of that day in support of my contention.
There was no complaint about the procedure that was followed at that time. In fact, the comment by the leader of the C.C.F. party at that time on the substance of the decision made was very, very mild indeed, although that began the process of making NATO into a nuclear defensive power to meet the new kind of threat which faced the members of NATO at that time. So it went on for a couple of years. There was very little reference in this house by any member of the C.C.F. to the inequity of this decision or subsequent decisions that the government of that day took on the roles which could only be fulfilled effectively by the use of nuclear ammunition for weapon systems which had been acquired.
I am not going to quote remarks made in the intervening years. However, it was not until 1960 that I was able to find any change in the opinion of the members of the C.C.F.

party, the predecessor of the New Democratic party. The first statement in which they indicated they had been contemplating a change in their attitude was made on July 14, 1960, page 6311 of Hansard. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) had this to say, and this was no doubt prior to the formation of the New Democratic party, but not long before. I quote from Hansard of that day when the hon. member said:
Western policy-
This was a statement of their policy at that time, the policy of his party.
Western policy is to balance NATO's weakness in conventional forces by being ready to use so-called tactical nuclear weapons. This idea is based on two false premises: first, that a weak force armed with nuclear weapons is going to beat the large force armed with nuclear weapons; second, that a nuclear war in Europe could possibly remain limited.
I am not quarrelling at the moment with the validity or otherwise of these premises. They might be valid. Then, the hon. member continued as follows:
Canada must insist that NATO recast its strategy, its tactics and its organization so that its defensive forces are capable of meeting any Soviet aggression with conventional weapons long enough-
I certainly agree with this.
-to allow diplomacy to seek a settlement before, progressively, tactical nuclear weapons and thermonuclear weapons are used.
In other words, according to the hon. gentleman who was the spokesman for his party at that time, NATO should have sufficient conventional strength in order to hold an attack until the forces of political negotiation and diplomacy could at least get working. If they were not successful, and if the attack continued on a scale which would be enlarged, as it probably would be, then according to this statement NATO would progressively be permitted to use tactical nuclear weapons and thermonuclear weapons.
Then, the hon. member for Kootenay West went on to say this:
We say that we should make it very clear to our NATO allies that we will withdraw from the alliance-
On what condition?
-unless they all honestly strive to give effect to disarmament and disengagement. The whole idea is to work toward the creation of a buffer zone in Europe at the same time as we make a buffer zone of Canada. That is our approach to this problem at the present time.
This represented I believe, Mr. Speaker, a very substantial change on the part of the C.C.F. party of that day. It was a move in the direction of the policy which was adopted at the founding conference of the New Democratic party. It is a policy towards NATO
The Address-Mr. Pearson to which we on this side took exception, and will continue to take exception as a policy which would end NATO. We are not willing, on this side, to do anything to weaken let alone destroy NATO.
My hon. friend, the leader of the New Democratic party, will recall that at that founding conference-I have not got the resolution before me but he will correct me if I misinterpret it-it was made quite clear that if NATO itself became a nuclear power, and NATO had already indicated in 1957 its requirement for nuclear protection, then Canada should withdraw as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They went further. They said that Canada should work towards-I have not the exact words but I think I am right in saying this, the abandonment of the NATO pact and the Warsaw pact. We should get rid of them both. I think that was the resolution adopted by the founding convention of his party. To that, we on this side take strong exception and we interpret this particular subamendment in the light of the resolution of the founding convention of his party on this subject.
There could be no greater triumph, Mr. Speaker, for the forces of imperial communism than to have the abandonment of both the NATO and Warsaw pacts. When I say that, I am not for one moment suggesting, as my hon. friend tried to suggest I was suggesting, that he and his friends are deliberately supporting in any way any communist objective. His interpretation of what I said during the election campaign, as I hope to point out, is quite false. The abandonment of the NATO pact would mean the abandonment of western collective security, the abandonment of a coalition of free states bound together in freedom to defend their security and thereby preserve the peace by showing their resolutions to defend their security. The abandonment of the Warsaw pact would be nothing at all because the Warsaw pact is a fagade. Who could say for one moment that if there were no Warsaw pact Soviet control over European communist satellites would be weakened in any way, shape or form? This is the part of the New Democratic policy in regard to NATO to which we take very strong exception indeed, and we relate that policy to the subamendment which is now before us.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said this morning that I have stated, though he did not identify the statement in any way, that nuclear arms was not an issue. I did not know what he was talking about when he made that statement. Certainly, in the election campaign the acquisition of nuclear ammunition for those nuclear defensive arms systems which had been acquired

The Address-Mr. Pearson previously was indeed an issue. We accepted it as such. We made our position clear in regard to the matter and we stood on that position before the people in an election. Indeed, my hon. friend and his followers took a definite position on that matter also.
Then, the hon. gentleman went on to say that the leader of the Liberal party, and I took down what he said so I think it is correct, said that those of us who were opposing nuclear arms were seeking to promote the first objective of Soviet policy. I would ask him to give any evidence to support that kind of statement which he said, if it had been made, was a contemptible statement. If it had been made, it would have been a contemptible statement, but it was not made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I have here the press report of a speech which the Prime Minister made when taking part in the campaign. The report is contained in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 7, and I should be glad to place that statement on the record if the Prime Minister so desires.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know that statement, Mr. Speaker. I contradicted that statement at the time. I did not make that statement in the form in which it was reported, and I said so at the time. I understood that the leader of the New Democratic party was referring to statements I made in Cooksville and Kingston on this matter. Of course if the hon. gentleman would like to place that statement on the record he can, and I will deny it again as being inaccurate, the same as when it was reported.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can see very little value in putting it on the record if the right hon. gentleman would only deny it, but certainly I followed the right hon. gentleman's statements very closely and I at no time saw any official denial. To my knowledge the statement was made on two separate occasions, one at Cooksville and one at Saskatoon, and the statement quoted in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 7 reads as follows:
He quoted resolutions passed at the N.D.P. founding convention in 1961.
Mr. Pearson said the break-up of north Atlantic alliance was the first objective of the Soviet union and the policy adopted by the N.D.P. "contributes to that break-up."
Their defence policy therefore, is not only against all nuclear weapons in Canada in the alliance, however defence in character, but it would destroy the alliance itself and weaken the security arrangements which are, in present circumstances, essential for peace.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I have been saying-and these are not the terms in which the hon. gentleman

quoted me this morning-that the first objective of the Soviet union is to break up the north Atlantic treaty alliance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I draw the right hon. gentleman's attention to the phrase that says;
-and the policy adopted by the N.D.P. contributes to that break-up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And, Mr. Speaker, the founding resolutions of the N.D.P. were to the effect that if NATO becomes a nuclear organization we should withdraw from it and we should work towards the abandonment of both NATO and the Warsaw pact. If that is not a policy leading to the break-up of NATO, I would like to know what is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister does this mean he is not denying the statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not denying for one minute that the policy of the N.D.P., in its founding resolutions, would lead to the breakup of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Of course they would, and I would hope that perhaps the leader of that party, who may not hold these views or may have changed them since the founding convention, would make it clear it is not the policy of his party to break up NATO by refusing to be a member of that organization if it becomes a nuclear organization, which in fact it has been since 1957. I would also hope my hon. friend would repudiate the suggestion that we should work towards the abandonment of both the Warsaw pact and the NATO pact as being on the same level of interest to Canada in its determination to protect peace and security. It would be a very important gesture of clarification if my hon. friend, or one of his colleagues, would do that.
This morning the hon. gentleman made a very strong attack on the government, saying we had flouted parliamentary responsibility in not giving parliament a chance to decide on this matter before any decision was taken by the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, the proper constitutional position on this matter, which I have already repeated this afternoon, was put on the record by me last night, in the language of the former prime minister which he used some years ago, and which I need not repeat this afternoon.
Our position on this matter, as I have already said, was made clear during the election campaign. The N.D.P. position was made clear during the election campaign. Also the position of the Conservative party was made clear during that campaign, and that was to do nothing and wait and see what would turn up. Our position today in this parliament is that we are standing in the

face of this subamendment on that position, and this is surely the proper constitutional position for a government to take.
As I said yesterday, we are at the moment negotiating a bilateral agreement. If it is not a satisfactory agreement we will not accept it. We hope there will be a satisfactory bilateral agreement with the United States, which must be agreed on before any other step can be taken with regard to the acquisition of nuclear ammunition for the Canadian weapons system.
As is common to all the agreements that have been made by the United States with all other NATO members, the United States will retain custody of any nuclear warheads which are made available to the Canadian weapons system, but there will be joint control so that warheads which would be ready for instant use in the awful emergency of war, after release by the United States in that emergency, can be used only on orders from Canada itself. This is known, of course, as the two-key system and is common to all agreements for joint control of nuclear weapons, made by the United States with any NATO member.
This bilateral, political agreement, which is only one step, cannot in any event be completed before parliament has had a chance to express its views on this whole question of nuclear warheads for Canadian weapons. The hon. gentleman criticized me for making the statement the other day that no formal parliamentary approval was necessary. That of course is perfectly true in the sense that no formal parliamentary approval is necessary for this kind of agreement between two countries, unless that agreement takes a formal character in the shape of a treaty or an agreement which has to be ratified, and submitted to parliament for approval before ratification.
This is not that kind of agreement; but we are giving parliament an opportunity to express itself on this question and that is why a paragraph was put in the speech from the throne, and the hon. gentleman quite correctly has seized on that paragraph as a justification for his subamendment; and if the subamendment had not been made in those terms, we would be bringing forward very shortly a resolution to set up a defence committee to discuss defence policy. The question of nuclear arms can be discussed then, and if the verdict of parliament is against the government on this matter, if the verdict of parliament is even in favour of the subamendment, then parliament will have decided, the government will have been defeated, and if that is not a proper constitutional position to take then I
The Address-Mr. Pearson misread my constitutional history. If that is contempt of parliament I do not know what to say.
I would also point out to my hon. friend that parliament was called at the very earliest possible date so that it would have a chance to discuss and decide on this and any other matter. There was not one day's delay before parliament was called together. I would suggest to my hon. friend that the procedure adopted by the government in this matter satisfies, in spirit and in letter, the requirements that I mentioned in my speech of January 18 in Toronto, which my hon. friend himself quoted this morning.
Then the hon. gentleman said, and this has been repeated both by himself and others, that if we make this kind of agreement with the United States, and if this agreement is followed up by the technical arrangements which have to be negotiated to ensure the nuclear warheads will be available, under United States custody, for Canadian weapon systems in an emergency, then Canada will become a member of the nuclear club.
I would point out in that respect, Mr. Speaker, that the former prime minister on July 14, 1960 had something to say about this, and what he said seems to me to be very sensible and correct. He said at that time, as reported in Hansard at page 6271:
Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that United States law requires that the ownership of nuclear weapons must remain with the United States and that the use of such weapons requires presidential authorization. That is the law as it now stands and as it has been in effect since 1945 or 1946.
At the same time, as I have said before in the house, if and when nuclear weapons are acquired by the Canadian forces, these weapons will not be used except as the Canadian government decides and in the manner approved by the Canadian government. These two elements together constitute joint control, and joint control is consistent with the view I expressed in the house on February 20,
1959,	that it is important to limit the spread of nuclear weapons at the independent disposal of national governments.
If joint control is desirable in order to prevent the extension of nuclear weapons under the control of national governments, because if a national government has control of nuclear weapons that would indeed be an extension of the nuclear club, surely it is even more desirable to have as broad a based control as is possible under NATO so there will be additional safeguards to the use of these weapons and there will be additional obstacles against their extension under national control inside the NATO coalition. The former minister of national defence also had something to say about this on August 5,
1960,	when, as reported in Hansard on page 7652 he said:
So whether these warheads are placed in Canada or in the leased bases in Canada or in the United
110	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. Pearson Kingdom, the United States still retain possession of them until such time as the President of the United States releases them for use to the authorities of the country concerned.
That surely makes it clear that in the eyes of the recent government and in the eyes of the present government the provisions we are seeking for joint control of these weapons as long as these weapons are in the hands of Canadian forces, the provision for this kind of control to be brought under the authority of NATO to the greatest extent possible, is not putting Canada into the nuclear club and will not be interpreted by other countries as doing so. I ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), if he doubts that, whether he considers that those members of NATO who already have nuclear agreements with the United States are members of the nuclear club- Turkey, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and perhaps one or two others. Is Germany a member of the nuclear club? The position of Canada, if these negotiations are satisfactorily concluded, will be exactly the same as the position of those other members of NATO who have made agreements and acted on them. Therefore, it is perfectly consistent to maintain that position while doing all we can-and we shall do all we can-to prevent the extension of the national manufacture and national custody or control of nuclear weapons.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Would the right hon. gentleman allow a question? Did he not, on January 9, 1961, state in effect that the acceptance of nuclear weapons under joint control would in fact be making Canada a member of the nuclear club?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall making any such statement in those terms. I am stating the position now as I know it to be in the light of all the information I have secured, including some information which was not available to us when we were in opposition and which reinforces the position we take on this matter.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) says that Canada has no commitment, or that he cannot find any commitment which requires such a decision as we have taken in order that it might be implemented. The hon. gentleman in his interesting speech quotes General Gerhart In support of that point of view and says Canada was not committed to nuclear arms under NORAD. Of course, it is perfectly true that when Canada under the previous government agreed to the establishment of NORAD there was no commitment of any kind regarding nuclear weapons, because the Canadian contribution to NORAD at that time was the Canadian


Arrow airplane. It was only subsequent to the destruction without trace of the Arrow and the acceptance by the previous government of the Bomarc missile that Canada accepted a nuclear commitment, because that missile, as the former prime ministar has pointed out so many times, cannot be effectively used without nuclear warheads.


