1963-06-06

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I submit affects the rights and privileges of all hon. members of the house. My question of privilege is based upon the report of yesterday's proceedings in the house as recorded in Votes and Proceedings, which I have before me. I have particular reference to the motion for production of papers of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which was discussed and voted on.
My submission in brief, and I propose to support it by precedents, rulings and other resolutions, is that this report in Votes and Proceedings constitutes a condonation and, more than that, will be a perpetual record of what I submit with respect was a nullity in so far as the proceedings of the house are concerned, or certainly an irregularity, possibly an irregularity which could or might have been cured by the proper record in Votes and Proceedings.
Having made that point, I should like to proceed to establish the question of privilege. The particular motion is one which I think Your Honour and all members will agree is not debatable, and not being debatable it is not susceptible to amendment. There can be no amendment of any such motion for the production of papers. There can be no amendment, of course, because no one can debate the motion; therefore no one can move an amendment.
Over the past number of years, however, a practice has grown up under which ministers of the crown, in dealing with such motions, make certain reservations. These, in fact, constitute amendments. I propose to refer to a ruling to that effect. In spite of that statement, as Your Honour knows, an amendment to the motion can be put with the unanimous consent of the house. It is on that basis that this practice has been enshrined in the proceedings of the House of Commons.
Now I should like to refer Your Honour to a particular motion in 1961 for the production of certain orders made under the
Customs Act. At that time the matter was considered by His Honour Mr. Speaker Michener, and the report of the proceedings is to be found on pages 2439, 2440 and 2441 of Hansard. Mr. Speaker Michener then said very distinctly, and I have the quotation here, that this practice is one which the house accepts, that is of allowing a minister of the crown to accept a motion with reservations, but only on the basis, as he says, of the unanimous consent of the members permitting this to be done. His words in making this ruling are very clear, and I quote:
The other problem, that of amending a motion which is not debatable, has been dealt with by the house by unanimous consent, permitting the ministerial reservation to be expressed by the Chair when the motion is put. In effect a condition is attached to the motion with the unanimous consent of the house before the motion is put.
Now, bearing in mind that ruling, which I think has definitely been accepted through the years, we find in turning to the proceedings of yesterday than when Your Honour put this motion you did so in these words:
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservations or remarks of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Not expurgated editions. Produce the record and that is fine.
Subsequently the motion with this reservation was put and was dealt with on that basis. I find on examing Votes and Proceedings, page 73, the motion is set out and then these words appear:
And the question being put, the said motion, subject to the reservations expressed by the Honourable the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was agreed to on the following division:
My submission is that there was not, as is quite apparent from the record, unanimous consent to this motion being put or accepted, with the very vague reservations which the Secretary of State for External Affairs sought to attach. Consequently I suggest that this forms the basis for my proposition that the proceeding was a nullity.
However, this defect might have been cured, because yesterday there was a motion for the production of papers moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam relating to the establishment of a veterinary college. This motion also appears in yesterday's Hansard at page 691. The motion was accepted by the Minister without Portfolio

Question of Privilege
subject to certain reservations. Your Honour put the motion with these reservations, and it was accepted. However, when the motion appeared in Votes and Proceedings no conditions or reservations were attached.
In the limited time available I have searched the Journals of the House of Commons and I have yet to find cases where motions of this kind, with conditions attached such as those sought to be attached by the minister, are recorded in that way. Under those circumstances it is my submission that this particular record as it appears is wrong and should be expunged, of course without prejudice to the right of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to move his motion again if he sees fit to do so.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the point of privilege raised by the hon. gentleman suggests two points to me. He argues that the proceeding yesterday was a nullity, the proceeding itself was a nullity, and therefore ought to be removed by some method from the records of the house.
I would point out it has been the practice in the house for many, many years to accept these motions subject to reservations which are frequently made by ministers, and that is the form in which the motion was put yesterday, subject to the reservations made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
At that particular time there was an opportunity on the part of any hon. gentleman who felt the privileges of the house were being overlooked, or indeed that order was being overlooked, to register an objection to the proceedings. No such action was taken at that time, and the house proceeded in the normal way to make a decision. A vote was taken and the house accordingly made a decision that these documents should be produced subject to the reservations made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I suggest it is quite improper at this stage to raise a point of privilege on a matter that was dealt with yesterday by the house, with finality, namely by taking a vote. To me that seems to be the substantial point.
With regard to the second point made by the hon. gentleman, that the record of the proceeding in Votes and Proceedings included the phrase "subject to reservations", and that this in some way is not in accordance with past policy, I would point out this is not a substantial point because it has always been understood that a vote taken subject to reservations on a motion for the production of papers, and accepted subject to such reservations, has been reported by the house whether or not the particular qualification was included in Votes and Proceedings. Yesterday was the time to raise the point of

privilege, and it is certainly improper at this time to seek to reverse a decision of the house taken yesterday by a formal vote.


Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker with respect to the matter of privilege that has been raised, I would say that the Minister of Labour has done us a service by making it clear that there are two points. I agree with the Minister of Labour with respect to the first point. What happened yesterday, happened. We cannot turn back the clock in this house. We learned that once before, some years ago. But with respect to the second point I think the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has a point of privilege when he questions the manner in which the resolution of yesterday is recorded in Votes and Proceedings.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, there were four occasions yesterday when notices of motions for production of papers were passed subject to reservations stated by ministers. This happened in the case of the motion moved by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), in the case of the motion moved by my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), in the case of the motion moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and it happened in the case of my motion which is now under discussion. If one looks at Votes and Proceedings for yesterday one will discover that in the other three cases there is no reference in Votes and Proceedings to the fact that reservations were made by the ministers concerned. It is only in the case of my motion that this clause is added in Votes and Proceedings.
I might also point out that on Tuesday, May 21, there was before this house a subamendment moved by the leader of this group. On that occasion a vote was called and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) indicated that he was voting for the subamendment on the understanding that it included certain words. There is no reference in Votes and Proceedings of that day to the inclusion of those words; the vote was on the motion as it was put from the chair by Your Honour. I submit, therefore, that the second point raised by the hon. member for Peace River has validity; that it would be a mistake to introduce into Votes and Proceedings, into the official records of this house, this phrase that something has been passed subject to reservations made by ministers.	.
As the Minister of Labour has pointed out, it is a long standing practice-maybe it is one which should have ceased many years ago, but we have had it for a long time-1& accept motions on these conditions, and whefi

we do so the house understands that the return that is later brought down will be brought down in the light of the reservations that have been made.
The Minister of Labour is quite correct; we cannot turn the clock back and re-do what was done yesterday, but the hon. member for Peace River does have the right to raise today the question as to the form in which this incident is recorded in Votes and Proceedings. Hansard, which is not an official record of proceedings, records all the words that were said, but surely what is voted on by the house is the motion that was put, and since no amendment was made there could not be a vote on an amendment.
I think the record in Votes and Proceedings as to what happened to my motion should be the same as the record with respect to the other three motions of yesterday to which I referred, it being the understanding of the house that the reservations recorded in Hansard will be recognized when the document is brought down.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River I would like to deal with point No. 1, which was not adequately dealt with by the Minister of Labour, who completely omitted any reference to the main point raised by the hon. member, namely that unanimous consent had not been given to the suggested amendment of the motion. It is quite true that the practice of governments and ministers of the crown has been to accept motions with certain reservations which are indicated at the time. The practice over the years has been, as long as I can remember, that the house accepts those reservations without comment, the reservations being restricted to documents which affect other governments or are of such a character that they cannot be disclosed. But in all instances, when a minister of the crown has accepted a motion with the reservations which he has expressed, the Speaker has then asked the opinion of the house and it has been quite normal for the house to agree.
However, in this particular instance-and this is something which has not come to the attention of the house within recent years- when the Speaker asked "Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservations or remarks of the minister?" some hon. members said "No". Obviously at that stage the proceedings deviated from what has been the practice of the house in the past. As a matter of fact, prior to that, when Mr. Speaker said "In the circumstances
Question of Privilege
I shall put the motion subject to the reservation", I myself asked "What reservation?", and the Leader of the Opposition said "What kind of reservation?"
After the second inquiry of Mr. Speaker whether the motion should be adopted subject to the reservation, some hon. members said "No". The Leader of the Opposition intervened and expressed a negative. "Not expurgated editions," he said. "Produce the record and that is fine." At that stage the motion was put to the house.
I suggest to you, sir, that more could hardly have been done. What more could hon. members do than to express a negative in reply to the proposition put before them by Mr. Speaker? At that stage action was required. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Labour both said we have missed our opportunity. What should we have done at that particular moment; raised a series of points of order or questions of privilege?
A motion for the production of papers is the same as any other motion, subject to the practice which has prevailed over the years of ministers of the crown adding restrictive reservations. Such a motion would have to be amended in the proper form in the same way all substantive motions are amended before they can be adopted by the house. I think serious consideration will have to be given to this particular record in Hansard or we shall have established a precedent which it will be very difficult to sustain, and which might throw out entirely the practice of the house which has grown up over the years in dealing with these motions for the production of papers.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: There seems to be an essential difference between this motion as passed by the house yesterday and most of those motions which have contained reservations of the kind referred to by other hon. members. Usually such reservations are based on securing the consent of other persons involved with respect to documents whose production is sought. But if I understand the situation which developed yesterday, it is not a matter of obtaining the consent of anyone, except hon. members in the government, before these documents can be produced. It is a matter of discretion on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who made it abundantly clear that the information sought in the motion was probably contained in some documents which he felt he could not reveal in their entirety. Thus when you come to examine this question, Mr. Speaker, I suggest you consider

Question of Privilege
that there is an important distinction attaching to this motion as opposed to motions with respect to which the usual reservations are made.
I wish to make one further point, and in doing so I am in agreement with the Minister of Labour. It was the understanding of the house what the reservations were to be. As a matter of fact several hon. members asked on a number of occasions that these reservations should be spelled out, and, while they may not have been explained to the satisfaction of those hon. members, the house did nevertheless accept the motion on the basis that the reservations had been explained.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I think this is an important matter for the records of the house because obviously, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River, if we allow it to pass we should perhaps be creating a precedent which would have to receive serious consideration by future Speakers and by the house generally.
I was a little surprised that the Leader of the House did not deal with this question. I recall a matter which was raised last session which I suggest with deference, Mr. Speaker, you may wish to consider. Strangely enough I believe it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who moved for the production of papers of a certain kind. I accepted the motion "with the usual reservations" and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, supported by the present leader of the house, immediately fell on me like a ton of bricks and said "What are the usual reservations? We cannot pass this motion with the phrase 'with the usual reservation'. You must define what the usual reservations are." Mr. Speaker Michener took it under consideration and later ruled that the usual reservations "could only be privileged documents or obtaining consent to tabling correspondence".
I think the present house leader made a very strong and undoubtedly a very proper legal argument at that time on that point, and that might be why he is silent today and it might be a precedent, Mr. Speaker, which you would like to consider if you are reviewing this matter further today.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour proposes to take the matter under advisement there is one other feature I should like to point out. I believe that if a reservation is made it should be spelled out in such a way that it can be understood. In this particular case two suggestions were made. The first was that perhaps the minister would produce a summary, and second, perhaps he would produce

extracts. In the end the minister said that he would give consideration to these suggestions, and this is to be found at the bottom of page 689 of Hansard. He said:
I have said that we would give consideration to that. I did not say we would do it.
Mr. Speaker, what I am pointing out is that in my belief, which I expressed following the vote, there was no reservation at all. There was a statement of the minister that he would think something over, and in the result he has put something over. I think that is not uncommon for him. I believe the reservation ought to have been spelled out, and in any case there was no unanimous consent to the motion being put with a reservation.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter I should like to draw to your attention that I think there is very grave doubt as to what we actually voted on yesterday. Personally I was in the position of not knowing on what we were voting, and I think the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) indicated the same thing. As a result, not knowing the implications of the vote, I did not vote yesterday.
However, it seems to me that if we voted on anything, if we paid any attention to the reservations which were expressed, then what we voted on and what was agreed to by the house was that the minister of external affairs would give consideration to two courses of action. I doubt very much that this is a proper type of vote to be taken in the house. Also, as far as the official record is concerned, it shows that the house voted in favour of a motion to produce certain papers which the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself stated could not be produced. Therefore I think we are in an extremely ambiguous situation as far as this vote is concerned, and that the government has put itself in a particularly invidious position.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, as I recall it, once before the Speaker ruled on this sort of matter, and it seems to me that the legality of the reservation is taken to be that instead of the hon. member having to go back and amend his motion and put it properly, so the motion for the production of papers will contain the proper reservation, it has been taken that by saying "with the usual reservations" it is an amendment of the motion, and with unanimous consent it can be put in that way.
The point came up before owing to doubt as to the nature of the reservations. Therefore-the previous Speaker usually accepted only those reservations where the house was sure-
JUNE e, 1963
there could not be any misunderstanding as to the type of reservations the motion would contain, and anything other than the usual type of reservations would mean that the motion would have to be withdrawn, and put on the order paper in the proper form to describe exactly on what we were voting, and then the motion could be put. I suggest that the obtaining of unanimous consent is necessary for the handling of a motion for production of papers if it is to be put in anything other than the words in which the motion itself is expressed. No such consent being obtained yesterday, the amendment certainly could not apply whatever else we voted on.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other hon. members who wish to express opinions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal briefly with a number of points made by hon. gentlemen opposite. I think the fundamental point has been restated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely that the house took a decision. It completed a proceeding yesterday. It consented to this proceeding, and it is impossible today to reverse that particular decision. That is quite clear and is amply confirmed by the authorities to which we have had regard for a good many years.
The point has been made that in some way this motion was amended, that unanimous consent was sought for permission to amend the motion and that the house withheld that unanimous consent. I do not think a reading of the record will support that contention, because on page 869 of Hansard Mr. Speaker is reported as saying:
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservations or remarks of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: No.
So at that point hon. members were saying no to the adoption of the motion, not to the proposal that unanimous consent be given.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I may say so, the Leader of the Opposition obviously accepted the regularity of that proceeding, because his comment following the putting of the motion by Your Honour was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, if I might rise, I suggest that the reservations be included in the motion.
There was no suggestion at that point by the right hon. gentleman that there was any irregularity in the proceeding. If an irregularity had been detected, then that was the point at which to raise it, not 24 hours later after a decision has been taken by the house.
I will conclude by referring to the precedent mentioned by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings in reference to a similar occasion when he was asked to define
Question of Privilege
"usual reservations". I think it was perfectly proper for the present house leader and for other hon. members to ask the then minister to specify what "usual reservations" meant, and that was done. The words used yesterday in this motion were not "usual reservations" but "subject to the reservations of the Secretary of State for External Affairs". In the text of Hansard there is a clear qualification to the acceptance of the motion stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, namely that he would give consideration to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam as to the possibility of extracting passages that would meet their request. That was the particular reservation which Your Honour mentioned in putting the motion.
I may add that the text of Hansard for yesterday does not support the view that this motion was amended in any particular way. It was not, because if it had been the amendment would have been contained in the text of the motion itself. The motion was passed, subject to reservations understood by all hon. members of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not have been drawn into this had it not been for reference to me on the part of the Minister of Labour. I would point out that what I said, as reported on page 689 of Hansard, was:


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion, subject to the reservations or remarks of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Not expurgated editions.
It was "not extracted selections".
Produce the record and that is fine.
In other words my stand was very clear. We would pass the motion as such but not accept reservations. We would not allow the government, or any minister of the government, to determine what portion of the record was to be produced. In other words there was to be no selectivity, but a comprehensive return would be accepted. That is my answer to the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other members who wish to speak? It is obvious to me that all members are intensely interested in this subject, and in some respects it is not an easy matter to decide. Without giving judgment at this moment I should like to refer hon. members to Beauchesne, fourth edition, pages 59 and 60, citation No. 70 and in particular paragraphs 1 and 4 dealing with points of order and to the effect that they should be raised immediately. However, in

Inquiries of the Ministry view of the general interest and the importance of the matter I should like to reserve it and bring in a considered, reasoned statement later this day if possible.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Speaker, would you take into consideration the fact that Votes and Proceedings were not published until today?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in considering your statement perhaps you would like to take into consideration the point that such a reservation may be in the nature of an amendment to the motion which in itself requires appropriate notice; therefore the amendment would require notice or unanimous consent of the house. This is a point I would raise for your consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already taken notice of the points mentioned.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister anything to report on the discussions with the representative of the United States on a multinational force or other force of that kind?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the representative of the United States government, Mr. Livingston Merchant, who is well known to many hon. members, is in Ottawa today to explain to the Canadian government, as he has explained already to other NATO governments, the purpose of the United States government as a member of NATO in putting forward a proposal which would provide for a multilateral nuclear force. Mr. Merchant went into the details of this matter at some length, as to what his government has in mind, and the discussions are continuing this afternoon and this evening. There is nothing I can report on those discussions at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand the answer given by the Prime Minister, but I wonder whether he could tell the house at this time if acceptance by Canada of the proposition advanced by Mr. Merchant would bring about an additional expenditure for defence in Canada of $40 million to $50 million?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very hypothetical question indeed because no decision has been taken or will be taken for some time on this matter. But if a decision is taken, and I underline "if", it need not involve any additional expenditure


at all, because it might result in a diversion of expenditure from one form of defence to
another without any additional' expenditure. However, certainly no decision of any kind has been made on this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the latter part of the answer makes for a further supplementary question. Is consideration being given to the alteration of Canada's role in defence toward greater emphasis on conventional weapons rather than nuclear weapons? Is that inference not inherent in the answer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government's position, which in this respect perhaps differs from the position of the previous government, is to emphasize the importance of conventional defences for NATO.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Now we have the answer. [Later:]


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister based on the statement he made earlier today to the house respecting the discussions that are going on about the proposed NATO nuclear force. Would he assure the house that this matter will be referred to parliament before any commitments are made by the Canadian government for Canadian participation in a mobile or any other type of launching platform for strategic nuclear weapons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there will be ample opportunity for the defence committee of the house, if that committee is set up, to consider this whole question before any decision is taken on it by the government.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the genial Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia in fact concluded an agreement with respect to the Columbia power development, as may be inferred from the remarks of Premier Bennett yesterday, who is reported to have said at a political rally at New Westminster, I believe, that he had saved the life of the Liberal government by coming to an agreement with them?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said yesterday, that there were discussions on Monday and Tuesday between the two governments. The government of Canada is giving consideration to matters which were discussed at the conference. I may say by way of parenthesis that we will not hesitate to make a decision, and we will not wait for the whole of our term of office before we make a decision.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the answer of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I wonder whether I might direct a supplementary question to the appropriate minister in this regard, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the urgency of moving toward a decision on the Columbia river matter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -would the minister consider making a progress report on the preliminary studies in connection with certain aspects of the trans-Canada transmission grid?