An hon. Member:: Could the Arrow?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed, the Arrow could, and when the Arrow was constructed it was not suggested by those in charge at that time that the Arrow should carry nuclear weapons at all. But the prime minister of the day said, as will be found on page 1223 of Hansard of February 20, 1959, that the full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear warheads -the Bomarc, the F-104, the Honest John and the Voodoo. He went on in the same speech to say-and I ask the house whether this is a commitment or not:
It is our intention to provide Canadian forces with modern and efficient weapons to enable them to fulfil their respective roles.
And these roles, as the former prime minister stated at the time, could not be effectively fulfilled without the nuclear warhead. In the same speech, to make this point doubly sure, the prime minister of that day said:
We must reluctantly admit the need in present circumstances for nuclear weapons of a defensive character.
Therefore, I ask the hon. gentleman if, having accepted this role, certain consequences do not automatically follow. When you accept a role you accept a commitment to undertake that role effectively. Having accepted the role, did not the previous government accept a commitment to acquire the ammunition without which these weapons systems would not be effective?
This is not a commitment put in the form of a treaty. It is not a commitment put in the shape of a formal agreement between two governments for ratification. But it is a moral and political commitment if any government ever made such a commitment to any other government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? Did the Prime Minister think Canada had a commitment when he made his speech to students at Saskatchewan university on November 28 and said he was opposed to Canada accepting nuclear weapons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have that clipping from a university question and answer period to which the hon. member has referred and to which he also referred this morning. He did not read all of this article and, of course, what

he read was not in quotation marks. Oh, yes. I see it is in quotation marks. I said this, also in quotes:
Canada's NATO defence commitments are such that they cannot be discharged without nuclear weapons.
That is what I told the students. I will read on. This is also in quotation marks:
When these commitments were introduced, the Liberal party opposed them, not because of disagreement with the notion of collective defence, but because we felt it was the wrong role for Canada to play. Now we must either discharge our commitments or change them.
That, Mr. Speaker, is our position. The weapons systems are there. We learned last autumn that delivery of the F-104s was taking place-that the airplanes would in a few months be in Europe in the hands of the squadron. The Honest John missiles were in the hands of the regiments. The Bomarcs were on site at North Bay. At that time there was no possibility of changing this role without scrapping a billion dollars worth of equipment. Canada had to follow through until those roles were changed, and this government intends to do just that.
At that time, last autumn, we learned what could happen when you accept certain responsibilities. We learned from the Cuban crisis what the acceptance of certain commitments and responsibilities can do to our relations with our neighbour and our friend and we also learned last autumn over at the NATO meeting what the refusal of the government of that day either to alter the role they had undertaken or to follow through had done to our reputation in the NATO alliance. If the hon. gentleman in the face of all this evidence does not believe that some commitment was accepted by Canada, will he explain why the former minister of national defence and other ministers of the previous government resigned from that government? Was it not because the commitment was not being carried out?
Hon. members on the other side may now say there was no commitment, but they will not get support from at least one member of the front bench opposite in that regard. Therefore, it is clear the government cannot support the subamendment moved by the hon. gentleman. The subamendment says:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have Indicated their intention of acquiring nuclear arms for Canadian forces-
What we have indicated our intention of doing is to negotiate, if possible, a satisfactory bilateral agreement of the type negotiated between the United States and other NATO members and, if a satisfactory agreement providing for joint control can be reached, to proceed then with the technical
The Address-Mr. Pearson arrangements which will make it possible, not to acquire nuclear arms but to acquire the nuclear warheads for the arms systems which have already been obtained and which cannot be used effectively without them. And we propose to do this in a manner which will not prevent in any way the fight for disarmament in which this government will participate to the best of its ability. The first form of disarmament we must seek is nuclear disarmament, and the first form of that is the abolition of all testing. It is possible for the government to adopt this policy, until our role and commitments are changed as a result of defence reviews, without weakening in any single respect our fight for disarmament and for peace and security in the world. Thus I think the terms of the subamendment, particularly the expression "acquiring nuclear arms" are not accurate.
Then the subamendment goes on to say:
-thereby lessening the chances for nuclear disarmament and increasing the danger of nuclear war.
If the decision taken by the government to proceed in the direction I have indicated, along with other NATO members, is lessening the chances for nuclear disarmament and increasing the danger of nuclear war, then the implication of the criticism made by the hon. gentleman and his group is that we should withdraw from NATO, because the NATO alliance is now committed to a nuclear tactical deterrent. I do not believe for a minute that the nuclear tactical deterrent in the hands of the NATO council lessens the chances for nuclear disarmament or increases the danger of nuclear war. I think that until we can reach a general disarmament agreement, or some easing of tension which will allow a reduction of nuclear strength among those powers which now have it, there is no alternative open to the alliance but to make it conventionally strong in order to meet the first shock of an attack and then to build up a collective tactical deterrent should that conventional strength not be successful in holding the first attack. That seems to me to be a sensible defence policy and one which does not lessen the chances for nuclear disarmament or increase the danger of nuclear war. For these reasons we shall not be able to support the subamendment.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like the Prime Minister to clarify the thinking of one poor layman on this complicated subject. The right hon. gentleman has talked about commitments. He has talked also about negotiating. He used the expression "if we can negotiate an agreement". Are we committed before we negotiate an agreement or after we have negotiated it? If we cannot negotiate an agreement, what about the commitment?

The Address-Mr. Pearson


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to do everything I can to clarify the rarely bewildered mind of my poor layman friend. Surely, the hon. gentleman must know that when a government undertakes for its country a certain role in collective defence it also undertakes to adopt the means necessary to carry out that role. Otherwise, what is the point of accepting that role? You deceive your own people and you deceive the allies who rely on you to carry out that role. I am thinking, now, about the air division. Once we undertook the strike reconnaissance role for the F-104 aircraft we undertook to be effective in that role. That cannot be done without the acquisition of nuclear warheads. Having undertaken the role, the government of the day also undertook to negotiate an arrangement to that end with the United States. Indeed, it had begun negotiations for that purpose, thereby indicating it had accepted that commitment, too. But it did not follow through with those negotiations. We propose to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder if I may ask a brief question. In view of the fact that Denmark and Norway have not accepted nuclear weapons under NATO, does the Prime Minister consider that they, too, ought to withdraw from NATO?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not for one minute. The Danish and Norwegian position was made clear at the beginning. They did not wish to participate in any form of collective nuclear defence under NATO. They did not wish to acquire nuclear warheads for any of their weapons and they did not wish to have the nuclear weapons of any other member of NATO on their soil. They made that perfectly clear. They also accepted the resolution of December 17, 1957, concerning the necessity of NATO itself building up a nuclear deterrent force. However, they said from the beginning they did not wish to be involved in its implementation. Their decision was clear and it is respected. That is a very different situation from the one in which Canada finds itself at the present time.


Gilles Grégoire: About these commitments by Canada. Can the Prime Minister tell us at what level they were taken? Was it at cabinet level or at military staff level?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government of the day should answer that question. But the former prime minister spoke to the house on his return from a NATO council meeting and the minister of national defence also spoke to the house later indicating the new kind of strike reconnaissance role which had been undertaken. Therefore, the commitments were undertaken at the appropriate level, which was the level of the government of the day.


Gilles Grégoire: But those commitments were not endorsed by parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They were brought before the House of Commons and the government was not defeated in the debate which followed the making of those commitments. Therefore, they were endorsed by the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on entering this debate for the first time I should like to convey through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Speaker of the house my congratulations on his appointment to an office for which he is eminently suited by training, character and disposition. I should like to wish him well in the performance of his duties.
I should also at this stage express my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of this address who capably performed a rather difficult task, as is recognized by all of those who have preceded them in entering the House of Commons. I hope they continue to have success in their deliberations here.
I had not intended, Mr. Speaker, entering into the debate on this particular subject at this time, but it is an interesting topic and I should like to deal with some of the remarks which have been made. I take note of the fact that this morning the leader of the New Democratic party was as bold as a lion in presenting a case against the government, whereas the night before he had been very mild indeed, talking about no need for another election, and echoing the sentiments of the leader of the Social Credit party about it being urgent now for people to get down to business, that politics should be forgotten, and that a non-partisan approach should be taken to these various subjects. I do not see how you can have non-partisan approaches where political parties have divergent opinions on so many matters. The leader of the New Democratic party softened his attack when he finally came to move his amendment, with which I shall deal later on.
We have just listened with some interest but not much enlightenment to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Yesterday he was talking about the building up of straw men and knocking them over. This is a field in which he is adept. Today he built up a straw man. He said that the dissatisfaction with the amendment moved by the New Democratic party was dependant upon an attitude taken by that party at some convention, or on another occasion, with regard to NATO. The amendment has nothing, to do, as I see it, with NATO; it has something to do with the announced policy of the present government, but the Prime Minister

spent a great deal of time talking about the New Democratic party and its general attitude. It was for that reason he said, that he could not accept the amendment.
We might suggest that the subamendment should be accepted by the government for the very reason that in days gone by the Liberal party time and again expressed itself quite forcefully against any extension of the nuclear club, against any extension of the use of atomic weapons, and was quite clear that there should be no nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. I think that now the Liberal party would find itself in agreement with this amendment in view of its past history.
Of course, a most remarkable change took place during the parliamentary recess last December-January. The leader of the New Democratic party asked the present Prime Minister where he had been during that recess, whom he had seen, to whom he had talked, from whom he had taken his instructions, and I would repeat those questions to which we have not had an answer. Something happened in the interval, and the reversal of a position taken occurred early in January.
In addition to building up a straw man concerning the policy of the New Democratic party, the Prime Minister also referred at some considerable length to the decision of the North Atlantic council in December 1957. He said that the parliament of that day raised no objection. I might remind him that there was no indication in that decision that Canadian forces would be using nuclear weapons or that nuclear weapons would be stored on Canadian soil. The North Atlantic council decided-and I read from the communique of that period-the following:
NATO should establish stocks of nuclear warheads which will be readily available for the defence of the alliance in case of need.
The NATO council decided to accept an offer by the United States government under which that government-
-would deploy nuclear warheads under United States custody in accordance with NATO defensive planning in an agreement with the nations directly concerned. In the event of hostilities nuclear warheads would be released to the appropriate NATO supreme allied commander for employment by nuclear capable forces.
There was agreement by Canada to that general policy on the part of NATO in order to bolster up the weak conventional forces of that day; but there was no obligation, intention or desire on the part of Canada to play any part in that nuclear deterrent force; and in any case the weapons were all held by the United States. So I fail to see what relationship there is between the situation at the present moment and that prevailing in 1957 when the Prime Minister attempts to make
The Address-Mr. Churchill out that the parliament of that day raised no objection to the NATO policy as announced in that year.
The main attack launched this morning by the leader of the New Democratic party was on the flouting of parliament, on the disregard of parliament by the present government, on the contempt for parliament shown by the present government. He made his case on the fact that the Prime Minister had announced that Canada was going to go ahead with providing nuclear weapons for her forces and was going to have nuclear weapons placed on Canadian soil. It was to this that the leader of the New Democratic party objected. He said that this was not correct. He said: "You, the government, have not received a mandate from the people to take any such action as this. Nor have you received a mandate here in parliament. You do not know whether you are acceptable to parliament as the government of this country. You have been taking action without authority". It was on that basis that the amendment was drawn.
My expectation had been that when the amendment was read out, after the word "intention" the phrase "without consulting parliament" would have appeared. The amendment would then have read:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have indicated their intention without consulting parliament of acquiring nuclear arms for Canadian forces-
-and so on. That was the sum and substance of the speech made by the leader of the New Democratic party-the lack of authority in the hands of the present government, no mandate from the people to do this, no authority from this parliament to take any such action whatsoever.
I find it very difficult to follow the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in his convolutions, ramifications and wanderings with regard to this particular question. Even in the speech from the throne, where there was a chance for clarity of expression after an election campaign when nuclear arms were discussed on every platform in the country, all that this government could come up with was the following phrase:
The armed forces of Canada should have available the modern weapons necessary to perform effectively the defensive tasks which Canada has undertaken in the alliance.
Why should the Prime Minister and his colleagues not have put in clear and distinct words what they mean by "modern weapons"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The F-104.