Mr. Chevrier:: Which the former minister of justice agreed to make.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see a great deal of relation between the two subjects. I must observe that the former minister of agriculture, it seems to me, had some difference of opinion with his leader in respect to the position of the federal government vis-a-vis the government of the province of British Columbia as to getting on with the job. I do not see a great deal of relation between the development of the Columbia river and the matter of the grid to which he has referred. However, I should like to read his remarks in Hansard, and if there is material in them that I should attempt to answer I will be glad to do so.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the instruments which have been prepared for the consideration of the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada, is there a provision for the sale of downstream power benefits?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, it must be obvious to the hon. gentleman, who has had long experience in government, that during the stage of negotiations and until the government is in a position to make a decision, matters of this sort are not divulged. One could not possibly carry on government
Inquiries of the Ministry business if one were to discuss in public all the details of something now before the cabinet.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell the house why certain members of the advisory committee to the north Pacific fisheries commission were bypassed and ignored in the selection of the Canadian delegation which left today for Washington, D.C. to enter into discussions with representatives of Japan and the United States regarding the north Pacific fisheries treaty?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries is in Washington today. I know the care that he has given to this matter. He has been anxious to see that representative fishing groups were given an opportunity to serve on this delegation. It would be a wrong conclusion to draw from what the hon. gentleman has said that there was any justification for his remarks.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the preliminary nature of the fishing treaty talks getting under way in Washington, would the government indicate that no official or formal announcements relative to a firm agreement will be issued by the Canadian delegation before this house, or the standing committee on marine and fisheries, is first informed of the matters concerned?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear my hon. friend's question. I thought I heard something about constitutional practice and that is something we recognize in this house. I did not hear the question. I shall take it as notice and reply to it tomorrow.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Finance. Has a date been set for the presentation of the budget?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I was not given notice of this question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -but I will do my best to answer it. I am hoping and expecting to present the budget on Thursday, June 13.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I told you so.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, partly to please the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but mainly because that was the date I had been working toward from the beginning. I propose to table the budget white paper and the economic review of 1962 next Tuesday.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I should like to ask the minister if there is any significance in the fact that the first budget of his reign of office will be introduced on the 13th?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not happen to be
suspicious-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -I mean superstitious. (Translation):



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has the intention of helping the Quebec government to establish a steel plant, as the Minister of Justice said on March 20, 1963, in a statement of which I have a copy here.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps this is not a question of sufficient urgency for orders of the day, but I am glad to inform my hon. friend that this government is always delighted to help the government of Quebec or any other provincial government on all appropriate occasions.



TRENTON, N.S.-PROTECTION OF COMPANY MANUFACTURING RAILWAY AXLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I think should be directed jointly to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is prompted by a telegram which I have just received from the president of local 1231 of the united steel workers of America in Trenton, Nova Scotia.

In view of the report that axles for railway rolling stock are being imported from England at one half cent per pound cheaper than the Canadian manufacturing price, and in view of the fact that the forge axle plant at Trenton is the only plant in Canada manufacturing axles for rolling stock, would the ministers look into this most important matter to see whether the report is correct? If so, would either minister take some action to protect this industry which is so important for employment in that area?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the question should have been directed to me or one of my colleagues, but I can assure the hon. member we will look into the situation.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he can give us any explanation for the curious and very unusual delay in the release by his department of the ruling regarding the position of Mr. Dunsmore in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware that there has been any delay. If my hon. friend has reference to a statement that appeared in the press in connection with a request having been made of the Department of Justice concerning certain matters, I can tell the hon. member at once that these allegations are completely untrue. No request was made of the Department of Justice for an opinion in this respect, save and except that which came from the Secretary of State on May 15, 1963. The opinion was given the next day.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Secretary of State what occasioned the inquiry to the Department of Justice requesting this interpretation?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: It is very simple. The hon. gentleman will recall that he and I, along with several other members of the previous parliament, questioned the legality of the bylaw and the legality of the appointment of someone other than the president of the corporation as chairman of the board. It was understood at that time that an attempt was to be made to obtain a legal opinion.

When I was vested with what responsibility I have in this matter, Mr. Dunsmore *came to see me. I told him the first thing I was going to do was to seek a legal opinion as to whether he was the chairman of the board. I said there was nothing personal about this, but I believed a law made by this parliament had been broken, and I did not propose to have it broken any longer than was necessary. I wrote to the deputy minister of justice to get an opinion on the matter. I would be very glad to lay on the table a copy of my letter and the opinion of the deputy minister of justice if hon. members so desire. We do not take the view, on this side of the house, that when the legality of an action taken by the administration with respect to a law made by this parliament is questioned we should try to hide the legal opinion with respect to it.


George Clyde Nowlan: I rise on a point of order. Surely the leader of the house has been here long enough to know that he cannot indulge in a debate and make accusations of that nature without any foundation whatever under the guise of answering a question. He should be called to order for it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question. Perhaps while the Secretary of State is rendering legal opinions he would advise the house since when the bylaws of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have been the laws of this parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Without seeking to give any legal opinion, I believe it will be within the knowledge of every hon. member that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a *creature of this parliament, and it can only do those things which this parliament has given it the power to do.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The same is true of any other corporation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before orders of the day are concluded, may I supplement the answer I gave to the hon. member for Port Arthur by tabling my letter to the deputy minister of justice on May 15, and his letter of May 16.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the house?


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



CONSTRUCTION OF HEADQUARTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to ithe Secretary of State.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the Secretary of State inform the public by telling the house if the project concerning the construction of the C.B.C. building in the eastern part of Montreal will be carried out as planned by the Conservative government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think those operations will continue without delay, but I shall ask the C.B.C. to put us straight on that matter.


Georges-J. Valade: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Secretary of State tell the house if he has received any recent communication to that effect from the authorities of the city of Montreal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about that, but I shall make a little inquiry.
(Text):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On May 27 last I inquired whether he had any information in respect of the reported activities of a group of German industrialists who were carrying on a world wide campaign to promote the cold war. He said he would make inquiries, and I wondered if he had anything to report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. member for putting his question again. I regret not having given him an answer. I have made inquiries and I can find no information on the question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the statement he made in the house on Tuesday last concerning the establishment of a 12 mile exclusive fisheries zone along the whole of Canada's coastline. In view of conflicting reports in the press and on radio, can the Prime Minister advise the house whether it is his intention to ensure that by mid-May, 1964, Canadian fishermen will have exclusive fishing rights in this new zone?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is our intention that Canadian fishermen will have the rights that they are entitled to in Canadian jurisdictional waters by, I think it is, mid-May of 1964.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister also in connection with his statement of last Tuesday regarding the extension of the three mile fishing limit to 12 miles. In that statement he made reference to claims to historic fishing rights. Could he inform the house whether the government has determined approximately what period of time would be considered to constitute a valid claim for these rights?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. That is a matter that will have to be considered when the negotiations take place. At present I believe the only countries that can make claim to historic or treaty fishing rights would be the United States and France, although there are other countries which claim traditional fishing rights, but they are not quite the same.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell us whether or not it would be possible to avoid having low flying aircraft continually flying over this building? I feel a little uneasy in case somebody makes a slip.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: I will take that question under advisement.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED INTENTION TO CEASE EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. Does he intend to suggest to the Minister of Finance to abolish equalization payments to the poorer provinces, as he advocated at the convention of the Montreal St. Jean Baptiste society?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (President of ihe-Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have never made such a statement, if I remember well.


Mr. Gregoire:: Do you?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can he state-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members wish to co-operate with the Chair. There must be some sense of order and co-operation. If the hon. member wishes to pose a question will he address the Chair?
(Translation):
Does the hon. member wish to put a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the President of the Privy Council remember that he made that statement at a conference held in Montreal about March 20, 1962, by the St. Jean Baptiste societies?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I remember having delivered a lecture before members of the St. Jean Baptiste society in September 1961, not in 1962.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does he still believe that full employment causes price inflation, according to what he has written in his report on Canada's economic prospects in 1957, and more particularly at the bottom of page 59?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I believe that chronic unemployment is something we should all do our very best to avoid, and I may have something to say about that next Thursday.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In the preparation of the budget that he will present to us next week, did he take into account the decision taken by his party in February last to give Canada a debt-free money system?


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance but I notice he is outside the house.

Under the circumstances I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the refusal by the Minister of Finance to answer my question a moment ago is to be interpreted according to the old saw ^'Silence is consent".
(Text):



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. When can we expect the Minister of Agriculture to resume his duties in the House of Commons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously an improper question. The Minister of Agriculture is a very hard working minister, and he is doing his duty.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport what action he is considering with regard to the urgent representations he received from the air transport association about the cutthroat competition of United States air lines in charter flights to and from border points, which is so harmful to Canadian companies?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we received a brief from the air transport association, but I would not want the hon. member's summary as contained in his question to be taken as an indication of any part of the contents of that brief. However, I can assure him that the contents of the brief are being considered very carefully by all the relevant authorities who are concerned with administering under various aspects the air policy of our country.



REPORTED NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiit (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister yet been able to secure a reply to the question asked by myself and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on Tuesday last, concerning the possible involvement of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation with a rumoured large iron ore and machinery deal with Japan?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the reference made in the house was to a report of negotiations which were said to be taking place, I understand, between the Canadian Javelin Corporation, or one of its subsidiaries, and the Canadian government with respect to an agreement involving, as the press clipping said, enormous quantities of Canadian iron ore and Japanese machinery. I take it this is the reference in the question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is correct.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have inquired, and I am informed that some months before the present administration took office there was correspondence between the Export Credits Insurance Corporation and this Canadian company, and that there have been informal contacts since, but at no stage have there been any negotiations.
(Translation):



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works to whom I apologize for not having given him notice in advance, but the matter is urgent, Mr. Speaker, as it has to do with the world's fair to be held in Montreal in 1967.
Has the Minister of Public Works received a communication or communications from the Quebec minister of highways with regard to building a throughway on Montreal island at a cost of $175 million?
In view of the importance of that question, I know that the minister will wish to answer.


Hon. J. P. Deschatelefs (Minister of Public Works):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: I would like to ask a supplementary question. Following the answer given by the minister to the question I put a moment ago, I should like to know whether he proposes to accede to the request of the Quebec department of highways and give his agreement to the building of that throughway on Montreal island?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The government's policy, Mr. Speaker, is to inform the house as soon as a decision is made.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Slteena (Mr. Howard) with reference to the representation of our native Indian people at the world fair. I am pleased to inform him that the world fair corporation is planning to have every aspect of man's activity represented in the exhibits. I intend to draw to the attention of the appropriate officials the necessity of presenting exhibits which properly reflect the contribution of our Indian and Eskimo population.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has stated that the fair will portray every aspect of man's activities, is it the intention to keep children away from the fair?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs. Could the minister inform the house whether negotiations are proceeding with the government of Alberta with a view of redrawing the boundaries of Wood Buffalo national park?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the only negotiations with the government were those under the previous dispensation, and they arose because of the fact that a considerable number of natural resources other than scenery are located in the park. I have not had any discussion or correspondence with the government of the province of Alberta, and I would like to think that the former minister would agree with me that the alienation of any national parks to whomsoever or for whatsoever purpose would only be undertaken after the most serious study. I can assure him that will be the case if this application comes to me.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, if any such agreement is made with the province of Alberta, will it be submitted to parliament?


Arthur Laing: I would not want to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I question whether that has been the practice in the past, but I will take the supplementary question as notice.
[Mr. Deschatelets.l



GARIBALDI, B.C.-INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS WITH B.C. PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prifiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am sorry I have not given him notice. Can the minister inform the house whether discussions took place with Premier Bennett this week regarding the possibility of federal participation in the development of Garibaldi park?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker.



INFLUENCE OF PRICE INCREASES ON COST OF LIVING INDEX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As recorded at page 447 of Hansard of May 30 I asked him:
Would the minister elaborate on the sugar question, and has he asked for information from his department and other government departments as to the amount of the rise in the cost of living index which the recent increases in sugar prices will occasion?
Has the minister a reply as yet?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand that the hon. gentleman intended to pursue the question. I have the information, and I will give it to him tomorrow.


David Vaughan Pugh: In the house, please.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance inasmuch as the Royal Canadian Mint comes under his jurisdiction. I would ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to give effect to part of our historical development during the centennial celebrations in 1967 by arranging for the minting of gold coins in that year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I point out to hon.
members that questions should be of immediate urgency, otherwise they should be put on the order paper. If the minister wishes to answer he may do so; if not, the question should be put on the order paper.

(Translation):



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to answer a question which the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue asked me yesterday. No representation from the Canadian Wood Manufacturers' Association reached me with regard to the use of Canadian hardwood for carpentry or woodwork.
However, if such representations are made, I will certainly give them due consideration.
At all events, I take due note of the hon. member's recommendation.
(Text):



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES ROYAL COMMISSION  REQUEST FOR REPRESENTA- TION OF ETHNIC GROUP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In appointing the royal commission on biculturalism will the Prime Minister recognize the one quarter to one third of the Canadian people of different ethnic origins who do not belong to either the French Canadian or Anglo Saxon element in Canada by the appointment of at least one member of the commission from an ethnic group?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in statements made by myself and my colleagues we have already indicated our recognition of the interest in this study of that section of our population to which the hon. member refers.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of Premier Lesage's insistence that at least half of the commission members must be French Canadian, are we to conclude that any appointment must be made from the English section of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow that type of question. That is not a question; it is an argument that is put forward.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) asked a question which is reported at page 694 of Hansard. The question is:
Inquiries of the Ministry
Will the decision of the United States air force to close its strategic air command base at Frobisher Bay, Northwest Territories, result in a reduction of the Department of Transport's staff? If so, will the minister assure the house that every federal government employee so affected will be given an opportunity to transfer elsewhere within the Department of Transport establishment?
The answer is that the closing of the SAC base will, unfortunately, result in a dislocation of federal government employees in the Department of Transport at Frobisher Bay. I can assure the house, however, that my department is exploring every opportunity to transfer employees so affected to other Department of Transport establishments, consistent with the availability of positions and the suitability of the employees concerned, and is offering positions elsewhere in the federal government service.



RAILWAY BRANCH LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the large number of applications being received by the Canadian board of transport commissioners for rail line abandonment, and more specifically the recent application of the C.P.R. to abandon the Stoughton branch line, would the minister advise the house when the government will take the necessary action to provide for orderly abandonment of these lines as advocated last January by the former government?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the government is taking action on this subject at the present time. I take it from the form of the hon. member's question, although there was other material included in it, that he is referring to the notices of intention to abandon certain lines in the three western provinces. I would point out to the hon. member that those notices of abandonment were prepared at the request of the former government, and this government has supported that request, so that in dealing with this question the government would know exactly what problems it has to face. At a meeting held last January of delegates from western Canada and the former government, such record as I have of it indicates that position quite clearly. It is a position, I am happy to say, in which I have concurred.
With regard to the notices of intention to apply for abandonment, a great many of them were brought forward in the last week. I take it that is what the hon. member's question has reference to, and if I am correct in that, I can assure him that the final

Inquiries of the Ministry act of abandonment will not proceed in any case until the larger question of policy having to do with this subject matter is decided.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Matapedia-Matane.
Since the Minister of Agriculture is probably at an auction somewhere, does the Minister without Portfolio intend to introduce a bill enabling the eastern provinces to set up a single body for the purchase of feed grains from the western provinces? In other words, will he authorize the establishment of a purchasing pool?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, this involves an important question of government policy which will be announced later in the house.
(Text):



REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice. Last Monday the minister said that his department was looking into the question of the increase in the price of bread in Montreal, and was studying the matter with a view to finding out whether a formal inquiry under the act would be justified. My question is, can the minister tell us today whether a decision has been made in this regard?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot add anything to what I said the other day, because the matter is under study at the present time. Until a decision has been taken I am afraid there is no information I can give the house.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I regret I have not given the hon. gentleman notice, but if he maintains the close and interested contact with the United Nations that his great predecessor did he will have no difficulty in replying. Is the minister in a position to


make a progress report on the crucial negotiations at the special session regarding the urgent question of United Nations finances?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: The question which the hon. gentleman has raised is, I know, one which he regards as being of great importance, as, indeed we all do, because of its relationship to the maintenance of the United Nations organization itself. Last week I made an interim report on this subject following my interview with the secretary general in New York. I may say discussions are still current and we are hopeful that an accommodation will be reached to provide for the peace keeping operations of the U.N., this year. The long term aspects remain undecided, however, and I do not, for the moment, have any reason for saying that any formula put forward with regard to the long term peace keeping operations of the United Nations has reached a hopeful stage.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: wonder if the Minister of Justice is now in a position to comment on my question to be found at page 694 of Hansard yesterday, referring to the F.L.Q. situation and the unorthodoxy of the procedures.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I shall be glad to do so. The rule, as I understand it, is that the Minister of Justice is responsible for the examination of acts and the statutes which are passed by this parliament through action either by himself or through the deputy minister. But in so far as other persons are concerned, these are matters about which advice should be sought from counsel acting for or on behalf of individuals.
I have seen from the press that these people now have no complaint to make. But even if they had, particularly with regard to statutes which are not under the jurisdiction of this parliament, I think they should consult their own lawyers, because the Minister of Justice does not give advice other than to inform parliament.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. On Monday evening last he said the government was giving serious consideration to setting up an appeal board to

hear cases which had been listed as security risks by the R.C.M.P. Is the hon. gentleman now in a position to say when the government will proceed with the setting up of such a board?


Lionel Chevrier: The question raised by the hon. member the other evening and again today is one which is important to us all, and a very serious one. This matter is now under active consideration. However, I have to tell the hon. gentleman that it is not one which can be determined overnight. Study must be given to it. I hope favourable consideration will be given to it, but I certainly cannot at this juncture, or at an early date, give a reply to the question asked by the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that there will be some delay, may I ask the minister if he would be prepared to conduct an investigation into the case of the young man who was dismissed from the air force and from subsequent positions as a result of having been labelled a security risk? The minister has already been good enough to deal with the Gordon Harry Knott case, and I wonder if he would be prepared to look into this other case.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know if I have the name. If I have not, perhaps the hon. member would give it to me and then I would be pleased to look into it personally.
While I am on my feet, may I say that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked the other day what disposition would be made of the file in the case of the young man, Mr. Knott, to whom he made reference. I am pleased to advise the house that the file has now been destroyed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would be glad to give the minister the name of the man I had in mind. However, it is not really necessary. The commissioner of the R.C.M.P. mentioned the case in his letter to Mr. Sidney Katz following the article which appeared in Maclean's magazine, and that gentleman is reasonably familiar with the case, which is one I had taken up with a previous minister of justice.


Lionel Chevrier: I will look into it at once. (Translation):



REQUEST FOR REPLIES IN FRENCH TO QUESTIONS IN FRENCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["I regret very much that the hon. gentleman who just sat down has indicated that he will not be able to support this resolution setting up a defence policy committee. In doing so, he was, no doubt, speaking for his party which has in the past always opposed the establishment of such a committee. I am very sorry they are opposing it on this occasion.\nA defence policy committee could serve a most useful purpose at this particular time and it is remarkable that only one of the four parties in this house has seen fit to pour scorn on it, to call it a smokescreen, and thereby oppose it. That is most regrettable.\n6, 1963\t765\nBusiness of the House\nMay I call it ten o'clock?"]
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Considering the answers received to the questions put recently on the order paper and directed to various depart-
6.	1963	733
Appointment of Defence Committee ments, does the Prime Minister intend to advise his ministers to answer in French the questions put on the order paper in French?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I think that is a very good suggestion. I believe it is being followed, and I think it will be followed.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
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 24 members to be designated by the house at a later date.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just prior to the adjournment of the debate last evening I had expressed the concern of the members of this group about the moral aspects of the acceptance of nuclear weapons by the government, and the concern felt by editors and other people in this country. I quoted from an editorial which appeared in the Victoria Times and from another which had appeared in the Vancouver Sun. The article in the Victoria Times referred particularly to the moral burden which was being imposed on the Canadian people by the acceptance of such weapons under these circumstances.
With respect to the military aspects of this question, the futility of this nuclear posture has been well explained by General Simonds, General Macklin, some generals in the United States and other well known authorities. The arguments put forward by these generals and others have been gone into thoroughly by the leader of this group, as well as by others, so there is no necessity to repeat what has been said in that respect. With regard to the economic grounds on which we oppose the acquisition of these weapons, certain increased costs have been incurred which are likely to rise still further when the government gets drawn even deeper into this particular NATO role. I trust the government will look thoroughly into the economic aspects of this acceptance of nuclear weapons.
I think this committee would provide an opportunity to review Canada's role in NATO in the light of changing circumstances. We are little wiser as a result of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization meeting in Ottawa.

Appointment of Defence Committee In fact we have had to rely upon vague communiques which, we were informed fairly reliably, had been drawn up before the meeting was even held in Ottawa, together with certain pious platitudes uttered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other members of this government in explanation of what happened at that meeting. To indicate the platitudinous nature of what was put out officially, let me quote briefly what has been said by responsible newsmen who were sent to attend that meeting. On page 57 of United States News and World Report of June 3 four of these correspondents make brief references to their attendance at this conference. The news dispatch reads as follows:
To fill in on the real significance behind all the words at that north Atlantic Alliance meeting just concluded in Ottawa, here is the report of our four member staff on hand for the sessions:
U.S. is going to extraordinary lengths to keep the western alliance from falling apart. At Ottawa, U.S. decided to keep on paying most of the bills for NATO and to avoid showdowns with allies on nuclear strategy or anything else.
Result: there was no firm action on issues long thought pressing.
Hot issues were compromised-or postponed. Differences between allies were soft pedaled. Candor was lacking even in secret talks. Said an insider: "Once again, a crisis has been postponed at the cost of any real progress."
In other words: Need for a forward line of defence in Europe seems much more important to the U.S. than it does to most of its allies on the spot.
Then the communique goes on to say:
In short: U.S., at this time, is unwilling to risk pushing the western alliance into a political crisis. The alliance seems too shaky for that.
So much for the Ottawa meeting. Fact is, Atlantic alliance is in such poor health that several western leaders are administering vitamins.
I think this committee, Mr. Speaker, must be told the facts and the truth about the situation as it is today, and not be content to rest on the information contained in vague communiques and pious platitudes uttered by ministers in the House of Commons, or as my leader has just said, on communiques which were practically completed before the meeting commenced. What a lot of shadow boxing, and at great expense. When NATO was formed the importance of article 2 was stressed and we were treated to syrupy doses of rhetoric on this article, particularly from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). We placed confidence in the wording of article 2 and accepted the statements that something would be done. However, we all know that nothing aas been done to date to give it effect, although it is a standard ritual at these conferences and annually in this house to pay homage to its value, and so on, and to express hopes with respect to the future.

I am now going to make a few suggestions with respect to questions which should be given careful consideration by the committee. I feel very keenly on this question and so do a good number of Canadians. I have done a lot of reading and have received a pile of correspondence about it. I suggest that the committee should give consideration to the morality of continuing to support some of the leading figures in NATO. During the discussions on German rearmament the present Prime Minister, on January 26, 1955, said this:
The four top men who would have charge of the defence organization they are permitted would be Herr Blank, a trade union leader, Adolf Heusin-ger, never a nazi; Hans Speidel, a German general who was in the plot against Hitler and who was tortured in nazi prisons; while the officer in charge of military education and indoctrination has been described as a man of "glowing conscience" who truly wants to make a new democratic army that belongs to the people.
I think the facts and recent statements by some of these persons indicate that this was a very naive attitude at that time on the part of the present Prime Minister, or he was completely uninformed.
I will give a few illustrations to prove my contention in this respect. Herr Blank was the minister of defence in West Germany at the time of the question of German rearmament. He was also a trade union leader. He was soon replaced by Mr. Strauss, who soon commenced to reveal his true attitude towards NATO. First of all, he surprised and worried all his allies by seeking training ground for German troops in Spain without consultation, second, recently by the arrest of editors of German papers who criticized defence policy. This action was well reported in the German press, and I give credit to the Germans who opposed this action on the part of their minister of defence on the ground that he had little understanding of the workings of democracy.
Then again, I should like to quote from the New York Times of May 15, 1961, an editorial entitled: "Strauss's Nightmare":
No official has been unhappier than Herr Strauss over the recent suggestion in the United States that a Soviet attack should be met with conventional weapons to obtain a 'pause' in the fighting before any nuclear weapons could be employed. "It would give me holy terrors", Herr Strauss said recently during a parliamentary debate on the defence budget, "if I were to hear that a conventional attack was to be met only with conventional weapons, regardless of how big it is, how long it lasts, and what its political aim is."
This is the attitude of a person who acted previously without consulting his allies, and he clearly demonstrates that while his major allies are considering modifying the situation and reducing the risks by talking of using conventional weapons, he is practically saying

that if they were attacked they would use nuclear weapons to repulse that attack.
Then in this morning's Globe and Mail we find that he has agreed to train and equip Nigerian forces, again without consulting his allies. We have to respect the national rights of these people but this is something in the present world situation which should only be undertaken as a result of consultation and action through the United Nations on the basis of collective security. Action like this undertaken by Germany can only result in increasing incidents like those in Katanga. These armed forces can be used to repress the citizens of states who wish to advance the development of democracy, or give effect to the wishes of certain industrialists holding rights over their natural resources, and that sort of thing. I think we have seriously to question where we are going in this respect.
Now I come to a gentleman I mentioned before, on whom I have a large file supplied to me by the American Jewish congress, who supplied the same documents to Senator Morse in 1961. This is General Adolf Heusinger. The Prime Minister said that he was never a nazi. By George, if you read the record you will find he did all of the things the worst of the nazis were accused of doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. An hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair to consider whether what we are hearing from the hon. member has any relevance to or bearing upon the motion before this house. It brings to mind certain comments he made during the twenty fourth parliament, when there were present at that time people who were able to speak on these matters. Surely these are not issues before the house today. I would ask the Chair to bring the hon. member to order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order we are discussing a resolution to set up a defence committee. The whole question of defence policy in Canada and what type of defence Canada should construct is a legitimate subject, I submit, for debate. As a matter of fact, when the Prime Minister was introducing this resolution he said it would be very difficult to draw the line between the technical aspects of defence and defence policy, or for that matter foreign policy. It is all part of the same picture. It seems to me this whole debate has concerned itself with defence policy and defence 28902-5-474
6, 1963	735
Appointment of Defence Committee principles and to try to limit the debate now it seems to me would be most inappropriate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am laying the basis for certain suggestions I wish to make for consideration of the committee, and I am placing some evidence on the record in that connection. Not long ago General Heusinger, addressing the Hansa club, a group of prominent West German businessmen, urged acquisition of nuclear weapons and said it was fortunate that it had taken so long to organize the new West German army, since today the second world war lies well in the past and the population had become psychologically ready to become soldiers again. I think we have to ponder this sort of statement because this means that the purpose and objectives of these generals are quite different from ours. They have a different approach entirely.
I should like to quote briefly from Senator Wayne Morse's remarks in congress. He dealt with this question at length on April 19, 1961. I am not going to repeat it at length again, but for the information of hon. members who do not know some of these things I want to say that democratic Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon came out strongly in the U.S. senate against the appointment of nazi General Adolf Heusinger as chairman of the NATO permanent military planning commission. He described the appointment as "a gross wrong to the thousands of American soldiers who lost their lives fighting against the nazis".
His protest was almost entirely ignored by the United States and Canadian press. My point in this respect is to indicate that while we strive for peace on the one hand and to create less tension in the world, the records, actions and statements of some very important people in NATO are working in the other direction and nullifying our efforts. I do ask the committee to give consideration to this aspect of our defence policy.
I want to say a word or two with reference to General Hans Speidel because the Prime Minister during the debate when this man was mentioned gave him a clean sheet. The Prime Minister was not informed. He said that Speidel was a German general who was in the plot against Hitler and who was tortured in nazi prisons. As a matter of fact, and I have seen the record, Manfred Rommel, son of Field Marshal Rommel, has exposed Speidel's role and in a statement clearly indicated that Speidel betrayed Field Marshal Rommel to the gestapo. The record proved that Speidel-


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Speaker-

Appointment of Defence Committee


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -deported over a thousand Jews and other persons from Paris-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Is the hon. gentleman rising on a point of order?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I realize that a certain latitude was agreed upon in the discussion of this resolution but it would seem to me that the hon. member is now making comments on something which has absolutely nothing to do with defence policy in this country. Although I would not want to be unduly unfair to the hon. member, it would seem to me that there would be full justification for discussion of our own national defence problems without bringing into the discussion what may have taken place 20 years ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was following the hon. member for Kootenay West at all he would be aware of the fact that he is seeking to establish the point that alongside our preparations for defence there are elements within NATO and certainly within the German military regime that do not share the same views we have, or that some of the other members of NATO have. It seems to me that the hon. member's remarks are perfectly relevant to the subject. He is asking that the defence committee, when they are looking into the whole question of defence and the defence policy of Canada, keep these facts in mind.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I do not object and no hon. member objects to an hon. member laying a foundation upon which he can make a point, but what is happening now is that the foundation which the hon. member is building is taking so long he will not have time to make the point he intends to make.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is his problem.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am simply dealing with certain statements made by the present Prime Minister during the debate on German rearmament in which he assured us of certain things which have proven inaccurate. I trust the hon. gentleman will hear me through.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the house will recognize that in discussing the formation of this defence committee it is a little difficult to differentiate between the two subjects and I know that it is difficult for the house to discuss this committee without at the same time discussing some aspects of defence. I would, however, ask the hon. member, who is laying the

groundwork for his speech, to relate his speech as closely as possible to the need for the formation of this defence committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have nearly completed the evidence along this line, having only a paragraph or two left. I am then going to make some suggestions based on my remarks and the evidence I have tried to present to the committee. I will challenge the hon. gentleman to claim what I am saying is not true.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is not the point.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The record proves that Spei-del deported over a thousand Jews and other persons from Paris and that receipt of these persons was acknowledged by Eichmann to his superior officers. That is in the record. It is a statement obtained from the nazi archives.
A documentary film entitled "Operation Teutonic Sword" was shown in Britain four or five years ago which dealt carefully with General Speidel's history and record. General Speidel sued the motion picture companies for libel but only on one statement in that whole record, that was the statement which claimed he was implicated in the death of King Alexander in Paris in 1934. He never challenged the rest of the evidence.
I have obtained my information from German citizens who were in Hitler's concentration camps, from people living in West Germany at the present time, from officers in the British military commission that served in Germany after the first world war and from Canadians who served in the Canadian forces in Germany in the last war, and some who served in recent years. I urge the committee to investigate this situation with respect to the leading figures in NATO because quite a number of Canadians are seriously concerned about it. I am not one who likes to see Canadian troops marching behind persons of this type or being required to salute them when they meet them. I think we are doing our cause great harm under these circumstances and by accepting these conditions. I know that many people in Canada are concerned about this situation.
I suggest that the committee should take ample time to delve into all aspects of defence expenditure. With an expenditure of over $500 million annually in NATO they should carefully examine all the capital and current expenditures that are required to maintain our contribution to that force. Europe is so crowded with troops at the present time, Mr. Speaker, that the present German government has had to seek permission from the governments of other countries

to train troops on their soil. This is a question that we should consider under the present circumstances.
With respect to the military situation I suggest that the committee must seek and obtain answers to the reason tor the acceptance of a nuclear role by Canada and must discuss an alternative role for Canada in playing its part and making its contribution toward the preservation of world peace. I wish to quote again from today's Globe and Mail to indicate the attitude of the West German defence minister in dealing with this question of surface missile forces. I quote:
One concern in Ottawa, however, is that participation in the multilateral force by Germany, which is enthusiastically backing the idea, may be only the first phase in Germany's acquisition of nuclear weapons under its own independent control. Under those circumstances the U.S. proposal would serve only to foster a course of action that it is designed to discourage.
The committee should go into that question thoroughly. Have we just taken one step with respect to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and are we going to take another step and yet another? We were told at one time by the present Prime Minister that his attitude was that we should accept our commitment. I do not believe there was any commitment that could be called a commitment in the usual sense of the word. At one time the Prime Minister said that the Liberals were going to renegotiate to later release Canada from this commitment. Now we have accepted nuclear weapons and are giving consideration to making further commitments. I think this committee must be given the facts and told the truth with respect to commitments and what is the intention of the government regarding the extension of the nuclear role in our defence.