The Address-Mr. Churchill


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do they mean weapons with nuclear tips? Do they mean nuclear warheads? They are just being evasive. They are afraid to set it out clearly and distinctly so that everybody can understand. I think one can say that our forces have modern weapons right now to perform effectively their defensive tasks. It depends on what the defensive task is and so far our armed forces are prepared for those tasks. There was no clarity there at all.
I noted that the speech the right hon. gentleman made yesterday was filled with many ifs and buts and other qualifications. He is speaking about the NATO council meeting and he says, as found on page 63 of Hansard:
It is quite clear from the nature of this meeting that there will be no discussion, let alone any recommendation, about the actual role undertaken by any member of the alliance.
Just two paragraphs later he says:
It may well be that at the NATO council meeting there may be a recommendation that the defence policy of the coalition should be re-examined. I would hope that could be done-
On the one hand, he says it is quite clear that there will be no discussion or recommendation about the role of any member and then he immediately goes on to say that there may be a recommendation with regard to the role or defence policy of the coalition. He then expresses the hope that there will be, and I presume he has given instructions to the delegation representing Canada at the NATO meeting to raise that question. Then he goes on to say, and he repeated it this afternoon- -just as Canada's defence policy will be reexamined in this house and by a special committee of this house.
I wonder what that will amount to? This is a great sop thrown to parliament. A defence committee on policy-I am not sure they have said it will be on policy-will be appointed. If it is a defence committee on policy the purpose is to give the government a chance to evade its responsibility. Time and time again we heard last year from members who now sit on the treasury benches that it was the duty of a government to make a decision and get on with the job. Here you have an ineffective, uncertain, poorly organized government not sure of its position saying: We do not know what we should do about defence policy so we will set up a committee of parliament to give us its opinion.
Why not set up a committee to determine the budget for parliament? That would be a nice, non-partisan interparty committee to determine the economic future of Canada. Is the government not prepared to make a definite statement of policy with regard to our economic conditions, with regard to taxation

and things of that nature? I think perhaps it is; but on defence, oh, no. This is a very touchy subject, so we must all get together and get the government off the hook.
I call upon the government to come out clearly, decisively and with frankness and say just what its policy is because it is not disclosed in the speech we heard yesterday by the Prime Minister or in what he said this afternoon. He went on to say yesterday with regard to the NATO meeting:
The only question that will arise here is whether those forces will be under a separate NATO nuclear command; whether the R.C.A.F.-
Then he puts in an if clause again.
-if it discharges the nuclear role accepted for it, should continue its present position in the NATO command or whether it should be under a separate NATO nuclear command organization.
Why is there some suggestion of doubt whether the R.C.A.F. will discharge the nuclear role accepted for it? The if is there. There is an escape hatch, a way out for a person who has spent quite a bit of his lifetime working out means of evading issues and skirting around problems.
The Prime Minister was at great pains to point out that last autumn the problem was clear, that members of the Liberal party found out that Canada was not, as he put it, living up to her commitments. He has not defined those commitments. He is still searching to see what commitments there are, if any, but he said last fall that they had found out that the delivery of Starfighters was taking place in Europe. I ask the Prime Minister: What Starfighters were delivered in Europe last fall? How many? How many are now there ready for action? How many were ready in the middle of April this year?


An hon. Member:: He does not know.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not one, because they need ammunition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) does not know or did not know last winter. Only one squadron of 18 planes was ready by the middle of April of this year, and yet members of the Liberal party have been talking for the last several months about the air division in Europe being unarmed. The air division in Europe does not consist of Starfighters yet. It is being reorganized so that it will be equipped with Starfighters, and only one squadron, 18 planes, was ready by the middle of April and it will not be fully trained for active service until some time in June. Those are the facts.
Why did the people who made these great discoveries last fall not tell us and tell the people of Canada what they had discovered?

They discovered last fall that the Starfighters were only in the process of being sent over to Europe, that they had to be modified to a very great extent after they reached there and that only one squadron was to be ready by the middle of April.


An hon. Member:: Political purposes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Prime Minister interrupted and said there was no ammunition for them. They have created the impression that we have 144 planes flying around in Europe unarmed. Not at all. Only 18 of them were ready by the middle of April. When the time comes to arm them, are they going to be flying around with nuclear bombs attached to their undercarriages? Are they going to try practice shots with these nuclear weapons? This morning I asked a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) with regard to the Honest John rocket battery. We had bogus information spread by the Liberal party for several months to the effect the Honest John artillery battery was sitting over in Europe unarmed, not ready for action. They said that the missile on board the rocket discharger had sand in the warhead. Well, it is not sand, it is concrete and it is there for a purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) laughs, but he laughs from ignorance. This concrete is there for a purpose. In order to obtain the equivalent weight of the live warhead on the missile that will be used in wartime, this concrete filled warhead has been attached. This enables the troops to get their full training short of discharging a nuclear weapon. They have a missile of the same length, the same size and same weight as they would use in wartime. Would you have this battery of artillery travelling about Europe with nuclear warheads on board? What if somebody pushed the trigger by mistake? Of course, it is all nonsense. These weapons will not have nuclear warheads attached to them until the alert has been sounded and war is imminent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have no agreement with the United States to make that possible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Honest John artillery battery is only a 20-minute drive away from the missile storage dump and when an alert is sounded they could be ready to be deployed within two hours.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The missiles cannot be released.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They come under the British division which has charge of the missile dump. If war broke out the missiles would
The Address-Mr. Churchill be provided for the Honest John battery. Here, we have been given the false information that this battery is over there, that it is useless, and so on. This is not true. The battery is well trained. I saw it and I saw the missile dump. They could go into action in under two hours fully armed with atomic warheads. It would be simply ridiculous to have these atomic warheads attached now and in the hands of troops who would be used on manoeuvres. You certainly do not take practice shots with atomic warheads.
I asked the Minister of National Defence this morning if he were going to have the Honest John equipped with these nuclear warheads. He said that this matter was under consideration by the government and the decision would depend to a considerable extent on the outcome of negotiations now being carried on by his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). Well, he will not get much help from him. Why is the Minister of National Defence not taking part in these consultations?
This is the situation with regard to these matters. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about the Starfighter, the missile dump for the Starfighter at Zweibriicken was started in the wintertime and when I was there in February it was only partially completed. It will not be completed until June, so how can you arm Starfighters with atomic weapons when the missile dump has not been provided? My friends in the Liberal party have been misleading the public across this country by giving them false information concerning our air division in Europe and the availability of atomic missiles for that air division.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) talks about living up to our commitment. We have stated, and we state again, that we have met all our commitments. Let him produce a commitment that has not been met. On May 22, 1959, at a meeting of the NATO council, Mr. Dillon for the United States and Mr. Heeney for Canada signed an agreement for co-operation in the use of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes. This document was tabled in congress before being printed on July 14, 1959 and is listed as report No. 513 of the Senate of the United States, 86th congress, first session. I am sure that the Prime Minister would have this information available from that particular source. It is very familiar to him. In the days of the Eisenhower administration, there was no difficulty. President Eisenhower, in his letter of transmittal of this document to congress, wrote as follows:
These agreements will enable the United States to co-operate effectively in mutual defence planning

The Address-Mr. Churchill with these nations and in the training of their respective NATO forces in order that, if an attack on NATO should occur, under the direction of the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe these forces could effectively use nuclear weapons in their defence.
The essential part of this agreement between the two governments is to be found in article I which reads as follows:
Each party will communicate to and exchange with the other party, information and transfer materials and equipment to the other party.
Article II-exchange of information-each party will communicate to .or exchange with the other party such classified information as is jointly determined to be necessary to:
(B) The training of personnel in the employment of and defence against atomic weapons and other military applications of atomic energy.
Then, article VI reads:
Under this agreement there will be no transfer by either party of atomic weapons or non-nuclear parts of atomic weapons.
Atomic weapon is defined as any device utilizing atomic energy, the principal purpose of which is for use as a weapon. This is the extent of the agreement and it dates from 1959. We could have information, our troops would be trained in the use of those weapons, but under no circumstances would the United States allow these nuclear weapons to be transferred to the use of another country.
Here is the difficulty in which the Prime Minister finds himself. He talks airily about the United States having a finger on the trigger and Canada having a finger on the safety catch. He talks airily about joint control, the two-key system. Let us discover what he will come up with in his negotiations. He will find that strict control will be kept by the United States. As the Winnipeg Tribune put it in big headlines on May 16, "U.S. will guard nuclear warheads on Canadian soil". The Prime Minister said the nuclear storage points would have what he called an outside security guard of Canadian troops. Canadian troops will not be allowed within the compound; they will be kept outside. Not one nuclear weapon, if ever obtained, will be fired without the consent of the United States. The Canadians would simply be carriers or users under United States authority or control as the Winnipeg Tribune suggests. I quote from the editorial of May 16:
What he meant all along-
Referring to the present Prime Minister.
-on the "acceptance" of nuclear arms was the establishment on Canadian soil of American nuclear depots, under American control and custody.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but must inform him his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a former minister of national defence

and I am sure every member of the house would wish to hear what he desires to say on this all important subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the consent of the house but I myself am not favourably disposed to extending the time for people to speak, so I will just conclude by reading the second paragraph in the editorial which is as follows:
As we progress from here, our government has at last made it plain that "acceptance" of nuclear weapons means the establishment of American military enclaves on our soil. The proposed agreement today supposedly entails depots for the Bomarc sites and perhaps the Voodoo fighter bases.
This is the issue which has to be considered very carefully in all these matters and, Mr. Speaker, I may participate again on this subject of defence at some future date.
I would like to finish by simply saying that the amendment as moved by the leader of the New Democratic party, taken in conjunction with the very telling attack he made on the Prime Minister this morning, makes good sense; and if it had read:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have indicated their intention-
-and we understood this in accordance with his speech-
-without consulting parliament-
-and this is the nub of the matter-
-of acquiring nuclear arms for Canadian forces, thereby lessening the chances for nuclear disarmament and increasing the danger of nuclear war.
-then the subamendment is not unacceptable because we think that parliament has been affronted and its rights derogated by the action as announced by the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him one question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is this: if the government is not now consulting parliament what does the hon. gentleman think the government is doing?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the kindness of the house leader and the members of the government in permitting us, the people on this side of the house, to move amendments and discuss those amendments. If they wish to consider this a form of consultation, well we will have to accept temporarily their interpretation, but if they continue to consider that this is consultation they will not last very long.