David Vaughan Pugh: Commitment on what date?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We have not been able to discover that yet. Again I say that with respect to the military aspects of the situation the committee must seek and obtain answers to the reason for the acceptance of a nuclear role.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in view of the conduct of some of the senior officers of the forces prior to and during the recent election the committee should inquire into these departures from the traditional role of the defence forces of Canada. I talked to editors who came back from NORAD headquarters and I say without any hesitation that in my opinion senior officers of NORAD were taking part in the election campaign in Canada and completely violating the traditional role of our armed forces in this country.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.
6, 1963
Appointment of Defence Committee


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When they were saying that the government of Canada was wrong and the Liberal party right, I think that is campaigning. We have the editors of over 100 weekly newspapers going to NORAD and being brainwashed by the senior officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force and officers of the United States Air Force who were directly concerned. We have to make certain in the future that it is clearly understood that the civilian authority governs Canada, is responsible for policy and responsible for any statements made in relation to that policy.
I now conclude, Mr. Speaker. I know some hon. gentlemen think that I am rather hepped on one aspect of this question. However, I am very concerned, as a member of this parliament personally and as a result of conversations with a good many people in this country, that we make certain that our role is an honourable and proper role for Canada to play in the preservation of world peace.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the house is discussing a matter of tremendous importance to our country and to the freedom of the free world. The numbers in the house would not give that indication, but the fact is that this is one of those debates in which each and every one of us who will not be on the committee in any event should have an opportunity of placing our views before the house and the country. If I had any doubt as to the need for my participation in this debate, it was removed this afternoon by the most unusual series of answers given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) regarding this very important question of nuclear weapons.
This committee, he said, would consider the whole question of the nuclear force. As I recall, and of course I have not seen the actual words, he said that no decision regarding that force in Europe would be made until a full discussion had taken place in this committee. Then, when I asked him a question I received from him an answer that becomes more surprising the longer the time passes between the answer that was given and the consideration I have been able to give to it. He said, in effect that, different from the previous government, this government emphasizes the greater role of conventional than nuclear weapons in NATO.
Now this, to me, is a most surprising statement, a statement that cannot be made to fit the suggestions made by the Prime Minister both during and since the election campaign. He said, in effect, that it was a hypothetical question, but perhaps the position differs because his government emphasizes the importance of conventional defences for NATO. This certainly wiped away all the

Appointment of Defence Committee policies regarding nuclear weapons. The statement has no basis in fact. I should like to know how that statement can be made to coincide with the undertaking, apparently entered into by this government, to supply our air force in Europe with bombs of an explosive power of one billion tons of t.n.t. These aircraft, 144 in number, are to be equipped, according to one who certainly in the past was not far removed from the ear of the Liberal party-I refer to the president of the exchequer court-with bombs of an explosive power which indicate that no longer are these weapons defensive, but they are aggressive in effect.
I should like to hear some of these proponents, these pundits, give their explanation for the somersault turned by the Prime Minister today in this regard. I could not understand it. What has happened? What has come over the Prime Minister for him to make a statement, in effect, that if a decision is taken, and I underline "if", it need not involve any additional expenditures. My question referred to the new system for which Mr. Merchant is here as the vendor. He said that the new system need not involve any additional expenditures at all because, in effect, it might result in a diversion of expenditures from one form of defence to another.
This is a strange doctrine, a strange and unusual answer. On the one hand, according to Mr. Justice Thorson, they are going to equip the aircraft in Europe with bombs of an explosive power of one billion tons of t.n.t., and on the other hand the Prime Minister says that we may be changing over; that we believe in a greater extension of conventional arms. I want to hear his explanation in this connection when he replies at the end of this debate.
Now, the questions and answers today indicate to me more clearly than ever the need for the fullest discussion in respect of this committee, so that the membership of this house will be able to place before parliament and the country their views on this most important, most significant question. Do not let anyone say we should not debate the subject because we must get on. The zero hour for the 60 days approaches. There is no question of obstruction, but there is the necessity for the fullest discussion, and that necessity is increased by the answer given which is, within the realm of parliamentary language, a sinuous disregard of the facts.
Ever since parliament opened, I have been waiting to hear about the commitment made by the government which I had the honour to head. They have snooped; they searched;

they have sought and they have found nothing. In that connection, let me say that I am sure the Prime Minister is greatly impressed by anything the Toronto Star may say. After all, it has been a most consistent supporter of his views. It certainly cannot be regarded as being in favour of the Conservative party. What did the Toronto Star say the other day about commitments? There is an editorial of May 28 headed, "What Commitment?" I quote:
The Pearson government misleads the public-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -when it claims it is accepting nuclear warheads only because of a "commitment" made by the former Diefenbaker administration.
I read on:
The Liberals fostered this myth during the election campaign-
Then a little later on it says, referring to the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
Yet External Affairs Minister Paul Martin still implies it is the Conservatives, not the Liberals, who are responsible for Canada becoming a nuclear power.
Then a little later on the quotation is given;
Mr. Martin's bland explanation is unconvincing.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a miracle of understatement.
If Canada is now committed to accept nuclear arms, it is because of a commitment made by Prime Minister Pearson, no one else.
Then it goes on to say;
Since taking office on April 22nd the Liberals have been challenged repeatedly to produce evidence that the former Conservative administration committed Canada to accept nuclear warheads. They have been able to produce none.
Then it goes on to ask if there were commitments, was there any necessity for the ensuing government to follow them?
It answers that question very well by going on to say:
There is nothing dishonourable or even unusual in discarding "commitments" made by a previous government. The Pearson government is, in fact, already doing so in the case of the Columbia river power treaty.
Mr. Speaker, we entered into a treaty, a treaty signed sealed and delivered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh no.


Mr. Ryan:: Delivered to whom?


John George Diefenbaker: Who interrupted?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I did.


John George Diefenbaker: Now they are trying to change it, alter it-


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: -vary it by some type of subterfuge.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition, if he would permit a question. The question is: how does he regard the Columbia river treaty as being delivered when it has a condition in it that it must be ratified by parliament in Ottawa?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so far as the
United States and Canada are concerned it is signed, sealed and delivered, and all treaties require to be accepted by parliament or confirmed by parliament in the constitutional manner. Now they are trying to get around certain of the provisions in such a way as will render unnecessary the submission of that treaty to the United States congress again.
Then the report goes on to say this:
Though it was never ratified-
The hon. gentleman has his answer in the next paragraph. Apparently he has not read this issue of the Star.
Though it was never ratified by parliament, the treaty was signed by the Diefenbaker government. Yet Mr. Pearson has had no hesitation in pressing the United States to renegotiate for terms more acceptable to Canada. Was this dishonourable?
Then it goes on to say:
-let it be clearly recognized that Canada has not now-and has never had-any treaty obligation under NATO to accept nuclear arms. In fact, under the NATO treaty signed in April, 1949, we are not even committed to supply any specific number of troops or equipment for the alliance.
Then it goes on to say this regarding commitments:
Was the United States dishonourable when, for practical military and economic reasons it cancelled its "commitment" to supply Britain with the Skybolt air-to-ground missile?
Finally it concludes:
In short, Canada has no commitment to accept nuclear arms. And even if we had, there should be no hesitation in spurning it if we consider it in the national interest to do so.
If the Pearson government is convinced we should get nuclear arms, let it justify the weapons on their merits if any. But let it stop trying to tell the Canadian people it's all the fault of the Diefenbaker administration.
Mr. Speaker, I could not place before the house the unprejudiced opinion of any newspaper more powerful and more effective than that which I have now placed before the house.


Mr. Malheson:: Mr. Speaker, May I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition a question, whether he was correctly reported in Hansard-


John George Diefenbaker: This newspaper-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the hon. member have to say?
Appointment of Defence Committee


Neil Alexander Matheson: May I ask the right hon. gentleman if he was correctly reported in Hansard of January 25, 1963 when he was quoted as saying:
-we undertook to equip our squadrons assigned to NATO for a strike reconnaissance role, which role would include the mission of delivering nuclear weapons. No one was under any misunderstanding in that connection. Parliament approved this program and appropriated the funds.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There it is.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman has read and reread that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You bet.


John George Diefenbaker: We were placed in a position where, under this strike force, when and if agreements were entered into with the United States, in keeping with our responsibilities and our sovereignty, there would be available in the event of war the necessary nuclear weapons. That has been our attitude throughout, unchanged and unchangeable. In other words I said over and over again that we would wait until the meeting of the NATO conference in Ottawa, and on the basis of the discussions that had taken place then and the consideration given by the various nations, we would not place Canadians in a lesser position in the NATO alliance than those with whom they serve.
The Liberals said this NATO conference would have nothing to do with that question. The Prime Minister spread that myth across the country. And what did the conference discuss? Our Minister of National Defence was there as one of the larger delegates. They must have received some unusually clarifying information from him in the making of the decisions they have arrived at, and that he has not vouchsafed to parliament.
When I read his speech on the subject I wondered whom he was trying to fool-shuffling, uncertain, full of verbiage.


An hon. Member:: Indecision.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh yes, indecision, but not one suggestion as to what the policy of the Liberal government is. We have had to get the clarification from the Prime Minister today, that now they are going in the direction of non-nuclear armaments. I shall come back to this, because I have a number of questions to propound.
The committee was promised by the Prime Minister in these 60 days of decision. He said they were going to take the whole problem of defence and bring it before the committee. On March 26, speaking at Kingston, he said that a Liberal government would set up an all party House of Commons defence committee to take the defence issue away from partisan politics. The committee's work would

Appointment of Defence Committee be part of a Liberal government's review of Canadian defence policy to determine an appropriate role for this country, but such changes would also take considerable time. There is no doubt about that; no decision is going to be made for a considerable time. Now, before the committee is set up, and the government having made that solemn undertaking, it has committed Canada to a strategic force in NATO equipped with bombs of an explosive power to which I have already referred.
The major matter for decision is determined by the government without any consideration by parliament, without any discussion before parliament and, above all, in a manner that denies the carrying into effect of the promise made by the Prime Minister that this committee would make a determination on the question of policy. This is nothing unusual; I have noted it in the question period. I have noted in other particulars a number of examples since the new government took office of its inheritance of that spirit of insolence and arrogance which characterized the former Liberal government of Canada.
What are they going to place before the committee? An accomplished fact, in so far as the agreement made in NATO is concerned. What recommendations are they going to receive from the committee? They are simply going to advise the committee that they entered into certain arrangements and undertakings at the NATO meeting and they will be carried out. Sir, I want to make very clear that we in Her Majesty's loyal opposition do not intend to be hamstrung from asking questions in parliament, demanding information and discussing defence while this committee is sitting. We are not going to have this committee used as a makeshift. The Prime Minister said in his speech at Kingston that it will take a long time to do this, and during that period of time we intend that in no way shall we be denied the opportunity of placing our views fully before the house and asking such questions as we deem proper, regardless of whether or not the committee is sitting.
I mentioned the Minister of National Defence a moment ago. He says he has a great deal of information on a number of things. Speaking in the house in January or early February he stated that he was not going to be tied down by classified information. Why, he had been to Europe. He was over there; he saw General Norstad. They sat down together; they talked, and he learned. When he came back he said, "I am not going to be stifled. I am going to tell you what I know". Well, he did not tell us much then,

and he certainly did not tell us very much the other day, regarding the defence policies of the Liberal party, this carefully developed program to which the Prime Minister referred in his Kingston speech. He said:
The Liberal party is not approaching the problems of government blindly. We have a carefully developed program of definite, concrete policies.
Then a little later in that speech he said:
I further pledge that as soon as parliament meets we will act to bring the muddle and confusion on defence to an end. We will fulfil Canada's defence commitments to our allies. Then, so that the critical issue of defence may be removed from partisan politics, I repeat as a pledge that we will establish an all-party defence committee of the House of Commons.
The NATO conference met. What was decided, other than that Canada undertook commitments which she had never had before?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Rubbish.


John George Diefenbaker: They rushed in there. They undertook to do these things. Mr. Justice Thorson had something to say about this, and they must believe him because he has always been regarded as one not unacceptable to the Liberal party. He said this, referring to the Prime Minister's Toronto speech:
Mr. Pearson's Toronto statement was a complete reversal of his previously expressed opinion and of former declared Liberal policy.
Then he went on to say this:
For example, on January 13, 1961 he said to a Liberal rally at Ottawa:
"We must speak and act firmly when our rights are threatened by American action".
Who was anti-American then? Mr. Justice Thorson went on to say in his speech that the Prime Minister said:
"We must not be the echo or satellite of any other state".
Who was anti-American then? He went on to quote the Prime Minister as saying:
"Specifically we should not acquire or use nuclear weapons under any kind of national or j oiut control".
Then Mr. Justice Thorson said:
Even as late as November 14, 1962 he-
That is, the Prime Minister:
-stated that he had "always maintained that Canadians should not accept nuclear weapons under either national control or jointly with the United States".
Mr. Justice Thorson continued:
This was declared Liberal policy until Mr. Pearson changed it on January 12, 1963. Small wonder, therefore, that the Canadian campaign for nuclear disarmament was disappointed with his new stand and shocked by it-

Then he goes on to deal in general with the whole problem and he says:
According to a recent press report, it has been proposed that in the course of performing their strike reconnaissance function the Starfighters should carry a one megaton hydrogen bomb. When I read of this proposal I felt impelled by a sense of duty not to "keep silence" but to speak in protest against it. That is why I appear before you this evening. The proposal is a monstrous one. It ought to be repudiated immediately.
Then he goes on and uses this language. He is not a Conservative or a former Conservative, but is one of those who sat with hon. gentlemen opposite:
And the proposal, if the press report is correct, that Canada's Starfighters should become "first-strike" bombers carrying a one megaton hydrogen bomb is an iniquitous one.
The implications of such a proposal are staggering.
Then he summed up this question. He had long years of experience in the House of Commons and in government. He went on to say this, and this is my answer to the government when they say they were carrying out commitments of ours:
A one megaton bomb is not a weapon of defence. It could be an instrument of mass murder.
Then he said:
There is room for argument that a distinction may be drawn between equipping our Bomarc missiles and our Voodoo interceptors in Canada and our Honest John rockets in NATO with nuclear weapons on the one hand, and providing hydrogen bombs for our Starfighters for their strike reconnaissance role on the other, on the ground that the former are defensive tactical weapons and the latter are clearly not.
What brought this about? We were not to be a satellite and we were to stand up for ourselves. Then, even before the NATO meeting, the Canadian government had capitulated to the extent that these tactical forces in Europe were being equipped with offensive weapons. Why did not the government wait until the committee was set up? This is the most important decision that has been made in these 60 days of decision; and yet no opportunity is given, as was undertaken, for a discussion in and a recommendation from this committee.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) mentioned a moment ago some of the matters that could have been dealt with at the NATO meeting, and were not. I listened to the Prime Minister speaking from the podium here. How many of the ideas that he placed before NATO were accepted? I know of none. Was there any advance made to have article 2 of the NATO treaty implemented? Was there any stand taken on the part of the Canadian government in the field of defence with regard to the standardization and co-operative construction of weapons-production sharing as part of 28902-5-48
6, 1963
Appointment of Defence Committee defence? Was anything done in that connection? Apparently all that was done at that NATO meeting was the making by Canada of a voluntary offer to provide tremendous bomb explosive power for her Starfighters in Europe. I know of no other stand which was taken, except the allocation of a nebulous force to which some reference can be made in a moment. What about this important question of sharing and production? No one ever did more in this regard than the Hon. Raymond O'Hurley as minister of defence production. He said to the United States- and he made it very clear-that we would join together in defence, which meant that each of us must make a contribution and must have an opportunity, industrially, to do so. What was the result? Well, in 1961, United States orders in Canada totalled $142 millions. Canadian orders in the United States amounted to $94 millions. We reversed the old order. In 1962 we received orders from the United States amounting to $254.3 millions and the United States received orders from Canada totalling $127.4 millions.
There has been a new policy declared by the United States since the present government came to office. Under this new policy, Mr. McNamara has issued a directive calling for the elimination of all purchasing abroad. Canada is not excluded from the terms of that directive. What is being done by the present government in this connection? At the present moment, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) is in Washington. Is he going to insist, as we insisted, and with success, that Canadian industry should receive its fair proportion of the joint production program of our two countries, or is the recent declaration by Washington one that will kill the sharing program and deal a severe blow to Canadian industry? We have no information in this regard. Strangely enough, at the NATO meeting this was one of the subjects which normally would have been discussed but which, apparently, was not discussed. I do not intend to go into the subject of the NATO meeting, except to say, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said a few moments ago, that the communique-and this has been reported over and over again-was born and produced before the meeting even began. There is proof of this available. A strange meeting. They bring the representatives of 15 countries together, and they know in advance what they are going to decide. No wonder you can get unity in those circumstances. What about the defence studies? Did the communique mean much? I do not know who these Canadian officials are who give

Appointment of Defence Committee press reports, but Mr. Dave McIntosh is certainly one who writes with authority and information, and he says:
The Canadian government gives every indication that it would rather never have heard of the proposed NATO seaborne strategic nuclear force.
The reason is obvious: Prime Minister Pearson has often said Canada could not get mixed up in the strategic weapons business.
I should like to know what kind of a weapon that million ton explosive bomb could be described as being.
The article says that the conference communique which came out of that meeting was disappointing to Canadian officials and goes on to give the reasons why there was really nothing accomplished. The countries which attended did, however, bring about a force, un-named and, as yet, unsung-a force to bring together various contingents, the United States to supply the Polaris weapons, the British to supply their bombers and so on. The French accept this because they feel it does not mean very much. They had no objection to a nuclear force being established and will provide two air wings as long as the force is not supranational. I should like to know why Canada has rushed in with these undertakings before the setting up of this committee to consider so important a matter. I should like the Prime Minister to explain what advance has been made in negotiations with the United States for an agreement regarding nuclear weapons for the NATO force. Is it not a fact that four of those eight squadrons are stationed in France and four in Germany, and that France will not allow the storage of nuclear weapons in France. This was brought to the attention of the country by Mr. Clement Brown in an article which appeared toward the end of May. What is being done in this regard? Are .we to have four squadrons in France with the necessary nuclear deterrent stored in Germany or in Belgium? How does the government intend to go about this? Is the right hon. gentleman entering into an agreement? The minister of defence (Mr. Hellyer) has not heard about this, apparently. He laughs. Every time I hear or see him in the house I am reminded of "The Deserted Village", the lines-
And still they gaz'd, and still the wonder grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew.
Every time the hon. gentleman speaks I think of Goldsmith. I ask him this: why did he not give us this information? Since France has not accepted nuclear warheads even under the double key system, is Canada to be prevented by France from storing American nuclear weapons on French soil? Has there been any discussion in this regard? The matter is complex and difficult. It is one
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
which is most trying. It cannot be solved by smiles and sneers. It can only be solved by the kind of negotiation which has not been evident as yet on the part of this government. The New York Times-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if before five o'clock the hon. gentleman would permit a question. May I ask him why he and his government stationed these four squadrons in France and maintained them in France, knowing about this difficulty?


John George Diefenbaker: Again, the right hon. gentleman is playing with words. We said we would make warheads available in the event of danger or war-that we would have the necessary agreement, providing agreement could be arrived at. And when we said, in so far as the Bomarc was concerned, that we would have them available in the United States under an agreement which would assure our sovereignty, the opposition at that time told us: you cannot have the weapons here and the storage elsewhere. Yet they will be obliged to have the storage for the four squadrons in France either in West Germany or else in Belgium.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


BANKRUPTCY ACT
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-5, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (primary products under processing).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am bringing Bill No. C-5 into this house only on account of the hardships which are created or enforced on people in Canada who are producers of primary products owing to the present legislation, which I think is too unfair, one-sided and undemocratic. This bill is self-explanatory, as I am sure you will agree with me when you read the bill and explanatory notes. I feel, as do many people, that it is high time we quit treating banks as tender little babies, and this is what I mean by one-sided legislation. We all know that little babies have to be coddled and pampered to make sure they survive, and that this is necessary because they are helpless. 1 might say here that I know this is so because we have one of our own four weeks old.
To say that our banks are helpless is far from the truth. They are protected by section 88 of the Bank Act, and I should like to read the explanatory notes at this point, if I have your permission, Mr. Speaker.
JUNE e, 1963
This bill proposes to prevent the financial distress suffered by unpaid primary producers when the processor in possession of their products goes bankrupt. In many cases the processor has obtained a loan by pawning these products to a bank under a blanket or floating lien: in effect, the processor gambles with the credit of the producer as risk capital-the bank clothed in the blanket protection of the producer's assets secured by section 88 of the Bank Act, the processor diapered with the limited liability of the Bankruptcy Act, while the primary producer goes bare of assets and stripped of credit.
This bill would remedy the grievance by removing primary product assets from the assets in bankruptcy and by providing that such assets, whether improved or unimproved, be sold by the court designated under the Bankruptcy Act. The rights of labour are protected by reserving to the employees a three month lien for wages; thereafter the balance is distributed fairly among the producers and, as to any balance, to the trustee in bankruptcy for distribution to the creditors subject to any lien held by a bank or by the industrial development bank. In this way the producer is protected as to his product and credit, the employee for his hire, the processor (and his creditors) for his managerial contribution, and the bank for its credit advances.
I would ask all hon. members to consider these plain facts as are outlined here. We have had too many of these inefficient operators go bankrupt, and by doing so they have jeopardized the livelihood of a good many families of primary producers in our country, whether they be primary producers of products from the land, forest, sea, quarry or mine. When these producers lose their assets they may have been trying to educate their children, make payments on a mortgage, and meet other commitments necessary to their way of life; but under the present legislation all this is lost. Most of the time the banks come out ahead of the game; we well recognize the fact that they are much better off than the primary producer.
I should like to refer to one such case of bankruptcy in our area, with which I am familiar. This occurred last year and concerned a processor of fruits and vegetables who went bankrupt. Before our marketing organization authorized this person to hold a licence they wrote to his bank to find out whether he was worthy and financially responsible to operate a company of this type. The bank wrote back and intimated that he was O.K financially, fully knowing that his borrowings at that time were 100 per cent of his assets. It almost appears as though the bank hoped to allow him to get back into business long enough to contract for the crops, process them, and then hope to walk in, as they did in fact, and put him into receivership when the crops were processed and in the can. Mr. Speaker, if you were a primary producer of products would you not think that this was a sort of planned conspiracy?
These producers of primary products grow their crops, which in turn they harvest and 28902-5-48i
Bankruptcy Act
then deliver, fully hoping they will be paid for the crops they have produced. Many of them have thousands of dollars invested in such things as fuel, fertilizer, plants, spraying equipment, and wages for harvesting which can amount to well over 50 per cent, in many cases, of the gross return on a crop. I know of one of these young farmers in my area who last year went into debt on account of this. He had a 100-acre fruit farm and it was free and clear of all encumbrances. Last year he suffered frost damage in his orchards and again this year. He harvested only half his crop, but he incurred practically the same expenses as he would had he harvested his complete crop. By this I mean that he had all his spraying and cultivation expenses, and everything else which goes along with harvesting a fruit crop, except the cost of picking the crop. His total cost, which he borrowed from the bank for his operation, was $19,000. What he was supposedly to have received or should have received from the processor amounted to approximately $20,000. He got nothing at all for his crop, but he had to pay the bank. The bank makes sure that they get paid, do not forget that. He now has a $20,000 mortgage on his farm. I should say at this point that he could not obtain this money from the federal government because they did not see fit to lend this type of money in that area. He is paying a higher rate of interest than on an ordinary loan from the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation. He should never have had to incur this debt on account of someone else's inefficiency. This is plainly obvious to anybody. I checked this with all kinds of small processors. I never bothered the big ones because they do not operate under this section. The small processors told me that they are 100 per cent in favour of this act being amended.
I should also like to point out why these inefficient processors who go broke create problems for the efficient processor, whether he be small or large. When these inefficient processors go broke the food brokers are generally waiting to get this produce as cheaply as possible so as to depress the price of the other canned processed goods which are similarly sold by the efficient processors, and thus disrupt, if they can, the whole market. The worst thing about it is that the consumers very rarely get any benefit from this. It is a real racket.
I ask all hon. members: Do they think they should be able to borrow money on my house, my car, my farm or any of my assets without my having anything to say about it? This is actually what is happening. The primary producer of these products, whether they be from the land, sea, mine or forest, has little if anything to say about it. I would

Bankruptcy Act
have no objection if the primary producer had anything to say about the processor borrowing money on the producer's assets, but at the present time he has nothing whatsoever to say about it.
I would ask hon. members to keep this point in mind. How many of us can borrow 10 per cent of our assets as this processor I mentioned earlier borrowed from a bank? A farmer has a fat chance of borrowing any more than about 10 per cent of his assets.
One of the reasons that the primary producer cannot claim these assets after the processor gets them is that he loses identification with his product. Tomatoes go into a can and it is pretty hard to say whose tomatoes they are. Peaches, pears and other vegetables go into cans and it is pretty hard to say "that is my product". A stonecutter cuts raw stone which may go into building stones or tombstones and it is pretty hard to say which is his stone if the processor goes bankrupt. The same is true of coal or pulp-wood. In the case of pulpwood it is hard for the producer to identify his pulpwood when it is transformed into newsprint. The primary producer is faced with a most difficult stumbling block in trying to prove identification of his product. I ask all hon. members for their co-operation in giving this bill second reading.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the Social Credit party, to say that we support the principle of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Being myself a manufacturer, I understand very well what this bill is aiming at. We cannot but support the measure and see to it that it is adopted. Moreover, we are happy to note that it is presented by a member of the party in power.
Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to protect the suppliers of primary goods by forcing a company to take the necessary measures to protect the advances made.
At the present time, section 88 of the Bank Act allows them to accept as a first mortgage the goods supplied on credit by the manufacturers who, on the other hand, are not subject to any restriction with regard to the goods they themselves supply on credit to other manufacturers.
We also know that the chartered banks are fully protected in regard to their loans to those firms, taking as collateral goods which are still unpaid and which were supplied by the producer of primary goods.

I believe it would be fitting to pass Bill C-5 as it stands now in order to protect the claims of small suppliers, just as the banks are protected under section 88 of the Bank Act. In fact, I believe that is what the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) had in mind when he moved this bill, that is the protection of the suppliers who, at present, stand to lose money in case of bankruptcy by the manufacturers who are not subject to any credit restriction.
(Text):


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) in his presentation of this bill. There are those who would perpetrate the myth that the party to which I belong is in some way the party of big interests in the same manner as other political parties are known to be. I think the presentation of this type of bill clearly indicates that in the political house to which I belong there are rooms for all kinds of people. I think that is the great strength of this party.
It is possibly a fact that at times the interests that are paramount in our nation are those that are connected with large areas of human endeavour such as banking and finance and big corporations. There may be times when the interests of the nation are integrally tied up with the interests of these large bodies, and if that be the case then at those times this party supports those large interests. But there are also times that bills such as this one are needed because the interests of a smaller segment of the economy, that does not have the protection of big capital or great wealth, need to be protected.


Mr. Scott:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether the hon. member for York Centre could contain his enthusiasm. We would very much like to hear the words of the speaker.


Mr. Walker:: Is that a question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say I did not
hear the interjection made by the hon. member.


Reid Scott: I was merely pointing out that the conversation of the hon. member for York Centre is coming through the microphone and prohibiting us from hearing the words of the speaker and I was wondering whether he could contain himself for a few minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Actually I noticed that some hon. members were carrying on a private conversation which was coming

through the same microphone thus making it very difficult for the Chair to follow the hon. member who has the floor.


John James Greene: I thank the hon. member opposite for his interjection on my behalf. The pearls of wisdom that I offer here should be heard clearly by all.
I would point out that here is a case where the producer of the primary products referred to in the bill is not well protected in our economy as it is constituted. There is a basic premise when one is buying a house or a car: Let the buyer beware. If you go to buy a car you should take a good look at the engine and make sure it will run. If you get it home and it does not run too well, most times it does not do too much good to run to your lawyer with your troubles because he is going to tell you that you should check before you buy. Let the buyer beware.
In our economy as a whole I think this is a fairly sound precept and it is to some degree fundamental in a free enterprise economy that people do in large measure look after their own interests, protect themselves and do what is best individually for their own private businesses and private interests. However, in this twentieth century, in this age of big government, big interests, big business, I think we often come to the pass where the game is not an even or fair game.
The big interests in looking after their own well-being, economic and otherwise, as is their right in a free enterprise system, have the very best of information, advice and professional help available to them. The result is that gradually over the course of the years they have, through this kind of help and through this kind of good business practice, got the game weighted too much in their own favour so that it is no longer a fair or even game and so that the person who is not organized on a broad, powerful and corporate economic basis cannot compete fairly and evenly in the game. No matter how he bewares before he buys, he is going to get caught because the rules of the power game are stacked against him. I think the type of situation that we have here is one which is prevalent in bankruptcy proceedings.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the bankruptcy laws as they are now constituted are little more than a vehicle created by the federal government to enable fraud. How many examples have we seen of absolute fraud sheltering under the benign aegis of the federal bankruptcy laws? I understand that during the last parliament, before my advent here, there was a proposal by the then minister of justice-I think it would be in order for me to say here, even though I sit on this side of the house, he was a most outstanding
Bankruptcy Act
minister of justice-to amend the bankruptcy laws to counteract some of the inequities contained in them. Unfortunately, his bill was never brought before the house. Certainly it was never made law. It appears that there were matters that occurred in this house which interfered somewhat with such humble legislation as bankruptcy laws, and the then minister of justice departed for greener fields before he could bring this bill to fruition.
It is my hope that the bill proposed by the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) will alleviate some of the hardships imposed on the primary producers whom he has defined so adequately in the definition section of the bill. It is my hope that the bill will provide some protection to those people who supply primary materials or labour for a project, when bankruptcy ultimately occurs. We are not doing anything very radical. I do not believe we are doing anything very socialistic-if the word "socialistic" is a bad word and I do not know that it is. All we are doing is creating a preference similar to the type of preference that has already been given to banks under section 88. I think it might be compared to the type of preference that is given to the supplier of materials or labour under the provincial mechanics lien legislation.
I think we know that under the provincial mechanics lien legislation, if the supplier of labour or materials carries out the provisions of that legislation, he has a priority over other persons to the extent of the labour or materials supplied. Surely, all we are doing here is carrying that sound, fundamental precept that the person who supplies the original goods or labour should be the fellow at the top of the heap instead of putting the fellow who supplies the financing always at the top of the heap. If the provincial legislature has seen fit to give that type of priority to this fundamental supplier of materials or labour, then surely in so far as the bankruptcy aspect is concerned, which is the federal aspect of this same type of problem, we should see fit to give that same type of priority or preference to the supplier of labour or primary products as opposed to the supplier of finance, who is now the fellow who holds the sacrosanct spot at the top of the financial totem pole.
I think that this bill attempts to do so, and it does so very well. It is a well conceived and well thought out measure. I feel it solves that fundamental problem. I do not see that any basic wrong will be done. It is always a problem when we are trying to right one wrong in some segment of the