(Translation):


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: I should like first of all to congratulate you on your appointment to the office of chairman of committees of the house and of Deputy Speaker. I also extend my best wishes to Mr. Speaker himself.
I also wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as well as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) who, by getting himself elected as member for Outremont-St. Jean, has accomplished the most remarkable feat of his career.
I should like to take this opportunity to speak about my riding of Quebec-Montmo-rency and to point out that in the 1962 election, there were 12 candidates, while in April 1963, there were at least nine. This shows that Quebec-Montmorency is somewhat active in the field of politics.
I also wish to say a few words about certain industries of my riding which are faced with difficulties at present. For instance, the shipyard of St. Laurent, on the island of Orleans, which can build various kinds of ships is on the point of closing down because certain contracts that it could carry out have not yet been passed.
There is also the case of the employees of Valcartier arsenals and of the C.A.R.D.E., who wonder whether they will keep their jobs long, in view of the present circumstances.
Certain postal employees also often make representations to me with regard to their working hours, salary rates as well as other difficulties they encounter.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about veterans, several of whom asked me if it would be possible to receive old age pensions at the age of 65, without any means test as well as an increase of their regular veterans' pensions.
We have heard earlier about the election campaign. Someone hinted that the party now in power had received certain amounts of money. It was said that it had carried out propaganda, which if it was not untrue, was at least rather remote from the truth.
I have here some newspaper clippings, one being from L'Action dated April 4, containing a Canadian Press dispatch, which I quote:
All parties, except the Liberals have reduced their publicity budgets.
Certain publicity methods have been employed which have elicited derogatory comments on the part of the very persons who were being quoted. I have here an article published in the Sherbrooke Tribune dated Wednesday, April 3, 1963, in which Father
The Address-Mr. Marcoux Bouvier denounces the use of his name and the opinions credited to him.
That is why I was very disappointed to learn that certain of my colleagues were throwing themselves wholeheartedly in the arms of people who had used such methods.
I should like now to comment on the international situation which seems to be in the foreground of the present time.
We should not forget that we are now living through and now witnessing a test of strength between east and west. It should not be forgotten also that the eastern group, ideologically speaking, is closely tied to its doctrine of atheistic materialism, while such is not the case with the western forces. So, I think we should identify ourselves a bit more with the anti-atheistic materialism doctrine by recognizing God as the object of our endeavours. Nor should we forget that the eastern powers use their economic system to make their ideology acceptable to underdeveloped countries.
As for us, we have always based our ideological policy on the restrictions imposed by our economic system. That is why Social Credit has constantly favoured an economic policy in keeping with the democratic system we wish to extend to all people on earth.
There is a lot of talk about nuclear weapons, to such an extent that the people of Canada, that of Quebec included, of which I am a representative, finally realize once again that the old-line parties are treating them with scorn most of the time and may change their mind. One wonders if it is not simply a question of taking over the government and of using arguments with which to win elections.
Most people today are inclined to believe that the question of nuclear arms is beyond discussion. There are some who are 100 per cent for, other who are 100 per cent against. It is said that the matter cannot be discussed. Be that as it may, it seems to me that we have here a complex problem the solution to which does not meet with unanimous approval.
Consequently, I should like to recall historical facts, the better to put ourselves in the picture, as I myself can see it.
At the end of what has been called the "Japanese war", the damages wrought by the atomic bomb were revealed to the public at large. The United States of America alone held the secret of atomic power. But Russia was not to remain far behind. With the assistance of spies, as the Gouzenko affair clearly revealed, they soon made up for lost

The Address-Mr. Marcoux time and perfected a bomb just as powerful as the one which was exploded over Hiroshima. Thus, a second giant was born which was a true match for the first one.
In the following years, the present Prime Minister used his influence to play a role which was later described as a mission of peace. At the time, he was trying to put across the following theory: The United States remained the great defenders of democracy. They were to increase their assistance to underdeveloped countries and, consequently, the American policy was the only one which could save the rest of the world from Soviet domination. That is still true today.
Then, in 1957, Canada gave a new direction to its foreign policy. Having never been too enthusiastic about the colonial powers and having never associated itself with capitalism, our aim was to take advantage of the situation and to stress the great prestige our country enjoyed considering its relatively small population to promote a policy of neutrality. Canada strived to convert the uncommitted countries of the world to form a group of neutral states which would stand up against the adoption of nuclear weapons.
While Castro fed Cuba to the Russian bear, Canada succeeded in winning the uncommitted countries to the idea of forming an association.
Thus, our country made quite a reputation for itself by its action among the new states, first to spread the American policy and then to unite the uncommitted countries for the maintenance of peace outside the sphere of influence of the two nuclear giants.
At the very moment when Canada was carrying on its work as a mediator, it decided to accept defensive nuclear weapons. Canada had to meet her obligations towards NORAD and NATO. Faced with this fact, the Canadian government had to make its decisions public, while safeguarding its interests as much as possible from the electoral point of view. With typical indecision, the Conservative government chose to remain on tne fence. The present Prime Minister expressed himself categorically. Canada should not become one day a nuclear power.
I have here the Liberal program of 1962 from which I shall quote a few excerpts:
For instance, Bomarc missiles are useless without nuclear warheads; on the other hand, their effectiveness is so doubtful that the previous government refused to equip them with such warheads. A new Liberal government would avoid

such indecision and such costly wastefulness. It will not venture into projects entailing heavy expenditures and abandon them later on by refusing to purchase the weapons they require.
That was the Liberal program of 1962, and here is what we find further on:
In the light of current data, the defence policy of a new Liberal government will not require Canada to become a nuclear power through the manufacture, acquisition or use of nuclear weapons, whether under Canadian or American control.
This is again the Liberal program of 1962, bearing the picture of the present Prime Minister.
The socialists have also stated clearly where they stand. I am not speaking of the party itself, but of socialism in general. They are positively against nuclear arms. They even suggest complete disarmament to the United States and, apparently, the same suggestion is to be made a little later on to the Soviet union. There is then no compromise possible as far as they are concerned. It was said earlier, of course, following the statement of the Prime Minister, that both groups should not be too closely identified.
I have here an excerpt from the March 20, 1963 issue of the Moncton Transcript, where I find the following:
(Text):
Leslie Morris, leader of the Canadian communist party, said Tuesday night that party members across the country are being urged to actively "support, work for and help finance" the campaigns of the New Democratic party candidates in the federal election campaign.
(Translation):
This is what is said further on:
(Text):
Mr. Morris said strong N.D.P. representation in parliament is the best guarantee that nuclear arms will not be brought into Canada.
(Translation):
I have here a statement made by Mr. Leslie Morris, secretary general of the Canadian communist party, where he says the following:
We beg of you, in the interests of peace and of our country, to vote in the House of Commons, against the adoption of nuclear arms.
And we know that the Canadian communist party is doing much more for other countries than for ours. Furthermore, in this statement, the rejection of nuclear arms is requested.
A great number of voters refused to accept the Liberal platform regarding nuclear arms, devotedly subservient to Kennedy.
And, finally it is said in that circular letter:
Peace, national security and the life of each one of us will be endangered if we accept Kennedy's nuclear plans.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that the situation is not as simple as we are led to believe.

The election takes place, the sessions run their course, and the government cannot explain clearly its defence policy. And then the present Prime Minister goes to the United States. We know what happened there. Apparently he met with General Norstad. Following that interview he seems to have suddenly reversed his policy. Canada, it seems, must have nuclear warheads. He seems to be prepared to play again the part of the United States' emissary, consisting precisely in advocating the policy of our friends to the south and to become the non-official spokesman of the state department, which itself considered not without interest the possibility that the non-committed group might come round to its policy.
Then came the dissolution of both houses following the amendment everyone knows about. The present Prime Minister condemns again the adoption of nuclear arms while insisting that our commitments towards the United States must be fulfilled. Obviously, it is an admission that, in spite of his opposition to nuclear arms, he wants Canada to acquire them.
Speaking of commitments reminds me, for instance, of parents who would have been foolish enough to give rifles to their children and who would be even more so, in my opinion, if they were to give them also bullets to put in them.
The stand I take, along with many thousands of people in Quebec, is a little difficult to state clearly because that question is made up of so many facts.
We must, more than ever, be ready to fight communism, whether on the military or the ideological level. And, at this stage, I am happy to note that the United States are strong enough to challenge the U.S.S.R. in the field of atomic weapons. We will, therefore, morally support that country in its determination to stop the spread of the communist dictatorship in the world.
But-because there is a but-when the former government, after rejecting the Avro-105 program, decided to acquire Bomarc missiles, the President of the United States announced that the Bomarc missiles were obsolete, that they did not constitute, in any way, an effective weapon to stop or destroy enemy missiles carrying bombs of several megatons, in short, that our present means of defence have no value, and that the only possible "alternative" remains pure and simple offensive, and that is what the United States are capable of doing, I would imagine.
In the light of those new facts, and when one thinks of the huge sums of money uselessly spent on a defence system as ineffective as it is obsolete, one can declare oneself
The Address-Mr. Marcoux against nuclear arms and even ready to fight against the acquisition of such weapons.
Obviously, our low money reserves cannot be wasted. On the contrary, we must use them wittingly in order to help Canada fight unemployment, invest money to fight unemployment and also to help the underdeveloped countries who are waiting for our assistance to throw themselves in our arms instead of seeking help from our enemies.
I do not want to speak longer on the question of nuclear arms. Nevertheless that explains, I think, the various positions taken by different groups. Moreover, I think that we must take everything into consideration before reaching a decision, whatever it is. In my opinion, we cannot settle this question by saying yes or no, as have already done certain irresponsible persons. We must be familiar with all the facts related to the question.
The speech from the throne also mentions the question of bilingualism and also, indirectly, that of biculturalism. In my opinion, before setting up a commission, maybe the government should start by giving the house completely bilingual stationery, whether it is for a French or an English speaking member. I am of the opinion that if all the Commons stationery was printed in both languages, that would be at least a relatively official acknowledgement of the intention that the French language is to be officially recognized.
And when one knows that the President of the Privy Council is the one that will see to the application of these measures, one is entitled to wonder, allowance being made for the past and all respect due to him, if he is still in favour of centralization and if he is still advocating the taxation equalization system he himself invented with the help of a few associates. It is necessary that the autonomy of all provinces be recognized at any price and that the taxation means they need be given back to them.
The speech from the throne mentions the creation of a sort of municipal development bank. Of course this measure, if it is enacted, it will have to take into account provincial rights and privileges. May I point out to the house that nowadays the provinces are less cramped by their lack of funds than by the interest they have to pay on borrowed money. I have here a newspaper article, which appeared in L'Evenement of Quebec

The Address-Mr. Marcoux on March 19, 1963; it states that in the sole province of Quebec, the debenture debt of municipalities amounts to $1 billion.
I think-as the Liberals themselves seemingly thought not so long ago-that only a debt-free money system can really help the municipal governments.
As for unemployment, we are not given too many details about what is going to be done in order to check it.
I remember that in 1958, the present President of the Privy Council, who tried desperately to put the Liberal party back into power, advocated a method which seems quite acceptable to the Social Credit party and which consists in a six-month period of fiscal exoneration which means that, during a period of six months, no taxes will be deducted at the source, as he said at that time, in order to give immediate purchasing power to the people, whereas public works can only be a long term solution.
Incidentally, I think that during the last election, the Liberals have shown that they did have a solution for the unemployment problem: it would be to hold an election for 12 months every year, because, during those campaigns they always had enough money at their disposal and employed very many people.
Another provision which would be very popular in some districts would be the elimination of receipts for charitable donations, which creates many difficulties when preparing income tax returns.
The speech from the throne refers to the redistribution of electoral districts. I hope that this task will be accomplished in a spirit of justice, and taking into account the various categories of citizens and social strata which are represented in this house.
Now, a brief reference to Labrador. I think that this territory should be given back to the province of Quebec. I know that this matter is the core of a very difficult issue. But for a government which claims it can do so much in 60 days of decision, it should be easy to give back to Quebec the Labrador territory which belongs to it.
I should also like to call the attention of the government to the fact that a certain form of socialism has crept into the civil service without its knowledge, I suppose. I received letters from employees of the Post Office Department saying that even in Russia, a treatment like the one experienced by those employees would not be tolerated. I suppose that some pressures could be exerted on the people concerned to make life a little easier for the post office employees. Someone even observed to me lately that some post office employees had enjoyed a holiday on the


Queen's birthday while some others were not allowed the same privilege. Surely, something is not working properly in that department.
I would like now to make a suggestion to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier). We are told that a new penitentiary will be built. It is obvious that the province of Quebec and other areas need penitentiaries because there are laws and there are people who break the law. Instead of building a large penitentiary I would suggest that one be erected in the Montreal area and another in the Quebec city area. I do not imply that we should only build some in the city of Montreal or Quebec but simply in the neighbourhood of both those cities in order to reduce the hardship of those who have to go there.
I hope that this minority government will show that it is prepared to accept suggestions from the opposition parties which, even though they are sitting across the aisle, may have some rational ideas. The whole nation hopes to get real action from this government.
(Text):


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, upon this occasion of my first speech delivered in this house I should like to congratulate you upon your elevation to your high office. I am sure that the voices of approval of so many hon. members on both sides of this house properly express the unanimity of opinion upon your appointment. I would also take this occasion to extend to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne congratulations on the fine jobs they have done.
I come from the historic constituency of Halifax, in the province of Nova Scotia, where we have some of the finest institutions of higher learning to be found in the nation. This is attested to by the fact that expatriate Nova Scotians have over the years held a disproportionate number of high positions in government, commerce and education, not only throughout this nation but also in the United States. My constituency comprises the cities of Dartmouth and Halifax, and the county of Halifax, with a total population in the vicinity of 225,000. Mr. Speaker, we are one of the two remaining dual constituencies in Canada, and I am proud to represent, along with my colleague, the fine people of that area. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I am proud to be associated, in representing that constituency, with the mayor of Halifax, a man who has worked tirelessly and ably for the betterment of that city.

As a freshman member sitting on this side of the house I was greatly encouraged by the contents of the speech from the throne. Coming from an area which has contributed much to confederation but has never received a full share of prosperity from confederation, I was enormously encouraged by the expressed intention of this government to make the Atlantic development board a vital work force. The funds allocated to this board give it the potential to materially aid the economy of the Atlantic region. This is a vast improvement over the role in which the previous administration had cast this body. The former government made it only an advisory board without funds, capable only of making recommendations to the government, a role which the Atlantic provinces economic council, informally at least, was carrying out already along with its other duties, and doing so with personnel at least equally able. I was pleased to see recognition in the speech from the throne of unemployment as a problem which must be faced. Under the former administration there was an unwillingness to admit that unemployment was an existing problem. I was also pleased to notice the intention to establish a department of industry with an area development agency, because this is of great importance to Nova Scotia. I am confident that this government will use these tools to improve the economic level of the maritime provinces.
There seems today to be a new willingness across the country to recognize the need for special measures to aid the development of areas which have lagged in industrial growth for one or more reasons. Nova Scotia is such an area. As Nova Scotians, we are proud to be part of confederation; but never let it be forgotten that Nova Scotia has suffered much because of confederation. Our national trade lines have been altered and indeed obliterated by the tariff policies which were necessary to develop industry in central Canada. In my constituency, despite disadvantages we have made great strides. We have grown in size and enterprise to the point that we have created an immediate market which will attract and which has attracted many companies to establish plants to serve this market.
One of the principal cornerstones of our progress has been the existence as a vital part of our economy of the port of Halifax. The largest industry of our constituency has since the building of the railway link with Quebec and Ontario shortly after confederation been our port business in the role of handling goods shipped from or to central Canada, in the winter months. Indeed, the establishment of Halifax as a national winter port for this purpose was one of the main
The Address-Mr. Regan considerations which enticed Nova Scotia to come into confederation. This historic role of Halifax as a national winter port was recognized by the federal government many years ago in the establishment of extensive port facilities.
However, Mr. Speaker, successive freight rate increases since world war II, the use of American ports to ship Canadian goods and the ever-increasing volume of winter traffic on the St. Lawrence has adversely affected our port business, so that despite the natural growth of Canada our total import and export tonnage in the port of Halifax has been static or has decreased during the past six years. The competitive position of the port of Halifax has been upset by the new and large subsidies given to competitive areas in recent years. It is true that these subsidies were of an indirect type. The building of the St. Lawrence seaway was such a subsidy to the lake ports. The use of ice-breakers each at a cost of $13,000 a day, just to operate, on the St. Lawrence to lengthen the shipping season to Montreal is a new subsidy for the port of Montreal. Dredging at federal government expense in the St. Lawrence is yet another subsidy to the St. Lawrence.
(Translation):
In Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, we follow with interest and we admire and approve the desires of the people of Quebec to improve their situation in the confederation. We always support movements in this direction.
Nevertheless, I am sure that the representatives of this great province, who sit on both sides of the house, will recognize that Nova Scotia has been even less favoured by this same confederation.
Like all Canadians, Mr. Speaker, they acknowledge the need for regional development and they know that Nova Scotia needs help for its development because of the disadvantages of its geographical situation.
Therefore, I am sure that all Canadians will support a review of railway rates so that the Halifax harbour may remain competitive considering the development of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river.
I am confident that the trade expansion of Canada will permit to increase the volume of shipping so as to make full use of the port facilities of the maritime provinces and on the St. Lawrence.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am calling for the recognition of the vital importance of winter shipping for Halifax.
(Text):
After hearing Halifax French, Mr. Speaker, there may be some question whether my colleagues of the French language still want people in other parts of Canada to attempt

The Address-Mr. Regan to speak it. In these days of giant government deficits perhaps our nation should fully utilize the port facilities readily available for winter shipping rather than spend vast sums to clear ports normally clogged by ice in the winter months. Perhaps this is an unnecessary expense causing our national investment in winter port facilities to be wasted and not used.
We have in Halifax the best year-round, natural, deep-water, ice-free port in the world. The finest port facilities have been established there and it is indeed false economy to abandon this winter port, giving rise to the need of some form of vast new federal aid to our area when we can move toward prosperity on our own, through full utilization of our port.
But, Mr. Speaker, we know that progress cannot be stopped, and if there is to be winter navigation on the St. Lawrence then I am sure that all hon. members will agree that we must have a new look at the railway freight rates applicable to goods imported or exported through maritime ports. I would urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcll-raith) to establish a commission to investigate the effect of the seaway and of winter navigation in the St. Lawrence on the economy of the maritimes. I would expect that such a commission would revise the applicable freight rates to restore the competitive position of our port, because if that competitive position is restored we in Halifax with our ice-free port are willing to meet competition at any time. For every dollar spent by way of new subsidy to our competitors along the St. Lawrence, let us see a dollar spent by way of transportation subsidy on goods being shipped to or from Halifax.
I should like to say a word or two, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the recently announced pay increases and other improvements for the men of the armed forces. Canada has been able to build an effective volunteer army, navy and air force in the past by offering to the young men of our nation a career in the services which was attractive. It has managed to retain them in the forces by keeping conditions attractive. It has thus kept their morale high. This, many feel, has been far more satisfactory than a system of peacetime conscription but if we are to have our present system we must pay for it. Naturally we must continue to make service life attractive to our young people.
For this reason and because pay increases and other adjustments for our servicemen were long overdue, I hail this government measure as one of the real accomplishments of the first 60 days. These improvements

were long overdue. The previous administration had neglected the men of the forces and had thus started to affect the morale of many servicemen.
Coming from the constituency which contains the principal base of the Royal Canadian Navy, I particularly want to say on behalf of the men of the navy that this was a step in the right direction. I am confident that under the able direction of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) the navy will be equipped with the best and most modern weapons and that the welfare of the servicemen will at all times be considered. While I am a member of this honourable house I will, whenever the occasion presents itself during consideration of any matter relevant to the navy, stand with pride and say that I speak for the men of the navy.
A very large amount of my practice as a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, has been devoted to management-labour relations and I have had the privilege, in conciliation, arbitration, certification and in court matters, to act for many of the large unions of our nation. As one who has been very close to and very interested in the welfare of the working man, I want to say that I am extremely grateful for the support which many trade unionists gave me in the recent election. I think they too will find much in the speech from the throne which will increase their support for the new administration. After six years in which many of their problems were neglected and during which the government of the day refused to recognize unemployment as a problem, I feel that we are in for a wholesome and welcome change. I said earlier that the new government in the throne speech has already recognized unemployment as a problem, and I want to say that in my area it is a serious problem because for every person who is unemployed in Ontario there are more than two unemployed, in relation to population, in the province of Nova Scotia.
On the general subject of labour I also want to commend the government on its commitment made during the election campaign that a system of collective bargaining for civil servants will be established. I trust and I fully expect that this system of collective bargaining will also include the so-called prevailing rates employees, because in the past there have been many abuses with regard to the rights of prevailing rates employees and also, of course, of civil servants.
I will be particularly interested, Mr. Speaker, in seeing the pattern of collective bargaining which is outlined in subsequent government legislation and the type of arbitration which is to be implemented in the event that the bargaining parties fail to agree.

Mr. Speaker, I note by the clock that it is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I spoke of the need for assistance by way of the revision of the freight rates applicable on goods transported through the ports of Halifax and other maritime ports to offset the new indirect subsidies being given to the St. Lawrence area by the building of the St. Lawrence seaway and the use of icebreakers in winter. I also complimented the administration upon the announced increases and other new benefits being given to the armed forces. I dealt with the question of collective bargaining for civil servants.
There is one other aspect of the speech from the throne upon which I should like to comment before returning to the question of the Atlantic development board. The subject to which I should like to refer is the expressed intention of the government to bring into effect the 12-mile fishing limit along the shores of our nation. The establishment of such a limit will end the disgraceful situation in which foreign fishermen are able to exploit the riches of our inshore fisheries, while Canadian fishermen are limited by the 12-mile rule. This is a measure, Mr. Speaker, which will bring great satisfaction to the fishermen of my area, and is a very important conservation measure for the north Atlantic fisheries in these days of ever increasing trawler activity.
I might say that during the last election campaign some hon. members on the other side of the house from the Nova Scotia area said that this 12-mile limit could not be unilaterally established without causing a very serious rift in our relations with the United States. I can only conclude that hon. members based these statements upon the established ability of the government of that day to get into trouble in the field of foreign relations. I think they also underestimate the capacity of the new administration to diplomatically negotiate a matter of this sort.
May I express the hope that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), whom I compliment upon his recent appointment, will soon find the opportunity to explore the desirability of expanding the present system of federally operated bait and ice stations. This is a service that is presently limited to Newfoundland, and is one of the services
The Address-Mr. Regan taken over by Canada at the time Newfoundland entered confederation. The expansion of this program to Nova Scotia and other areas would be extremely beneficial and would encourage our fishermen. It would also provide employment in our fishing villages and encourage those who would like to go into the fishery but have hesitated to do so because of the lack of these facilities.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like for a moment to quote from this morning's edition of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. I think there is a particularly illuminating and interesting editorial in that newspaper and I shall deal briefly with only one aspect of it concerning the increased use of the committees of this house. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has already indicated that this will be forthcoming. I quote:
More use should be made of the standing committees.
All too often these are bypassed completely: instead, long and rambling discourses are given in the committee of the whole house. The external affairs committee, for example, did not meet once during the life of the last parliament.
If the government would send more of its important legislation to the standing committee, and prevent prolonged debate at the report stage, a considerable amount of duplicate discussion would be avoided.
I applaud this sentiment, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to see that there is an indication from the Prime Minister that this will be done.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the question of the Atlantic development board, a matter which is of great concern to the maritime provinces. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, there was disappointment at the time the Atlantic development board was appointed when the former administration made it only an advisory board and largely a duplicate of the work of APEC. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) indicated that he is opposed to the expansion of the Atlantic development board from five members to eleven members. I want to say that I feel the Leader of the Opposition is in error in this view, and that such expansion of the board could not help but be very beneficial, particularly in view of the fact that the five-man board as constituted does not contain any representative from labour. The board, as constituted by the previous administration, does not contain any representative of Acadian culture. Oh, it is true there is a gentleman by the name of Mr. Lalonde who lives in Moncton at the present time but I understand he is temporarily stationed in the maritimes and comes originally from Sherbrooke, Quebec. There are other areas and other aspects of the maritime economy

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker which certainly should be represented on this board, particularly in view of the fact that the present chairman of the board is a comparative newcomer to the maritimes and to this country. Perhaps this might be an added reason for having a broader representation on this particular board. .
May I, then, as a new member in this house state my approval of the speech from the throne and my appreciation of the portions therein which directly affect my constituency? May I say that it is a privilege to be associated in this house with hon. members from all four parties?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I thought I had completed anything that I had to say during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. During the course of my remarks I stated that I intended to deal with the defence problem at the appropriate time, which I considered would be the occasion when the motion to set up a committee on defence was being discussed. However, in view of the turn of events that occurred through the moving of the subamendment by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), I find it necessary to speak again.
In view of some of the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), I propose to deal in general with the problem of defence so far as it relates to the question of nuclear weapons. I will also refer to the subamendment and give a general indication as to the reasons for the stand the official opposition intends to take upon the subamendment. We meet here at a time when the nations of NATO are gathered in ministerial council to discuss the present and future of that organization which is the bulwark of our defence and the only assurance of our survival. This is a matter I dealt with at length prior to the defeat of my government in early February, and what I shall do now is deal with some of the subsequent events, some of the changes of viewpoint which have come to light in the government of today in its discharge of the responsibilities of office.
I am sure all who heard the former minister of defence speak this afternoon were impressed by the cogency of the arguments advanced by him and by the manner in which he placed the facts before the house, as they are and were. What I intend to do is review in some detail the changes of viewpoint on the part of ministers of the government, something of the gyromancy displayed this afternoon by the Prime Minister, and the changes of viewpoint on the part of the Liberal party. Indeed in this matter, while they would endeavour to lead the house to believe that
their's has been the course of decision and definiteness, I doubt whether in the history of any parliament there has ever been seen such changes of viewpoint on the part of responsible members of the House of Commons, members in the Liberal party, as they have been blown about by the political winds, by special pressures, or even by visits across the border.
As to the last reference I intend to call as my witness the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). He has given his reasons for that sudden change of front by the Liberal party when, on the 12th day of January last, at Scarborough, the party that had stood against nuclear arms suddenly did an about turn. Indeed, sir, the conversion of Saul en route to Damascus could not be compared with the complete change of viewpoint of the Liberal party.
One can understand changes of viewpoint providing they are based on circumstances that demand a change of viewpoint. But, when I last spoke in this chamber on the subject of defence and said that the techniques of defence were changing, that view was ridiculed by the opposition front bench. Yet today, in the Globe and Mail there is a report which reads as follows:
Missiles on Mind, NORAD trims SAGE-The electronic eyes and ears of North American air defence against aircraft are gradually being reduced as the main threat of enemy attack switches from bombers to intercontinental missiles.
That is a proposition I placed before the house and the country on more than one occasion, and that view has been underlined and emphasized today in this press report which goes on to say:
The Pentagon estimates bombers will remain a prime threat for several years, but the growth of the Soviet missile force-with no indication of any large new increase in bomber production-has caused Pentagon planners to rush more effort on missile defences.
Thus, the semi-automatic ground environment system is marked for a thinning out. Conceived in the early 1950's and built at a cost of about $3,700,000,000, this network of giant electronic computers linked with huge radars was designed to detect approaching enemy bombers and alert interceptors and local missile forces-including Bomarcs-directing them into positions to destroy the enemy.
So, there has been a change or an alteration, and this question of nuclear weapons is one, as I stated in January last, that should be decided by the members assembled in parliament rather than decided by a group of ministers whose change of viewpoint has been kaleidoscopic in every way.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember how they poured contempt on us in 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962 for ever considering agreement with the United States for provision of nuclear warheads against contingencies.