Bankruptcy Act
economy to make sure that we do not create another wrong in some other segment of the economy.
Let us assume that we are dealing with the perfect economic man that the economics professors so dearly love. Let us assume he is entering into some contract-and I shall use the same illustration as my hon. friend used-to provide tombstones. He is a small supplier of tombstones. At the present time, how does he protect himself to make sure he does not supply these tombstones to a person or a corporation whose financial status is shaky, and to make sure that in the event of bankruptcy he will have some protection? Furthermore, how does he make sure he is not doing business with a financially shaky person or institution? Well, to the best of my knowledge, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for the supplier of tombstones to ascertain if anyone has a section 88 lien with the particular person with whom he is doing business.
It may be that if he hires a costly and expert lawyer

I find all lawyers are costly whether or not they are expert-he may be able to find out whether or not there is a section 88 loan. However, fundamentally, a section 88 loan is a private financial arrangement between the banker and his client. It is not the subject matter of public notice. He might be able to find out if somebody has a chattel mortgage, and the holder of that mortgage would have a prior right to the tombstone supplier in the event of bankruptcy. He would have to search the appropriate registry office to ascertain this. If he goes to all this expense of hiring the necessary accountants and lawyers, then he had better go down to the provincial capital and find out if there is any prior registration under the corporation securities registration which would put the corporation securities on the financial totem pole ahead of the supplier of tombstones. I suggest right here that if he is going to do all this, spend all this money each time he sells a tombstone, then he is going to have to get a very big price for this tombstone in order to pay the lawyers and accountants. Then, by the time he gets all this research done the poor fellow who is looking for the tombstone may be dead, and buried too.
I suggest, therefore, that today, no matter how vigilant, or how good a businessman the primary supplier may be, there is no way in which he can carry on his business in a practical fashion and find out whether or not the person with whom he is doing business is a good risk. If my hon. friend's bill is made law, I suggest this process is going to be made easier. These institutions, these banks and

finance companies will have to protect themselves. These huge financial entities have resources which enable them to protect themselves in a way that the small, individual producer is not able to do today. I have no vendetta against the banks or finance companies. There are times, such as when it comes time to pay election bills, when I am very glad to have them as friends to make me a loan to carry me over the next four years.
I do not want to get the bankers mad at me, because they are apt to bring down that axe that is hanging so precariously over the back of my neck right now.
I believe that in this particular case there will be no great wrong done to these financial institutions that are an essential part of our economic structure. I think that they will be able to protect themselves in making loans and in doing business. Maybe it will make them a little sharper, a little more careful. Maybe they will look into matters more carefully than they do now, because now they can get a section 88 lien and whether things go badly or not, they are all right. This may make them even more efficient in doing their business, now that the banks and financial institutions realize we are always behind Mr. Primary Producer, and that we are always behind the supplier of labour and materials. Therefore in financing these projects they had better be certain (a) that the man running the show is sound financially, that he is able to carry out his business and, (b) see to it that he stays in business, or otherwise they may be at the bottom of the heap, and the primary producers who supply the goods are the only ones who may get their money.
In doing so I think the banks may be able to play a bigger part in helping these individual financial ventures to prosper and go ahead. There was a day when our bankers used to be a sort of partner to small business. The banker used to help the small businessman in planning his future, planning his growth, and the day to day administration of his business; but today with these great areas of protection for the banks, such as section 88, the banker no longer has to be a partner, because he is like a sheriff with his hands on the businessman's throat. If things go badly, he is not in the old time position of being a partner and friend of the small businessman.
Through this bill my hon. friend is trying to play a great part in enabling the banker to get back on an even basis with the primary producer. In so doing we may not only be doing a favour in this question of bankruptcy as it affects the small business community but we may be helping in some way to reestablish that partnership-I think we could
JUNE e, 1963
call it that walking together on an even footing-of the small businessman and the banker, which is essential to our small business community, rather than have all the power and all the rules geared in favour of the banks.
Therefore it gives me great pleasure to support this bill introduced by my hon. friend from Essex South and I commend him for presenting it to the house. It is a very salutary type of legislation which will help our small businessmen to prosper.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) for introducing a bill that will give some protection to the primary producers against the provisions that are contained in section 88 of the Bank Act. However, I think there is another illustration that should be brought to the attention of the house, and which has not been pointed out thus far in the debate.
I was rather intrigued by the illustration that was so well explained by the hon. member for Essex South and then expanded on by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene), regarding the manufacture of tombstones. There is another possible involvement, if I may put it that way, that the primary producer occasionally gets into, and that is in the matter of supplying primary products for the manufacture and the processing of goods whereby he enters into an agreement under which he does not expect to receive payment until the finished product is sold. This of course lengthens out the time before he receives payment.
This makes the provisions of this bill even more important to the primary producer because, on a straight business deal where he supplies primary products and expects to be paid on, for example, a 30 day basis whether the finished products are sold or not, then if the primary producer is not paid, within a very short space of time he can at least attempt to take some action. This is in contrast with those occasions where primary producers have supplied primary products going into the manufacture of goods. Several months have gone by, during which they did not expect any further interim payment; and by the time their suspicions were aroused and they got around to doing something about collecting, they found themselves in the position where legal action had been taken and the provisions of section 88 of the Bank Act made it impossible for them to gain.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Renfrew South because if I understood him correctly he placed no reservations on his acceptance of the provisions
Bankruptcy Act
of the bill. Therefore if he were the spokesman for his party I would assume they are prepared to accept the bill, allow it to come to a vote and be passed. I certainly hope that is the intention of hon. members of the Liberal party, because on a good many occasions we have heard government supporters speak in glowing terms of some of the provisions of a private member's bill or resolution, but add that they had one or two reservations and on account of those reservations they said it would be best to take another look at the particular measure proposed.
If this bill in its entirety meets the viewpoint of the Liberal party then I suggest, instead of following the usual procedure of talking such bills out, they let it come to a vote so that its beneficial provisions can become effective.


John James Greene: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and in answer to my hon. friend, while it may be that I should be, I am not yet the official spokesman for our party.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this bill introduced by the hon. member for Essex South I do so in almost fear and trembling following shortly after the hon. member for Renfrew South. However as I am a primary producer myself I would like to deal with the bill from that viewpoint.
As we all know, the bill is not pointed towards the efficient canner or producer, and there is no one in the house who wants to take advantage of a small industry just starting, whether it be a canning industry or something else. If I remember correctly it has been said that if all the small industries across Canada each employed one person there would be practically no unemployment in the country. So, we are not against that principle; but we are against them if they are going to start their industries at the expense of the primary producers.
We all know what canners' contracts are. You contract to sell your crop to the canners or the processors and you receive your money in the fall. There is absolutely no money put down and there is no guarantee that moneys will be paid before the fall. So it means that a grower or a primary producer of no matter what, whether it be pulp, vegetables or fruit, has to carry the total cost of growing his crop and harvesting it.
I do not know how many hon. members are practical growers, whether in fruit or vegetables, but I do know that when the average grower starts out-I will take tomatoes just as an illustration-he has his plants to buy. Then they have to be planted. There is then the fertilizing situation, and anybody who knows anything about fertilizing knows

Bankruptcy Act
that ii they are to grow a crop they have to put a lot of money into fertilizing, depending upon the size of the crop. Then there are spraying costs. I do not know whether hon. members realize it, but in the spraying of apples alone I have put on as high as 18 complete sprays in one season, and the average is 14. When I say complete, I mean complete; that is, on each side of the tree. With regard to tomatoes, a few years ago there was no such thing as spraying but today you spray four to eight times. I am trying to point out these costs to the house. Then there are the harvesting costs. With regard to all these costs there is no guarantee whatsoever that the individual will receive one penny if the processor goes broke.
The hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) cited a case or two. I would like to cite the case of a very elderly couple. They have not yet reached the age at which they draw the old age pension. This couple had a large family and it took every cent of their earnings to educate these young people and get them going. They had ten acres on which they tried to do all these things and make a living. They did a very fine job, because they were a very frugal couple. They had five acres of tomatoes in, and those five acres meant their livelihood that year. The canning factory went broke and they were left without a cent. Is that democracy? Are we living in a democratic country if we allow such things to happen?
All I want to say to the house is, let us support this bill. It may be that the odd flaw will have to be straightened out, but let us give the primary producer and the small grower an even chance.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support to the bill and to congratulate the hon. member from Essex South (Mr. Whelan) for having brought this measure to our attention. When the discussion commenced I was not familiar with the background of the bill or the requirements for it, but the speeches that have been made this evening have certainly convinced me and, I am sure, all members of our group that this is a proposal worthy of support.
We feel there are some qualifications about the bill. The definition seems unusually wide, and we have some qualms about the actual wording of the legislation; but no doubt these can all be resolved at the committee stage. I understand that there is an informal agreement that this measure is to come to a vote. Speaking for our party and, I hope, for many other hon. members, we are delighted to see this approach being taken.
I think this bill is a very excellent illustration of the proposals that were placed before the house when the first private

members' measures were brought before us for consideration. This is a proposal that is very meritorious and deserving of support. However, it does need to be examined a little more closely at the committee stage. Witnesses should be heard from, and perhaps a slightly more expanded bill brought back for consideration at a later time. Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to see private members' bills actually coming to a vote. This is something that I know all new members have wanted to see very much, because all the private members' measures on the order paper have good ideas in them and most of them will, I am sure, receive the support of the house and go to committee where they can be properly examined.
To me this is a very refreshing departure from the farcical treatment that private members' bills have received in this house in the past. On my own behalf and, I am sure, on behalf of all the members of our party, I want to congratulate you, sir, on taking this constructive stand. It is obvious that the fact this measure is coming to a vote is a bit of a surprise to everybody, because the house is almost empty. However, if this procedure continues to be followed and some of our more unusual and radical bills come up for a vote, I am quite sure that private members' hour could become one of the most exciting, stimulating and best attended periods of the House of Commons and could become a time when new, radical, different and fresh ideas could be considered and actually voted upon. As I have said, private members' hour could become one of the best periods of our discussions here.
So, Mr. Speaker, basically we endorse the bill. We congratulate the hon. member from Essex South for having brought this matter to our attention. We intend to support the bill. It is now ten minutes to six o'clock, and in order that there may be a vote upon this measure I am delighted to sit down.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I have some very grave questions of principle to pose in connection with this bill. I feel that, while it is laudable from the point of view of protecting the interests of processors, there may be some barbs and hooks in this measure.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: It is not the processors. You had better know what you are talking about.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry, the producers.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: That is right.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That was a slip of the tongue. I have misgivings about this measure because it would not be limited to merely agricultural

products; it would apply to lumber products, gravel, stone, sea products and so on. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to give the original producer the right of recovery from a bankrupt processor or person holding his goods, plus the costs of any improvements that may have been incurred in connection with the goods. However, there is already established in other areas legislation which grants priorities above those which now rank as even preferred claims. We have first of all-and this is something which must be considered-deductions for income tax that have been made from the pay of employees of a processor. This is a debt due to the crown, and it is clearly indicated in the Bankruptcy Act that this is a prior claim.
Second, and this also applies to the employees of such processors, there are the deductions that the processors have made from the pay of the employee and contributions which are due from the employer with respect to unemployment insurance. This also is a prior claim. Then in various provincial jurisdictions, for instance Alberta, we have what is called the exemptions act. This provides a protection to the individual; he is not thrown out on the street with only the clothes he is wearing. Not that this amounts to a debtor's paradise, but it allows every debtor a minimum. I am questioning whether such legislation as this will take precedence over these exemptions. I have not had an opportunity to consider all the points at which the purpose of this bill might run foul of other claims-for instance unpaid sales tax to the crown, and other prior claims established by statutes of this parliament as having precedence over ordinary claims.


Mr. Turner:: In view of the difficulties which the hon. member has raised about the contents of the bill and in view of the fact that he seems to want more time to study these difficulties, what would he say to referring the bill to a committee in order that all these points might be considered?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is certainly a point, but I submit that in giving second reading to a bill we are accepting the principle which it embodies, and the principle of this bill is to give priority to the claims of the producers of these goods. On the other hand, if many other claims are to rate above them, the principle of the bill may, in effect, be wrong. However, it is not my intention to talk this out. No one has raised these points so far, yet they go to the root of the priority which the sponsor of this bill is trying to set up.
Bankruptcy Act
This measure attempts to give to a particular class of creditors a priority which, I submit, may not be possible because of other legislation which may override it. Take, for example, the Unemployment Insurance Act or the Income Tax Act. Here, it is said: "Notwithstanding the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act-" and so on, certain claims will have prior effect. Thus, right away, there is conflict. The bill uses the words "in any other statute". There is a conflict of principles right there. I wish to draw these points to the attention of the house.
From another point of view I am wondering what adverse effect these proposals may have on small operators, small businessmen who wish to obtain a line of credit. The bill tries to protect one class in the economy. What will be the effect on another class? I have in mind a banker, or any other person who is granting credit, for example a wholesale lumber broker who grants credit to a lumber yard. Such a person may say to certain of their clients in the future because of this bill: "We are not going to give you any credit". The same position would apply in the agriculture industry. This is one of the difficulties which I envisage if we create a preferred class among creditors. When money is lent to certain types of producers, labor is granted certain safeguards or protection is afforded by section 88 of the Bank Act designed to encourage the granting of credit in respect of certain risky types of development; those are types of exemptions to the general principle that all creditors should share and share alike when somebody, unfortunately, goes bankrupt.
These are the points which worry me as far as the principle of this bill is concerned and, personally, I should like to see more answers furnished even before we accept the principle.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are prepared to follow the suggestion made of allowing the bill to go through at this time, but we shall do so on division, making allowance for the reservation made by my hon. friend concerning the lack of sufficient study given to the principles of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
Appointment of Defence Committee AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
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 24 members to be designated by the house at a later date.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to recapitulate the various matters I have brought before the house so far excepting in so far as the decision of the NATO council is concerned endorsing a NATO nuclear strike force. I would simply say in that connection that the consensus is that that pool will not in a military sense have the slightest effect on the defence of Europe, to use the expression of an outstanding newspaper correspondent.
Today we live in a period when many people are led to a false sense of security brought about, no doubt in large measure, by the inaction of the Kremlin in the last six months or so in respect of those areas which were difficult and tender spots internationally-Berlin, Laos, and elsewhere. However, it cannot be repeated too often that periods of inaction or paralysis, as it were, on the part of the U.S.S.R. are in no way indicative of a change of destination or a detour along their desired road of ultimate world domination. It is very apparent that changes are taking place in the U.S.S.R. in circles which would lead one to believe that difficulties are being experienced in the Kremlin, that there are cracks and crevices between the various strata of the Kremlin. The trial and death sentence of Oleg Pankovsky, one of Russia's war heroes, a man occupying a fairly high position in the hierarchy, would indicate that all is not unity or solidarity within the Kremlin.
It is also significant that during this interregnum, as it were, between crisis and crisis the U.S.S.R. has made no forward step toward the acceptance of control in the matter of testing. Indeed, I think Britain and the United States have gone a long way towards an accommodation but have been unsuccessful in securing agreement, and unless this first step toward disarmament is secured the future is fraught with greater fears than ever before. Only last Saturday it was stated that at this time the air is filled with radioactive poison to an extent that has not been