When I spoke on February 5 last I summarized what I felt was the proper course to follow, as reported at page 3440 of Hansard of that date, and I am going to quote what I said:
It will be necessary, therefore, at this meeting in May-
-referring to the ministerial meeting of NATO-
-for Canada to give consideration to this matter and we will, in co-operation with the nations of NATO, undertake a clarification of our role in NATO defence plans and disposition.
This afternoon, as the Prime Minister wrapped himself around the NATO organization I could not but agree with him, but I intend to review his views in this regard during those dark days of 1958 and 1959. Then he was not above emasculating NATO.
Mr. Speaker, there is no division of opinion among members of this house in their belief in the efficiency of NATO except a former member of the house who became a convert to Liberalism about 1962, a member from my own province, but he did not come back. What he said about NATO will have to remain embalmed in Hansard, for I do not intend to place it on the record again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But it gave the Prime Minister some glee.


John George Diefenbaker: I went on to say:
We are united in NATO. We have never and will never consent to Canada breaking any of her pledged words or undertakings.
That declaration stands today as it stood every day while we occupied the government benches. Then I referred to the meeting:
It is at that meeting where there will be reviewed the entire collective defence policy, that we shall secure from the other member nations their views, and on the basis of that we will be in a position to make a decision, a consistent decision, first to maintain our undertakings and second to execute, if that be the view, the maintenance of our collective defence. In the meantime the training of Canadian forces in the use of these weapon systems can continue.
They said that was an indecisive action- and now they practice what they condemned on our part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I also said this:
Now, I say to the House of Commons this. After that meeting we shall bring this matter before parliament clearly, definitely and finally. I want to make that clear. There is no suggestion of any underhand agreements being entered into.
That was the declaration. That statement, in the light of subsequent events, was the proper stand to take. It is like the attitude taken by this government, after all these changes and tortuous journeyings, finally arriving at a policy and then denying this 28902-5-9
21, 1963
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker house the right to decide for itself whether or not that shall be the policy for Canada.


An hon. Member:: Selling Canada short.


John George Diefenbaker: One begins to realize the meaningfulness of the subamendment. I wish there had been additional words in that subamendment. It reads:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have indicated their intention of acquiring nuclear arms for Canadian forces, thereby lessening the chances for nuclear disarmament and increasing the danger of nuclear war.
However, over and over again in my years in this house members of political parties have determined their course not on the basis of the actual wording but on the interpretation placed thereon by the mover. The emphasis the leader of the New Democratic party placed on parliamentary control indicates the meaning of this subamendment to be, "We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have indicated their intention, without consulting parliament," and so on. That is the meaning I give to the subamendment, which represents, with those additional words which are to be implied, the stand that we in this party took. When speaking on behalf of this party on February 5 I stated that this matter would be brought directly before parliament. But you see what they are trying to do now. They are going to enter into agreements. They are going to acquire nuclear weapons. That was not the original idea, but that is my interpretation of what the Prime Minister said today.
On the other hand, in order to be fair I should quote the words of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), who unfortunately is not in the house tonight. I understand fully the reason; he is attending important meetings where questions of defence are being decided. What interpretation did he give of the course to be taken by this government? On April 24 there was a Canadian Press dispatch headed", "Won't commit Canada to anything-Hellyer". Mr. Speaker, that was in the second day of decision. If you look back over the history of the creation of the world you will find what was done on the second day. But on the second day the Minister of National Defence, as usual, made one of his ex parte declarations, declarations that are either meaningful or meaningless. Knowing his responsibility I have no hesitation in paying my tribute to their meaningfulness. What did he say? He said:
Defence minister Hellyer said Tuesday night a nuclear agreement with the United States would be "a permissive agreement" which would not commit Canada "to anything".
But that was not the attitude of the Prime Minister today. We want to find out what the result of this will be. He said on the
126	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker C.B.C. television program "Inquiry" that with a permissive agreement "we do not bind ourselves to any specific action". What is this, Mr. Speaker? Is it a dialectic game? We would not commit ourselves to anything, he said. He spoke to the reporters immediately afterwards. It is always well to see them afterwards and give them the benefit of what you meant when you said something different. This report reads:
On Monday Mr. Hellyer told reporters immediately after being sworn into the new Liberal cabinet that he expected a Canada-United States nuclear custody-and-control agreement would be signed in about a month and that the nuclear warheads would be made available to Canadian forces six months after that at a maximum.
You pay your money and you take your choice. By their words you shall know them. What did he say on September 12, 1961, as reported at page 8231 of Hansard'!
For this reason-
He was dealing with the question of Bomarcs:
-we continue to believe that it is not worth while to put Canada into the atomic club-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, today there was a play on words on the part of the Prime Minister, who pretended that when he spoke of nuclear clubs and atomic clubs he meant the production within any country or the exclusive use and control within any country of nuclear weapons. Nothing of the kind. The definition is clear:
-it is not worth while to put Canada into the atomic club, into the group of atomic nations, when the advantage of having atomic weapons on Canadian soil is so negligible.
Then he said:
We reserve the right to reassess this position if at any time in the future the west should be successful in developing a really effective antimissile missile. That would change the picture considerably. At the present time, however, there is none and we are basing our policy on the facts as they exist.
Well, we have not been effective in that direction. We have tried but, unfortunately, without success. Mr. Speaker, the facts have not changed since September 12, 1961, in that regard.
I intend to deal, now, with our attitude in general. I say immediately that there are and were no commitments on the part of Canada to accept nuclear weapons. And, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that since taking office hon. gentlemen opposite, busy as they are in these days of decision, have searched with microscopic care. They have searched but they have not found. Now they change their story and say that if there was no agreement one was implied in the acceptance of two Bomarcs on Canadian soil.


An hon. Member:: What about the Voodoo?


John George Diefenbaker: I shall deal with that in a moment. Now I shall go back a little because-remember this-the whole basis of the argument put forward by the Prime Minister is that in 1959, on February 20, I made an undertaking, a commitment, on behalf of Canada. So he knew it. He cannot have it both ways. If he is right, he must have known since 1959 that there was a commitment. Yet, knowing there was a commitment, as he now says based on my remarks in the house at that time, he and those associated with him did everything they could in order to prevent Canada having nuclear weapons. They did not find this out in 1963. They did not find it when the light shone on the Prime Minister of today at Scarborough in January. They knew it from the time I spoke, they say, on February 20, 1959. I mentioned our stand at that time. I shall not quote it because it has already been quoted. I followed that stand throughout the years under repeated questioning from the opposition of that period. On January 18, 1960, I said:
Canada's stand might be summarized in this way: eventually Canadian forces may require nuclear weapons if those forces are to be kept effective. We cannot change the principle of United States ownership-they have taken a firm stand in this regard-but there shall be Canadian control of use in Canada. I want to make it absolutely clear that nuclear weapons will not be used by Canadian forces except as the Canadian government may decide and in the manner approved by the Canadian government. Canada retains its full freedom of choice and decision.
Then, later on, on February 9 of the same year I said:
I might add that if and when Canada does acquire nuclear weapons it would be in accordance with her own national policies and with our obligations under the North Atlantic treaty.
Then on July 4, 1960-I do not want to fill the record up except to show in this way the consistency of our stand-I said:
On the one hand we are desirous of attaining disarmament. On the other hand we have to discharge our responsibility of ensuring to the maximum degree the security of the Canadian people. In so far as the discussions are concerned the responsibility must necessarily be that of the Minister of National Defence whose officers meet with their corresponding numbers in the United States and place before them the stand taken by the Canadian government, which is of the essence of any possible agreement in the future, namely, that if and when-
Over and over again I have said this.
-the Canadian government should decide to equip its forces with nuclear weapons those weapons will be under Canadian control and would be used in Canada only as a result of a decision by the Canadian government.
Later on, on a number of occasions, the same question was raised. It was raised on November 30, 1960, when my answer was:

I simply say that the position of Canada is completely unchanged. We have made it perfectly clear that when and if nuclear weapons are acquired we shall not accept them unless we have joint control and there has been no suggestion at any time of any watering down or diminution of that stand.
I come, now, to September 20, 1961, when I said this:
As was made clear during the discussion of the defence estimate we have also equipment which will enable the use of defensive nuclear weapons should the government decide that these are required in the interest of national security ... The government does not wish any decision it may take in this matter to impede in any way the substantial progress which may be possible in disarmament or limitation on the spread of nuclear weapons to the independent control of countries not already having them.
Again, on February 20, 1962, I said:
But should it be decided in the light of Canadian armament needs and defence responsibilities that nuclear weapons are to be had at any time, joint control is of the essence of the stand we have taken.
That has been our stand throughout. In 1963, on January 25, I said:
We will negotiate with the United States so that, as I said earlier, in case of need nuclear warheads will be made readily available.
Never at any time was an undertaking to accept nuclear weapons made by the government of Canada, and this was made clear by the former secretary of state for external affairs.
The argument advanced is this: if you have Bomarcs you must have nuclear warheads. In January the state department released that document which, in the light of events, must now be recognized by those who produced it as constituting a most improper course of action. In that release it was stated that the Bomarc B was not designed to carry any conventional warhead. Mr. Speaker, apparently the Pentagon does not let the state department know all of the facts, because what is stated there in that document is in conflict with the 1961 edition of the United States Air Force ROTC Air University Training Manual which states on page 397 that the Bomarc can carry either a conventional high explosive or a nuclear warhead. While the department of state said the Bomarc B cannot carry a non-nuclear warhead, certain information offered by the headquarters of the North American air defence command in the spring of 1961 when putting out the NORAD story for the benefit of the press is most significant. This is what it said at page 12:
Among the surface to air missiles used by NORAD, the Bomarc has the longest reach. The initial model, which became operational in 1959, can reach out 200 miles to strike down attacking aircraft. The advanced version Bomarc B has a range of more than 400 miles and is slated for use in Canada as well as the U.S. Bomarcs can be equipped with either high-explosive or nuclear warheads.
28902-5-9J
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker That was the view of NORAD in the spring of 1961 of Bomarc B.
In September 1961 John Laurence Kuter, commander in chief of the North American air defence command, mentioned the Bomarc in a speech at the Canadian international air show in Toronto. He said that it was a supersonic missile which could operate over a range of 400 miles from a very low altitude up to 70,000 feet. This is with regard to Bomarc B. He said it could be launched within two minutes of the alerting time and could be armed with either a conventional or a nuclear warhead.
Where is the implied agreement to accept nuclear warheads? Our position consistently was to negotiate and endeavour to arrive at an agreement that would preserve the sovereignty of Canada, so that in the event that the international situation became serious or critical we would be in a position to utilize nuclear weapons for the defence of North America.
What has been the attitude of the members of this government? They have made a complete circle. They took one view one year, and then suddenly that change of heart. We know now why there was a change of heart. Again the Minister of National Defence, speaking in Vancouver, said that the present Prime Minister had met with some armed forces representatives in the United States and that they had convinced him or had led him to believe that something would have to be done. I will return to that at an appropriate time.
Now I intend to refer to the Prime Minister and to follow him in what I have referred to as his gyrations while occupying the position of leader of the opposition. In August of 1958 he said, according to Hansard, that the Bomarc should be equipped with a nuclear warhead. That was his stand in August of 1958. In July 1959 he supported the arming of Canadian forces in Europe with tactical nuclear weapons. He stated that the minister of national defence would know that tactical nuclear weapons had now been reduced to the point where they could be used by small formations against purely military targets; that they were conventional in the sense that they were ordinary type weapons with nuclear ammunition. Then he went on to say that if these weapons were not used, NATO forces in Europe would be facing armies which had them and would not hesitate to use them. So the stand taken in 1958 was that NATO forces should be so equipped.
However, for some reason that I have never been able to understand, on January 18, 1960 he said-I am merely summarizing his words