so for a period of over a year. Unless some agreement is arrived at in connection with testing within the next four months, the general contemplation is that there will be a resumption of testing by the U.S.S.R. which, in turn, will result in a demanded resumption on the part of other nations. While I realize that summit conferences are not always effective, I do believe that at this time, during this period of the unfreezing of the cold war, something might well be achieved by the representatives of the "big three" as well as with other representatives of the various NATO countries, meeting with Khrushchev if possible, and also with representatives of countries under his domination. Unless something is done toward the achievement of this first step to world disarmament and the lessening of tensions, there may well be a hardening of the attitude of the U.S.S.R., since nothing effective has been done during a period of calm, and the fact that communist China continues to press the U.S.S.R. to more aggressive measures. That being so, all of us are in agreement that the strength of NATO must be maintained. The power to exercise retaliation in the event of any attack against the western world must be preserved.
In so far as what was done at the NATO conference is concerned, the setting up of an unnamed force with an unnamed objective is not an effective move in any sense of the word. Indeed, from an examination of the views of world leaders in public thinking, I found no one who expressed other than regret that more forward-looking action had not been taken by the NATO ministerial conference when it had the opportunity to do so.
With regard to matters which are under discussion today, and to which the Prime Minister made reference in answer to a question by myself, the setting up of a NATO sea-borne nuclear strategic force, Mr. Merchant is here. He has had talks today with the Prime Minister and various other ministers. A press report sets out in some detail what the plan is, which, of course, all of us know. The force would comprise 25 surface ships carrying a total of 200 long-range Polaris missiles. The ships would use mainly Atlantic ports in Europe and North America and possibly some on the great lakes.
What is the attitude of Canada to be to this? If I understood the Prime Minister correctly today, he indicated in his answer that no final decision would be made in this regard until the fullest of discussions had taken place in the defence committee. At the same time that the representative from Washington is here, Admiral Ricketts is in the United Kingdom, and certainly the general reaction to this force in the United Kingdom has not

been favourable. Viscount Montgomery, with that outspoken assurance that is always his, brushed it aside as completely unworthy of consideration. His description was that it was poppycock.
However, it is being considered over there as it is being considered here, and I think we are entitled to know something of the terms that are suggested by the United States. This was one of the propositions that were placed before the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in Nassau. It brought about a change in Britain's defence technique. Britain gave up the Skybolt, something that she had built her hopes on, something that had been arranged by agreement between the United States and her, and substituted therefor was this multilateral nuclear force idea.
The first idea was that the Polaris missiles would be mounted on submarines and that these would be multicrewed submarines. That had its difficulties because if you had five or six nationalities represented in the crew of a submarine submerged for a period of 20 or 30 days you would have disagreements which would border on very serious difficulties, to say the least.
Then the question arose whether ships might be used. I think we are entitled to know something about this matter. I know that the Prime Minister made the statement recently that he was able to speak with greater authority on what should be done in foreign affairs when he was leader of the opposition than he was now as Prime Minister. When he was leader of the opposition he secured most of his information from the press; but now with the daily reports before him the assurance that he previously had had been considerably diminished.
However, throughout the western world there have been suggestions as to the terms of the plan. We in this house have had no information in that connection. The general consensus seems to be that the cost of this new force will be $400 million, that in so far as Britain is concerned she will make her contribution partly in warheads and in port facilities, and to a lesser degree in money. There has been a suggested division of control and financial responsibility. We in this house should know that. We should not have depend upon the usual well informed sources giving their opinions through the press. The consensus seems to be that the United States will put up 33 per cent of the cost, Britain 10 per cent and Canada 10 per cent.
When I suggested this afternoon that the cost to Canada would be some $40 to $50 million the Prime Minister said that whatever the cost might be it might not increase the amount of Canada's actual expenditure because there might be savings in other types of
6, 1963
Appointment of Defence Committee defence. The reason for this division of cost is in part to assure that the United States, Britain and Canada will have actual majority control through financial responsibility over this new body. It has been agreed that no nation will pay more than 40 per cent of the cost. It is hoped West Germany will contribute 33 per cent. This matter was discussed by the Prime Minister with the President of the United States during the visit to Hyannis Port and since then the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) has indicated that he has sought further information over and above that which was vouchsafed to the Prime Minister on that occasion.
Then I should like to find out, and I think the house has a right to know, what changes are contemplated in the McMahon act. Since 1947 or 1948, indeed, since the end of the second world war, the United States has exercised a control over atomic energy which until recently had not been subject to any suggestion of change. However, the McMahon act as it now stands prevents the giving of nuclear warheads and information to any country except Britain. What is the intention of the United States in this regard? Is legislation going to be brought in to amend that act before this new nuclear mixmaster crew plan is set up? The information I have is that the treaty will be ready for the senate of the United States at the beginning of next year.
These are things that we would like to know. Canada has become involved first of all in providing this tremendous power to NATO through our air force Starfighters, actually an aggressive nuclear force far and beyond what is contemplated by the expression "defensive weapons", and in addition is now contemplating entering into this field of a nuclear mixmaster force. We want to know something about this in the House of Commons.
The matter of security does not enter into the picture at all because these matters are being discussed publicly, and I feel that the Prime Minister when he concludes the debate might well place before the house and the country something of the general plan that the United States has in mind and which, through Mr. Merchant, has been brought fully to the knowledge and cognizance of the Canadian government.
Reverting for a moment to what I said regarding the Starfighters, they will now be adopted into the multilateral force. That force will not increase the military power of NATO. It will simply assure that the United States will still keep its finger on the control with the 14 other NATO countries having their fingers on the safety catch. But there is
752	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Defence Committee something more. It is expected as well that other NATO members will provide a greater share of the cost. In that connection I do not see why Canada should be required to pay more and to make a greater contribution to NATO and to the defence of freedom than it has. We in this country have not failed to do our part and no other country in NATO, with the possible exception of the United States, has contributed as much as Canada has in proportion to population. This has been so throughout the period of NATO. Why, now, should it be considered that Canada should contribute even a greater share in consequence of the acceptance of that plan? I am not going into the particulars tonight of Canada's contribution, but I think it is generally accepted that no country has contributed more than have we, in proportion, measured on the basis of population.
Then, I should like to know from the Prime Minister about NORAD, the North American defence. Has the United States sought permission, since the present government has come into office, to store air to air missiles in Canada on its leased bases? If so, are negotiations going on at this time to provide for such storage within our country? In that regard I will say immediately that I am not asking for particulars, for in doing so I might intrude upon the field of security. However, I do believe that the Canadian people have a right to know what changes, if any, have taken place since April 22 in this connection in relation to the United States. We never had any disagreement until the famed press release was issued by the department of state on January 30. Throughout the entire period of time our relations were always the relations of good neighbours.
I suggest that we have the right to know whether or not these comings and goings back and forth between Ottawa and Washington that have been intensified in recent weeks represent any increased responsibilities or constitute the acceptance of additional responsibilities by Canada in connection with defence.
Then, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, this afternoon's statement made by the Prime Minister, in answer to a question of mine, to the effect that the present government was most interested in assuring that Canada's responsibilities in the conventional field should be increased, and the corollary would be that our nuclear contribution would thereby be diminished, was not a loose answer given on the spur of the moment. It represented something about which I believe we are entitled to information. What is the changing technique or relationship? What attitude is the Canadian government taking? What will its stand be with the other nations of


NATO as those nations meet together from time to time within the next year or two to determine the defence possibilities and potentialities of NATO?
All of these things are matters that deserve attention and upon which parliament is entitled to information. I look forward to the meetings of the committee, which we intend to support. We intend to support this resolution. We hope that out of the committee will come extensive information. We hope that the committee will not be translated into a kind of search and snoop committee, the purpose of which will be to look into the past. We hope that it will have the attitude of looking into the future and, as Canadians in that committee, primarily as Canadians and not as party representatives, the members of that committee will endeavour to bring about the recommendations which, while not binding upon the government in any way, will constitute a consensus of viewpoints that should be truly representative of all parts of Canada.
However, in saying that I cannot understand why, following the undertaking and promise made at Kingston by the Prime Minister that the whole defence situation was going to be looked at, and his further declaration that we should endeavour to take defence out of politics, this government, without consulting parliament in any way, made the determination it did prior to the meeting of NATO, and confirmed in the NATO meeting, to arm our air force overseas with offensive weapons.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, it does seem, judging by the speeches which have been made, that this debate on the creation of a national defence committee has ranged far and wide.
What little knowledge I have about the rules of this house led me to believe that we had to hold closely to the establishment of that committee. But because hon. members were allowed to wander away a bit from the subject, we have had to listen to rather lengthy speeches.
The motion speaks of a committee appointed to report from time to time its observations and opinions.
I am wondering what purpose will be served if, from time to time, the committee airs views or makes representations when the policy of the government has already been enunciated. The committee will be unable to change the government's decisions.
Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said so, as indicated in Hansard of May 30:

It would certainly be no substitute for the responsibility which the government must have in the making of decisions in regard to defence, the same responsibility which it has in making decisions on other aspects of policy.
And a little farther:
No government can evade its responsibilities in the matter of defence or in any other field by the establishment of a committee.
Of course, fact-finding committees can always be interesting.
However, when it is known that several members will be kept busy, that many witnesses will be called before the committee- and it was also announced that several trips will perhaps be necessary to visit the military establishments under the jurisdiction either of Canada herself or of NATO or other organizations-it is realized that expenses will be relatively high and that the decisions of the committee will have no effect at all.
In order not to take too much time I would like to say a few words about what should be the set-up of the defence committee which, during the election campaign, was advocated by a party other than the Liberal party. I am sure others will share my views.
By the way, I would like to give a few explanations to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who is wondering how a committee can be non-partisan if it is made up of members of a party. A committee can be made up of members of a party who, for once, will act not so much as supporters of that party but as members representing the will or wishes of the people of their riding, that is their electors. It is very easy to have a non-partisan committee even if it is made up of members who belong to one party or another.
I would suggest that the information given and the recommendations made by the committee be provided to the house and that members be given the opportunity to vote not as members of a party but individually, freely, without partisanship, according to their own feelings about the recommendations of the defence committee but especially according to the opinions of their constituents.
The more we go the more we find that nuclear arms are a complex question. Many are those who have preconceived ideas without knowing what this is all about. However, I feel that we should consider the opinions of our constituents, and that is why I recommend-I doubt that this will be accepted- that the report of the defence committee be submitted to the house and that members of all parties be allowed to vote freely, that
Appointment of Defence Committee is not necessarily along party lines, so that the people of Canada may be truly represented here on this question, whatever the policy of the different parties.
I for one know many members who do not agree with the official policy of their own party.
So, if Canada is truly a democracy, if our election to this house was truly democratic, I believe that for once the House of Commons should give an example of democracy in action by allowing its members to truly represent their constituents here.
(Text):


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity of participating in debate in the twenty sixth parliament and I would like to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the Speaker and yourself on your election to the very high offices you hold. I think all of us are quite sure that both His Honour the Speaker and yourself will carry out your duties in the highest traditions of the house.
The first time that any of us heard very much about this Commons defence committee was through reading a Canadian Press report during the recent election campaign. That report attributes to the Prime Minister the statement that a Liberal government would set up an all-party House of Commons defence committee right away, to take the defence issue away from partisan polities, and that the committee's work would be part of a Liberal government's review of Canadian defence policies to determine an appropriate role for this country. This statement was reported to have been made by the Prime Minister in Kingston, Ontario, on March 26 last.
The clear inference of this statement was first of all that any such committee would be non-partisan; second, that such a committee would provide a review of defence policies for the purposes of determining Canada's role in defence. Now, this seemed very good. At least it was good election bait, but a number of us who have spent some time in the house and who are familiar with the operations of the committees of the house were a little dubious about the practicality of such a suggestion. However, being fair-minded persons, we decided to wait and see what would transpire.
Well, Mr. Speaker, now things have changed. We now have the terms of reference of the committee and we find there are to be 24 members allotted as follows: 12 Liberal members, eight members of the official opposition and two each from the other two parties in the house. Presumably the chairman will

Appointment of Defence Committee be elected from among the government members and of course he will have an extra vote in case of any ties. That, Mr. Speaker, deals very decisively with the non-partisan aspect of such a committee because any recommendations coming from it would clearly be the views of the government members on the committee.
Subsequently during this debate, if I heard him correctly, the Minister of National Defence informed us that there would be no classified information provided to the committee. One can only conclude from that that there would be no information of any real value provided to the committee, and I for one would like to know how defence policies, even in fairly general terms, could be recommended without having any knowledge or any facts of real importance?
It is quite true that, similar to the external affairs committee which has been sitting for a number of years, and of which I have been a member on various occasions, committee members can make general observations and recommendations; but without classified information it is impossible to make any real recommendations of importance. In any event, how could such a committee, even if provided with classified information, recommend any sort of policies, even in general terms, or indeed study expenditures, unless the committee knew the purposes for which our armed forces are to be used?
To know these purposes we have to have some comprehensive idea of the government's foreign policy. In essence the armed services are only the instruments for carrying out certain aspects of our foreign policy, which of course includes national defence. Defence and foreign policy are like the two blades of a scissors, one has very little purpose without the other. The committee that has been proposed cannot recommend defence policy, or even determine our appropriate role, without very great detailed knowledge of our foreign policy, and in view of this I am very surprised we have not heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this debate.
I am also surprised that we have not heard from the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) who in days gone by, if my memory serves me correctly, was a parliamentary assistant to the secretary of state for external affairs, and who has a great and wide knowledge of this subject. In other words, to have some knowledge of what our foreign policy must be in order to determine our defence role, I would hope the committee would call as witnesses the Secretary of State for External Affairs and some of his senior officials. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I go a great
[Mr. Nesbitt.!
deal further than that. In order for this committee to be effective I think the committee on external affairs, when it is set up, should hold joint meetings with the defence committee; or better still, the two committees might meet continually. I cannot understand how defence policies can be determined without a very extensive knowledge of the foreign policies of the present government. I think that only by one or other of the methods I have suggested can this be accomplished. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, there should be either occasional joint meetings of the external affairs committee and the proposed defence committee, or the two committees should meet jointly and continually or, at the very least, senior officials of the Department of External Affairs and, of course, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) should be called as witnesses.
It may be a platitude to say that we know foreign policy and defence policy are very closely allied; but just for a moment, and very briefly, I would like to illustrate how our foreign policy is in fact so closely related to our defence policy and what sort of questions the committee should consider in this regard. It is often said that our foreign policy comprises our relationships with NATO, with the United Nations, with the commonwealth and our special relationships with the United States of America and other countries. But the first four of these are of course the most important. So far in this debate our relationships with NATO and the United States of America have formed the chief considerations in discussing the relationship between our defence and foreign policies. However, for a moment or two I would like to consider the relationship between foreign and defence policies with respect to our commonwealth and United Nations relationships. As far as our commonwealth relationships are concerned, defence policy is a very important thing. The previous government and, I understand, the present government recently provided military aid to India to help her with her difficulties with communist China. This sort of situation may arise with respect to other countries in the commonwealth, and certainly this committee should make some recommendation to the government in this regard. I would like to leave that phase of the subject with those remarks.
Now we come to our relationships with the United Nations. I think one might divide these into three headings. First, our special forces; second, nuclear policy, and third disarmament. With respect to the special forces, Canada in the past has with great distinction contributed forces to the Near East to serve on the border between Israel and Egypt. As I understand it, there has been very little difficulty in this

regard and our efforts have been very successful and very commendable. In more recent times we have provided communications troops to the Congo. These special forces certainly require special training in geography, specialized warfare such as jungle and desert warfare and the like. In addition to that, special knowledge of the customs and habits of the people of the area to which they are sent is very essential.
For a good many meetings I happened to be a representative of this country in the United Nations Congo advisory committee. While I cannot, of course, go into detail as to what transpired in that committee, I can say from what I heard that every nation which provided troops to the Congo would have gotten into much less difficulty had those troops been provided with some specialized knowledge and training of the geography, habits and customs of the people. Indeed I think I can go as far as saying that some of the difficulties our troops suffered were due to certain misunderstandings. I think if we are to send troops to help the United Nations if such occasions arise in the future, this committee could well consider looking into the matter of providing special training for those troops. I might even go as far as suggesting that perhaps some special adviser who has a knowledge of the area concerned should be provided for the troops when they go to these areas.
Then we come to the question of nuclear policy. This is a very important aspect of our foreign policy at the United Nations. The former government had two policies in this regard. First of all, that there should be no nuclear testing; they were opposed to nuclear testing of any sort. On the occasion when I had the honour of representing this country at the United Nations, the government of the day was opposed to the spread of nuclear weapons as long as there appeared to be some reasonable prospect of disarmament. That was the second policy.
Of course, I do not know what the policies of the present government are in this respect. If the policy is there, it seems a little doubtful, a little hard to find at the moment. But if these policies are to be changed, this committee should know what the changes are in order to be able to make appropriate recommendations. In this field it has been the stand of the present government, as I understand it, that our Bomarcs, CF-lOl's and 104G's are to be provided with some sort of nuclear weapons. That may be all very well, but I would like to point out in this regard, Mr. Speaker, that during recent years and dating back to the period when the Liberal government was previously in office, Canada had acquired a very favourable reputation at the
6, 1963	755
Appointment of Defence Committee United Nations for being a leader in the field of disarmament and for having taken a most active part in that regard. We acquired a great deal of prestige in that regard, I might say. More than that-and a great deal of the credit in this instance goes to the hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)-over the years we have acquired a reputation in the United Nations for being an independent country with independent and constructive suggestions to offer.
If we acquire nuclear weapons under the conditions as outlined by the government, we are going to have to forgo a great deal of this prestige at the United Nations. Even latterly, when the new Asian and African countries came into the United Nations a couple of years ago they said to me, "Ah well, Canada is really a satellite of the United States". If we acquire these weapons under the conditions which have been prescribed, this is a danger we are going to have to run at the United Nations. If we expect our prestige to remain constant or to improve we have to take into consideration the effect which the acquisition of nuclear weapons, under the terms we have heard in this house, is going to have.
In addition to that there is the element of suspicion. A number of hon. members in this house have had occasion from time to time to deal with representatives of the Soviet union. I think anyone who has done that knows very well that representatives of the Soviet union are exceedingly suspicious. That is one of the problems that every country has in dealing with subjects such as disarmament, and so on. If Canada acquires nuclear weapons, even for defensive purposes, I am quite sure that the Soviet union will regard these weapons as being just about as much for defence as we regarded the rockets in Cuba for defence.
All these things have to be taken into consideration. We must consider whether it is worth while for Canada to acquire nuclear weapons. It may be that it is worth while for us to do so, and I think this is something on which the committee should make a recommendation. But in making such a recommendation it is important to bear in mind the weight on the other side of the scales. It may be essential for our defence that we should arm the Bomarcs, the CF-lOl's and so on; it is up to the committee to make recommendations to the government in this regard. On the other hand, it should be remembered that if we do take this step we shall lose our leadership in the United Nations in the field of disarmament; we shall arouse increased tension and suspicion between the Soviet union and the western world, and we shall run the risk of being