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker -that he had some reservations. He said that we should not accept what are sometimes called baby nuclear bombs for R.C.A.F. planes. He was referring to the strike reconnaissance role of the CF-104. In August I960, again referring to the Bomarc, he said that he believed that in getting out of this position which he considered to be an ineffective one for Canada-meaning the Bomarc system-we would be rejecting the use by us of any form of nuclear weapons for what is mistakenly called the defence of our territory.
Mr. Speaker, why these changes? Why these sinuous turnings? Why these alterations in viewpoint? Then on that same day he confessed that his views had changed, compared with those he had outlined in July 1959. He summarized his position by saying that in addition to being against nuclear warheads for the Bomarc he did not support nuclear warheads for our forces in Europe. And he talks to us now about days of decisiveness with a strong, bold, imaginative government. Is this to be an example of what decisiveness means? He went on to say that Canada should categorically reject the proposition that our NATO forces should be equipped with nuclear weapons of any kind. When I listened to him today wrapping himself in the garments of perfection, he said to those on my left that they were dangerous in their view of NATO; that if the NATO forces of Canada did not have nuclear arms-which was what he advocated in 1959-that would be the end of NATO.
A year and a half went by. On January 9, 1961 the national Liberal rally took place in Ottawa. I made an error today when I asked the Prime Minister whether he had made a statement in the House of Commons on January 9 of that year regarding Canada becoming a nuclear power. That statement was not made in the House of Commons, it was made in Ottawa at that rally. He was even more emphatic then because he said that we should not acquire or use nuclear weapons under any kind of national or joint control.
Mr. Speaker, if anyone has got lost in trying to follow this course I can understand it. The Prime Minister said-and here I speak of the New Democratic party, which needs no defence on my part and is receiving none-that their view would destroy NATO. I ask him, when did this revelation come to him? That was not his view in 1961. Then he went on to say, and I can just hear him as he put all the force at his command into it, that a policy of strength and independence and of co-operation between allies

does not require Canada herself to become a nuclear power. That is when he defined a nuclear power-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not the revised version of the 21st of May, 1963, the definition that what he meant by a nuclear power was that Canada would be in that category if she accepted any nuclear weapons either under national or joint control. He said that the policy does not require Canada to become a nuclear power and went on to say:
Nor does it require Canada to continue her present role in NORAD which, among other things, would mean that Canadian forces would use nuclear weapons under single or dual control.
This is What he advocates today, dual control, and he spoke today as if this had always been his opinion. At this meeting in January, 1961, there was a resolution adopted in these terms:
A new Liberal government should not acquire, manufacture or use such weapons-
-nuclear weapons-
-under separate Canadian control or under joint U.S.-Canadian control.
He speaks of decisiveness. He prates of the necessity to be direct and definitive. I am sure the house and the country would like to know when the light finally came to rest upon him and made him recognize that the forceful arguments he was making in this house in 1959, 1960 and 1961 had no efficacy. Then he said this. The resolution said it; he did not:
Under a new Liberal government Canada will withdraw from NORAD in so far as its present interceptor role is concerned.
What changed the thinking of the Prime Minister in the intervening days? It will be interesting to know, because today he would have the house and the country believe that he has always been completely dedicated, as he said, to NORAD and to joint defence.
-Canada will withdraw from NORAD in so far as its present interceptor role is concerned. Liberal policy would, however, provide for an appropriate Canadian contribution to continental defence in co-operation with the U.S.A. The Canadian role in such defence should be that of detection, identification and warning.


An hon. Member:: Bird watching.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the falcon became the bird watcher. We ought to know, Mr. Speaker, the reason for these changes. That is what parliament wants to speak about. We want to know what the reasons were for these political peregrinations in thinking. Then the resolution went on to state:
We would stop using our defence resources on interceptor fighter squadrons or on Bomarc missiles. There is no reason why Canada should participate in a role inappropriate to her circumstances.

Sir, I am sure the house realizes the need of having this problem discussed and determined by parliament. How do we know that the views of today may not be discarded tomorrow? We want to find out. Speaking to the annual banquet of the Ontario secondary school teachers federation in Toronto on January 21, 1961, the Prime Minister of today outlined Liberal defence policy, and he said this:
It is nonsense to say that nuclear weapons are necessary for this purpose.
The purpose being co-operation in defence with the United States.
So let's not get into this field at all.
You know, Mr. Speaker, he often speaks of baseball. He was certainly in the outfield then.
The role of surveillance for the R.C.A.F. in continental defence was one not only of great importance, but would also involve close co-operation with the United States. It would not, however, require us to use nuclear weapons in Bomarcs or in Canadian aircraft under national or even joint control.
He went on to say:
This is not, in my view, necessary or desirable for Canada as our part of continental air defences.
He knew then, Mr. Speaker, what the alleged undertaking was because he told us today that it was made by me in 1959. I ask him: Knowing that there was an undertaking, as he says today there was, why was he imploring us to evade our responsibility?
I come now to 1962. Prior to the general election of 1962 the Liberal party issued a pamphlet entitled, "The Liberal Program". Dealing with defence the pamphlet stated:
The defence policy of a new Liberal government will not require Canada to become a nuclear power by the manufacture, acquisition or use of nuclear weapons under Canadian or American control.


An hon. Member:: 1962.


John George Diefenbaker: 1962, Mr. Speaker. He reads us a lecture today on the responsibilities of government. Yet as late as 1962, prior to the election of that year, knowing of the commitment, because he says the commitment was made by me in 1959 in a speech in the House of Commons, he and the Liberal party had decided that they would not require Canada to become a nuclear power by the use of nuclear weapons under Canadian or American control.


Mr. Monteith:: How two-faced can you be?


An hon. Member:: Where was Judy's truth squad then?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is here now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: While you are over there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Where was the truth squad then?
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: I enjoy audience participation but I really do not need any help. All I have to be able to do is read what was said. This establishes once and for all, first, that they have not been able to find any undertaking between Canada and the United States in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why did you lose half your cabinet?


John George Diefenbaker: All they have been able to do is to quote from a statement made in 1959 which went no farther than subsequent statements, namely, that we would be in a position, if an agreement could be secured that would preserve Canadian sovereignty, to have nuclear weapons available.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Where is the member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness)?


John George Diefenbaker: Then, I want to refer to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), and I dislike doing so in his absence, which is quite understandable. I was going to wait until a later opportunity presented itself. I have only been able to gather together a few of these items. If I had had more time, Mr. Speaker, this would have been a record of devious hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal party dating back to 1959.
I refer to the Minister of National Defence without any observations on what he said. I find his words on page 7567 of Hansard for August 4, 1960. If I may summarize these words before I quote them, he said no nuclear weapons for use on Canadian soil or in Canadian air space; scrap the plans to acquire the Starfighter for NATO. These were the remarks of the man who today is the Minister of National Defence. I will give you an explanation of the tremendous transformation and metamorphosis that took place in the thinking of hon. gentlemen opposite, and the explanation given by the Minister of National Defence. I quote now from Hansard where the present minister is dealing with North American defence.
Because of our belief that from the mid-sixties on there will be no possibility of effective air defence of the North American continent we can see no reason for continuing with the installation of equipment designed exclusively for that purpose. It is our contention, therefore, that the government should discontinue at once its participation in the SAGE-Bomarc system, and not proceed with the installation of radar gap fillers These are only useful against attack by manned bombers. We contend that the possibility of attack during the next two or three years is not very great, and this is the only period during which these installations would be worth while. Interestingly enough, this would be the period during which they would be still under construction, not yet operational. By the time they are in place they will be obsolete, because by that time an all-out offence would involve the overwhelming use of missiles against which there is no defence.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker Mind you, these are the words of one who has given thought and deep consideration to this problem. He said so. I continue to quote:
Elimination of the SAGE-Bomarc system in Canada would eliminate the necessity for Canada storing or using atomic warheads on Canadian territory. The supersonic interceptors, which we would be acquiring under this arrangement, could be armed with conventional guided missiles such as the Sidewinder. There would then be no immediate question of extending control of atomic weapons to another power. I know that this is a matter of great concern, not only to us on this side of the house but to the government, the Prime Minister and to others.
There, in those words, he answers unequivocally the argument so often advanced that the interceptor that we secured would require to be armed with nuclear weapons. He said nothing of the kind, but that we need a conventional guided missile such as the Sidewinder.
Then, he dealt with NATO and I refer to page 7568 of Hansard of that date. I quote:
I come now to NATO. At the time the NATO agreement was signed the objective was to build up in Europe a shield consisting of a substantial number of divisions armed with conventional weapons. Subsequently, however, at a time when the United States still had overwhelming superiority in atomic capability the NATO forces were reorganized along the lines dictated or at least rationalized by the theory of massive retaliation.
Then, later on the same page we find these words:
With respect to the air division, we regret the decision of the government to re-equip on the basis of the strike attack role. Canada has not, in the past, contributed to the offensive potential in any way, and especially any nuclear potential. We feel that it is unnecessary and unwise to change this basic policy. Re-equipping the air division in this way creates a number of problems.
Then, he takes a strong and definite stand which remained the Liberal party's stand for over two years.
I should like also to refer, in order to answer the allegation of anti-Americanism so generously spread around, to what the Prime Minister said:
It is not a defence, and in the nature of things I submit it cannot be a defence of our territory in the traditional sense of the word, and it will soon be no defence of anything.
He was dealing with the continental defence of North America by the Bomarc and interceptor aircraft.
After all, this kind of defence is primarily a United States responsibility. It is the defence of the deterrent. We know how important that is; but it is a deterrent which is under the sole control of the United States of America.
How can one follow, Mr. Speaker, a mind that indulges in convolutions such as these in an endeavour to ascribe to us an attitude of vacillation, uncertainty and indecisiveness. Listen to these words:
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that our experience in the past three years has shown that

in attempting to participate in continental defence in the way we have, we are becoming nothing more than just the last two knots on the Bomarc tail of the defence kite.
I can understand, Mr. Speaker, the silence on the government benches that greets revelations such as these. What a nerve for the Prime Minister to stand up and endeavour to point the finger of scorn at us. All through the piece there are these things. I think I have covered enough, even on this occasion, to indicate that the arguments of today are either without any basis in fact or that that change in thinking which occurred on January 12 could only have come about as a result of something having taken place across the line. No one knows what took place, although the Minister of National Defence did raise the curtain just a bit.
Here is what the Prime Minister said in November, 1961:
If we Join the nuclear club,-
And that is again having nuclear weapons in Canada under joint control or separate control.
-Canada will be throwing away a great political asset, the asset of being a leader for world peace, for a very dubious mechanism. Its position at the United Nations would be ruined in the fight to stop nuclear arms. That's the next step.
Difficult as it is, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to follow this. 'Why was there a change, why the alterations? On March 30,	1962 the
Toronto Star had this report:
U.S. A-Base here not needed-Mike. Opposition Leader Pearson said yesterday he could see nothing in present circumstances to justify establishment of U.S. controlled nuclear bases on Canadian soil.
I ask the Prime Minister to tell the house and the country whether, during his discussions with the President of the United States did he or did he not agree to give favourable consideration for the United States of America to store nuclear weapons on American bases in Canada? There are two major United States bases within Canada, and I know the house and the country would like to know what has been considered in this regard.
When I occupied the responsible position of the Prime Minister, in this regard the attitude we took was that at all times Canada should maintain her sovereignty, always willing to co-operate, to do our part in collective defence, always maintaining that we within our country, and I emphasize those words, shall determine our course.
When did the resistance of the Liberal party get worn down? They resisted any suggestion of nuclear atomic weapons in Canada. Again I have to call on the Minister of

National Defence as a witness. On September 12, 1961, as reported at page 8230 of Hansard he said:
Now we are being prepared for the introduction of atomic arms into Canada.
I thought there had been a commitment on the basis of what I said in 1959, but not so according to the minister of defence. He added:
The campaign to wear down the resistance in this house and in the country has begun. Speeches are being made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of National Defence which lead us to believe that the introduction of these weapons is inevitable. The commander in chief of NORAD was brought to Toronto to make a speech which would frighten the Canadian people into submission.
Into submission to whom?
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I think I should raise the question of the propriety of the Canadian government asking General Kuter to come and make a speech designed to do the government's political chores.
I am not going to make a reference to some other visits that have taken place. The present minister added:
I think if the government has any policy in which it firmly believes, it should state the case and accept the responsibility without trying to palm it off on military officers.
We never tried to palm anything out on military officers, and we did not want to be palmed out either.
Then, as recorded at page 8231 of Hansard for September 12, 1961 the present minister said:
Under these circumstances our Bomarc, even if it had any utility whatsoever, and our defence mechanisms other than warning and reconnaissance do not in fact protect the deterrent. They may do other things, but they do not accomplish this end.
For this reason we continue to believe that it is not worth while to put Canada Into the atomic club.
That is what they meant by the atomic club, and they spoke against it. Then he said this:
-when the advantage of having atomic weapons on Canadian soil is so negligible. We reserve the right to reassess this position if at any time in the future the west should be successful in developing a really effective anti-missile missile.
You will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, if I refer again to the minister of defence. What did he say about the Bomarc? On October 31, 1960, speaking at Saint John he was reported in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal as follows:
The outspoken M.P. for Toronto-Trinity said, "the Bomarc missile is about the most useless expense of money you can devise. The government might as well collect taxes and dump the money into Northumberland strait."
Mr. Speaker, the instrument that would have made Canada the last few knots on the tail-the value of it-was not worth
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker dumping into the Northumberland strait, according to the Minister of National Defence, but now it is to be equipped with nuclear warheads. Oh, how they ridiculed us. I ask why the change? I suppose we will never know, but the Minister of National Defence gives quite a viewpoint on the subject. When he was asked in Vancouver how this great change, this vast metamorphosis, came about, he said:
Lester Pearson advocated nuclear weapons for Canada because of new and vital information he received during the Cuban crisis. Paul Hellyer refused to say what the information was but he said Mr. Pearson realized he had to move immediately to save Canada's image within NATO and the United Nations.
What about the image of Canada in 1959 and 1960 and 1961, when the present Prime Minister, who had received the highest honour that could come to any Canadian internationally, the Nobel prize, who had occupied these high international positions, from day to day was castigating the government for daring to consider entering into an agreement that would have made possible the availability of nuclear weapons. The Vancouver report continues:
Hellyer said the Liberal leader was informed by private U.S. military and NATO sources that Canada's integrity had dropped to an all-time low.
Where would Canada's integrity have been if we had followed the advice of the opposition in 1959, 1960 and 1961?
"Washington was boiling," Hellyer said.
You can see the effervescence rise. "Washington was boiling"-boiling for what reason? Was it boiling because we dared to assert that in co-operation our sovereignty should be maintained. Referring to the Prime Minister the report continued:
He was continually asked "What's wrong with Canada?'' added Hellyer. Because of the grave situation Mr. Pearson felt Canada would have to take a positive stand in order to save her position of prestige.
I make no observation on that. Now, Mr. Speaker, I also want to read what the Minister of National Defence said. I have here an article written in the Toronto Telegram of September 20. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when they start turning author and writing articles, that is when difficulties arise. I point that out for the benefit of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who is reading his paper.


An hon. Member:: Preparing his budget.


John George Diefenbaker: This article is headed, "The Bomarc debate". It is entitled "We shouldn't delude ourselves", by Paul Hellyer.
I agree with that. This is what he said:
Canada should not adopt defensive atomic weapons at this time, because none exist which provide any real protection.

The Address-Mr. Diejeribaker
What about the future? No one can foresee the future with clarity, but the position at present is pretty obvious in perspective.
October, November, December, January- less than four months later the perspective became clarified. Then he said:
After the Russians succeeded in building an atomic bomb they began-so it seemed at least- to build squadrons of long-range bombers capable of reaching targets on the North American continent. Realizing our vulnerability, we began a crash program of radar lines and interceptor construction.
The purpose of these-and it was never considered to be anything else by the military-was to provide protection for the U.S. strategic air command.
When I said that these things were not for the defence of Canada, they said I was wrong. But again I quote the Minister of National Defence in support of the position we took. Mr. Speaker, I was reading the approval of the Minister of National Defence. I know he has been kept by most important duties and I appreciate him now being in the house, because the vote is approaching. However, I was reading from an article written by him which should qualify him for membership in any authors' association for fiction. He also said this:
Any bombers shot down before reaching their targets would leave more of SAC intact and give more pilots a chance to return to their bases, from which they would deliver their retaliatory blow.
It was at this time-the early 1950's-that the concept of the Bomarc was accepted. A line of pilotless aircraft (Bomarc missiles) was planned to extend from coast to coast to provide increased protection for the atomic deterrent-the striking power of the United States air force.
The concept made some sense at the outset. It has long since been overtaken by time and technological development.
Well, Mr. Speaker, these were the viewpoints of last September, and now they are asking us to bring about this new plan whereby, as enunciated by the Prime Minister at Scarborough, they will bring over the atomic warheads, then they will place them on the Bomarcs, and then they will negotiate with the United States, to provide a dissolution after marriage. Why, Mr. Speaker, what nonsense is this?
Then the Minister of National Defence said, in this enlightening article:
October 1957 should be remembered as a turning point in modern military science. When the Russians put their first sputnik into orbit, and proved that they could easily build missiles capable of striking north Amercia, the missile age dramatically began. The subsequent five years have produced miracles in research and development.
Then he said:
Shorter range missiles can be fired from ships or submarines at sea. Air to ground missiles, otherwise known as stand-off bombs, can be carried under the wings of giant aircraft.
Against these three kinds of missiles there is, at the present time, no defence.
Now sir, I ask, what brought about the change of opinion? All I have tried to do this
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
evening is simply review what has taken place. I have a great deal more material, equally effective, or revealing, I should say, that I will use on another occasion. No one yet knows the reason why on January 12 the Prime Minister announced a new policy. Why, it came with such revolting suddenness that the Manitoba Liberal association in session had just decided that they would not have nuclear weapons, and then they turned a complete somersault. They could not believe it. Possibly it will not be very long before we know some of the things that took place, some of the words of deep approval that were given to the Prime Minister for giving this remarkable calisthenic performance.
Sir, what is the policy today? Round and round it goes; what it is, nobody knows. Again I ask, what is it today? Well, on January 25 the Prime Minister stated in the House of Commons that they would accept a nuclear role at the moment. He intimated that this role would be changed if a Liberal government was in power. Cannot we just have some information. Was it arranged with the president at the siesta in Hyannis Port?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Or Nassau?


John George Diefenbaker: Was it arranged that if we would accept nuclear weapons, or if we would enter into an agreement such as was outlined today, there would then be a renegotiation so that Canada could renegotiate herself out of that agreement? Surely we are entitled to know. It is very obvious that we are not going to have the opportunity. Today the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), who is one of our leading authorities on constitutional development by appointment, said this: "You have the opportunity now to discuss it. We have not denied you that opportunity. One of the opposition parties has moved a subamendment, and we are going to let you discuss it". In effect, that is what he said. He said: "We have not denied you the right. Here you are; you can discuss it". That is not enough, Mr. Speaker. We have to know the reason for the change that has taken place in the attitude of this government over the stand which they took for three long years. Was that a conscientious stand which they took, or was it a political stand? Was the change, the migration from one side to the other in January, based on a consideration of the needs of Canadian security without regard to political considerations or was it determined as a result of representations made to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or to the minister of defence (Mr. Hellyer) by any one else at that time? These are questions whose answers we have a right to know.

I found it difficult to understand why the leader of the New Democratic party was unable to support the amendment which I moved. I felt it was one which deserved support, but the determination is always made on the basis of what is best for Canada and therefore I can make no criticism of that stand. I do not want to do anything which is detrimental to Canada but I am not going to be denied the right of having this important matter discussed and determined in parliament. The subject of nuclear arms is one upon which one's opinion changes or, at least, is affected by emotional considerations; but I cannot, in discharge of my responsibilities as Leader of the Opposition, allow this government to suggest to the opposition that because an opportunity has now come when the House of Commons may discuss this matter, that that is sufficient. Nothing of the kind. We want to know more. Whatever our views may be as to the need or the desirability of having the best defence which can be provided, parliament must have the right of decision. It will never have it. That was clear today.
I listened to the Prime Minister as he went over the field in a very able speech. How it would have appealed to me, that speech, if I had not known the facts as revealed by those quotations and many others which I could have placed before the house. We want to know. We want the facts. We cannot place reliance upon members of a government who in three years have held such a variety of opinions. What will the policy be? I think there were eight transitions between January 12 and the end of the campaign. Which of them represents the viewpoint of the members of the government today? We want the opportunity to be in committee-not the defence committee, but a committee of the House of Commons, here, to have this question answered. If hon. gentlemen opposite will not provide that, then let us have set aside a day on the basis of a resolution to be moved by the government in which frankly and fully the whole situation will be placed before parliament and the country. I cannot agree to less. At the moment I do not ask for more.
Yesterday the Prime Minister spoke of the Canadian people having decided all this. Well, 42 per cent, I think it was, voted in support of the government-43 per cent at the outside. Some 57 or 58 per cent voted otherwise. He said today this subject was one of the major issues. There has been no decision or mandate from the Canadian people in this regard. But whether with or without a mandate, members of parliament have their responsibility. All of us are prepared to have placed before us, not in panegyric form but in factual summary and analysis, the present 28902-5-10
The Address-Mr. Girouard situation. You will remember, sir, how those who now support this government poured their scorn on me when I said: Let us wait until the NATO meeting at which the whole question of defence will receive material consideration. They said: Nothing of the kind. Tomorrow and the next day the nations of NATO will determine one of the greatest questions facing the western world, namely, whether or not there is to be set up a multinational nuclear force and the terms upon which this would be done. Tremendous changes in defence thinking have taken place in the last few months. Britain had an agreement with the United States to have the Sky-bolt. That was changed as a result of the attitude taken by the United States, although Britain had depended upon it. Italy and Turkey had Jupiter missile bases upon which they depended. They are removed because of the changing concepts of defence. The new plan is, first, submarines and ships with Polaris missiles to be launched from them. The whole question of defence, as the minister of defence said so well last September, is changing and changeable. Therefore, I say that on the basis of the fact that we have had an undertaking, a statement, from the mover of this amendment that the problem is that parliament has not been consulted, believing that, as a result, it could be taken that these words are incorporated, namely "without consulting parliament", and that then the resolution would read in our interpretation-
-we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have indicated their intention without consulting parliament of acquiring nuclear arms for Canadian forces-
-we intend to support the subamendment. (Translation):


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the house for giving a member of each party the opportunity to put forward his views on what is going on in this chamber.
I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has tried to limit my loquaciousness by forcing me to reduce my speech to some four minutes.
I shall therefore gloss over the congratulations which I intended to offer and the suggestions which I was hoping to put forward in this house in the name of the voters of the riding of Labelle who, as you no doubt know, have always been proud of the fact that they elected Henri Bourassa in 1900.
The other day, as I was listening to the junior member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), I was wondering whether he would show as much courage as Henri Bourassa who, while still young, left the ranks of the Liberal party to sit as an independent member.

Division
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party platform has been quite interesting for the voters during the last election campaign except in one respect, where there is a lot of discussion, and, this evening, it is incumbent upon me to define the policy of my party on nuclear arms.
I believe that the Liberal party has not gained by the last election. Everybody noticed that western Canada, not altogether reluctant to accept nuclear arms, has nevertheless supported a party which was against accepting them, while the province of Quebec, opposed to nuclear arms, has nevertheless been generous towards the party in power.
But I must admit that a few days only after the election, I shuddered when I noticed the haste with which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the minister of defence (Mr. Hellyer) undertook to acquire nuclear arms. It came about so fast that, today, the members in this house are wondering whether they shall grant their support to a government which has made commitments so hurriedly without even consulting the house.
As far as I am concerned, I must say in my capacity as representative of La Macaza, where a Bomarc missile base is located- quite a significant fact-that even the workers of La Macaza, who helped my election, gave me the definite responsibility of opposing all acquisition of nuclear arms.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty pursuant to section 3 of standing order 38 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any subamendment now before the house.


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


Mr. Nixon:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member tor Huron (Mr. Cardiff). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasser-den). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
It being seventeen minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
28902-5-10J
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 22. 1963