Appointment of Defence Committee increasingly regarded by the African and Asian nations as a military satellite of the United States, thus further weakening our position in the United Nations. I am not presuming to tell this house what the answer should be, but this is something we should all consider and a situation which the committee should bear in mind in malting its recommendations.
Disarmament is a field in which Canada has worked unceasingly for many years. When we consider what kinds of weapons we ought to have in the future-and the committee should certainly make some recommendations to the government in this regard-I hope General Burns, the distinguished soldier who has served Canada so well in so many fields and who is now our representative on the disarmament commission, will be called to give evidence. I say this because in formulating defence policy for the future it would be important to have General Burns' views as to the situation which might arise if any progress were made in disarmament.
These are some of the subjects which ought to be considered by the committee. Not all of us can expect to serve on this committee. I hope the recommendations made by so many hon. members of this house will be given the closest consideration by members of that body when it meets.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this motion has ranged far and wide and the issues involved in setting up this committee have been well discussed. It is not my intention, therefore, to rehash any of the arguments which have been put forward, but there are one or two things which I feel should be said before the motion is passed and the committee is established.
The first thing I should like to say is something about which I feel very strongly, as a result of experiences over a number of days and weeks, and particularly as a result of what has happened in the last two days. Let me put it as succinctly as I can. I think that we, as members of the House of Commons, and the Canadian people whom we represent, are entitled to the facts-entitled to the truth about our defence situation. I want to pinpoint this argument by speaking with special reference to the so-called commitments which the previous government is supposed to have made.
I have been following this subject closely. I have been listening to what has been said. I have read what has been written. Yet I still do not know whether the previous government made any commitments, so far as acquiring nuclear arms is concerned. In this House of Commons we are expected to speak

responsibly. When an hon. member makes a statement we are expected to take that statement at its face value. That is true of all of us. But somehow it seems to apply with particular force to those hon. members who are members of the privy council. We who are ordinary members of this house are faced with this situation: we have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), the former prime minister, declare categorically that no commitments were made by the former government. We have heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the present government (Mr. Martin) tell us they have ascertained that commitments were made. I have read and re-read the statements made by each of these two hon. gentlemen. Each used words which were most explicit. But where does it leave us? If it leaves us not knowing what the truth is, where does it leave the Canadian people?
I feel one of the things which this committee must do is to ascertain the truth- whether there was, or was not, any commitment made by the previous government for Canada to acquire nuclear weapons. I recognize that the past is past. Perhaps the present and the future are of greater concern. But I do not see how we can carry on the democratic and parliamentary processes if, with respect to a factual item as basic as this one, we cannot get the truth.
Because I have said that two hon. gentlemen in particular have made contrary statements, let me put them on record. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking in this house on May 21 as reported on page 126 of Hansard said this:
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.
Today, the Leader of the Opposition repeated that sentiment when he said-and in this instance I am relying on my own notes which I took at the time-that the present government had snooped and searched and sought but had found nothing. I cannot imagine a member of the House of Commons being more precise, more definite, than the Leader of the Opposition has been. He says the government of which he was the head made no commitment for Canada to acquire nuclear arms and he says that the government now in office has had time to snoop and search and seek, but that it has not been able to find any commitment.
On the other hand, the other day, in reply to a question on the order paper filed by my hon. friend the member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) to be found in Hansard of June

5 on page 675, the Secretary of State for External Affairs had something to say on this subject. The question was in two main parts. This was part one:
Has the government of Canada found out whether its predecessor entered into any commitment or undertaking with NATO or any government or person involving the use by Canadian forces of nuclear warheads in Europe or in Canada?
The answer given to that question by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as it appears in Hansard, was in one word. That word is, "Yes". So where are we? There is a categorical statement by the Leader of the Opposition that there were no commitments by the previous government, and there is an equally categorical statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the present government has found those commitments. We in this house and the people of Canada are entitled to the truth. I hope this committee, when it is established, will recognize that is one of its responsibilities, to go at this until it has ascertained what the facts are.
I am further confused in all this, as I am sure most hon. members are, by what happened yesterday. I presented a motion which I had hoped would clear up this confusion. It was a motion for production of papers in which I asked that any documents citing these commitments be produced. In the midst of that discussion the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that there were no documents to produce. His exact words are to be found on page 688 of Hansard, where he is reported as saying:


John George Diefenbaker: There are none such to produce.
I was a little confused when a few minutes later the Leader of the Opposition voted against a motion to produce a summary of the documents which he said do not exist. That puzzled me, but perhaps I can understand his position. He said that we should have the documents in their entirety or nothing at all. I took it from his other categorical statement that there were no documents which contain any commitments; and from the other side of the house we are told in the simplest and most straightforward of terms, yes, there are commitments which were made by the previous government which this government, having got into office, has found.
Mr. Speaker, the question which my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, placed on the order paper, and which was answered yesterday at page 675 of Hansard, had a second part to it, as a natural development. First of all he asked whether any of these commitments had been found, and the answer was yes. The second part of the question was as follows:
Appointment of Defence Committee
If so (a) to whom was the commitment or undertaking given (b) what were the terms of such commitment or undertaking (c) was the undertaking explicitly or by implication revocable by the government and under what conditions (d) was the commitment or undertaking in writing and what was the nature of the document (e) by whom was it given or made, and with what authority (f) what was the date of such commitment, if any, or the ratification thereof by the former government of Canada?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the answer "Yes" is correct, and if the present government by snooping, searching and seeking has found that there were commitments, here was the opportunity, in answer to the second question by the hon. member for Greenwood, to give enough factual information to prove the statement that this government had found the former government's commitments.


Colin Cameron: They are both lying.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was a pretty strong interjection from my hon. friend the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I confess that when I first put my motion on the order paper I thought it would prove that either one side or the other was telling the truth, but as this situation has developed I have got lost. I do not know which side is telling the truth and which side is leading us down a blind alley. As I say, I am confused by what the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday, but despite what he did when it came to the vote, his statements are categorical-that there were and are no commitments. He repeated it tonight. He said they had snooped, searched and sought but found nothing. But the government says it has found something.
The present government was given a clear opportunity in the question of my colleague to fortify its answer. There are several paragraphs to the answer and I would ask the house to listen to part of it, as reported on page 675 of Hansard:
In respect of Canadian forces in Europe the undertakings arise out of NATO processes. NATO does not enter into formal agreements or treaties with member nations regarding their military contributions. The military authorities of the alliance set certain requirements and individual countries determine what contributions they will make toward meeting those requirements. The whole process is accomplished by direct discussions with the NATO commanders concerned and is confirmed in an annual review process which is secret.
Well, I hope somebody understands that. I hope somebody can assess that paragraph and tell me whether the government has found the commitment, as it says it has, or whether it is just shoehorning us into the position of becoming a nuclear power.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?

Appointment of Defence Committee


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if the hon. member will draw attention to the fact, as he is directing us to that answer, that in the answer the word "commitment" is not used at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend can himself read further, or have others do so, from the answer on page 675. I think the hon. member is correct that the word "commitment" does not appear. The word "agreement" appears in two or three places, and it deals, by the way, with the situation in Europe and the situation in Canada. But the language is the same: we have got into this situation because of certain processes. My hon. friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) need not get too much of a Cheshire grin on his face-


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is a Martin answer; that is why I am grinning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -because the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) is referring to what took place when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and his colleagues formed the government, when these processes which the present government says are the means by which we have become a potential nuclear power were begun.
I want now to move from the point which I think I have established, namely that we are in a state of confusion, that we do not know who to believe, that we do not know what the facts are and what the truth is. Surely, the committee should get this for us. I want to move on to this statement, that if we are becoming a nuclear power, either big, middle-sized or small, surely this is the most striking, most significant, most important change ever to take place in Canadian defence policy. If that is the case, it is a change which we in this party do not want to see take place. But it is taking place. Therefore it should surely be done out in the open in a forthright manner, and not just because the processes in which we have become involved somehow shoehorn us into the nuclear club and take us into it by a back door method. This is too important and significant a development in Canadian defence history for it to happen in this way.
Mr. Speaker, look at what has happened. We have a government in power today whose members a few months ago were opposed to nuclear weapons for Canada. On January 12 this year that position changed. We were told the reason the Liberal party changed its policy was because it had discovered that the previous government had made commitments. We cannot find out whether or not

that is true, and I think we know less about it today than at any time in the piece. We discover, from the kind of answer given to my colleague from Greenwood yesterday and from what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in rely to my motion yesterday, as reported at page 688, that we are being taken down the path into the position of being a nuclear power, not by an overt decision of the kind which can be put on a table and told about in precise terms, but because of some processes which get going which we cannot stop. It is like the automatic elevators we have in this building. If somebody puts his finger on the button it has got to go through the process. Somewhere somebody is putting his finger on something and we are being taken down the path and one of these days we will find ourselves part of the nuclear club, a nuclear power of some sort or other, without the matter ever having been discussed in an open way and on a forthright basis.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), in his comments on the motion that I put which I hoped would clear up the matter, did not say categorically at that point that there were commitments as he did in answer to the order paper question of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), but he implied that there were commitments because he said:
The commitments entered into by the government of Canada to accept nuclear weapons for Canadian forces in NATO and at home are to be found, inter alia-
You always fool somebody when you put in a Latin phrase.
-in Canadian submissions under the NATO annual review procedure, in statements made in the Canada-United States ministerial committee on joint defence, and in the records of the discussions in the permanent joint board on defence. These documents include information the release of which could prejudice the national security of Canada and of its allies.
If that is where these commitments are, Mr. Speaker, surely the sentences that were precise and definite and that did commit us could be extracted and could be given to us. Here we are in the position that there is being made for us the most important, the most significant, the most far reaching decision in defence policy that has ever been made for this country and we cannot get the truth about it. We cannot find the date on which it was made, we cannot find the terms, we cannot get the document, we cannot get any evidence, any proof of it whatsoever.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Parliament has had no chance to commit the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As my leader has pointed out, parliament has had no chance to commit

the country on this matter either under the previous government or under this one.
We support the proposition that a defence committee should be established. In fact, the more this kind of thing comes to light the more it looks to me as though this should be a permanent committee, not just a committee for this session to review this particular issue. It looks to me that if we are going to have defence policy put over on us in this way through the back door, by the shoehorn method, we have got to have a permanent defence committee of the House of Commons to keep its eye on what is happening.
I hope, therefore, that in this committee there will be no restrictions. If it is necessary for it to meet in camera to get the facts and the documents in order to straighten out some of these things, let it meet in camera, but I think we in the House of Commons as a whole have a right to expect from that defence committee a clearcut report in which it tells us what the truth is. Were there commitments? Were there not? Were there commitments made by the previous government or is the present government making commitments for Canada relying on the statement that the previous government had made them? The situation is as confused as it can possibly be. Surely in a field that may well determine life and death for the human race these matters should be dealt with in a forthright and open manner.
This is a democratic parliament in which we are dealing with these things. It is not good enough for us to be caught in the position where the Leader of the Opposition says one thing and the Secretary of State for External Affairs say the very opposite and we are called upon to accept both of them as being truthful and honourable men. What do we know when we come to the question of how we got over this line from being a conventional military power to a nuclear military power? We cannot be told, no matter how precisely the question is put. We cannot be told what the date was, what the document was, what the commitment was.
This is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. This is why we support the establishing of this committee and we earnestly hope that it will be given all of the opportunities, all of the rights and privileges, that pertain to committees so that it can get the answers, so that it can bring this business out in the open, so that we can know what our defence policy is and where we go from here.
Our position in this corner of the house is well known. We think that Canada should not acquire nuclear weapons. We regret the decisions made in this direction already but whatever decision is taken surely it should
Appointment of Defence Committee be taken in a parliamentary way with all the facts being made known to us and, above all, let us have for parliament, let us have for the people of Canada, the truth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Having two answers given, one which is precise as given by the Leader of the Opposition and one which is evasive as given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is it not an easy choice for anyone?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish it was as easy as all that. If it were I would be glad to recognize that a precise answer is clearer than an evasive one. But, Mr. Speaker, both these gentlemen have been precise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You did not say that earlier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. The Leader of the Opposition says there were and are no commitments. That is as precise as it can be. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs is asked, has this government found any commitments that were made by its predecessor, his answer is not evasive. His answer is as precise as it can be, almost biblical in its precision. His answer is yes. One says black; the other says white. One says yes; the other says no. They are both honourable men. They both tell the truth. Where are we?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The right hon. Prime Minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate and there are two or three members seeking the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome the announcement as well as the resolution calling for the setting up of a defence committee. Hon. members will recall that the leader of this group, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), requested some time ago that a committee be set up that would, in the light of all relevant information and factors, make recommendations with respect to a defence policy adequate for the defence of this nation. After two of our members had spoken in this debate outlining our position we intended to rest our case, but because the debate has continued for a considerable length of time we have decided that we will risk the displeasure of those who would like to conclude the debate and once more participate on this occasion.

Appointment of Defence Committee
We believe that national defence is too vital an issue to remain a political football and this is what it has been for a considerable length of time. We believe that a committee such as is proposed can do a very worth-while job in looking into the entire defence picture, assessing the situation with respect to our defence role and then coming forward with the suggestions and recommendations that the committee believes will be in the best interests of the Canadian nation.
I know that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) spoke in rather sceptical fashion regarding this committee and suggested that we were rather naive in expecting that anything worth while would be achieved by the operations of such a committee. However, we believe that this committee, if given the chance, if given the opportunity, can come forward with some very worth-while proposals regarding the issues involved. I should like to make my remarks as brief as possible but I wish to suggest some of the factors which should be considered by this committee when it is in session. First of all, I believe it should somehow or other try to establish the nature of the challenge before us in Canada and in the free world. Sometimes we forget the objective, sometimes we forget the challenge and because we forget the challenge that is before us we kind of shoot off in all directions, when we try to establish some way in which we can meet that challenge and solve our problem.
We have heard a great deal down through the past number of years about the strategy of world communism. It has been outlined not only in military terms, but on many occasions it has been pointed out that it is more or less an ideological attack. I think this is true. We have not heard so much recently about the struggle for men's minds. I am sure, however, we all realize that that struggle is still continuing, that battle is still in progress. I wonder whether or not this committee is going to just consider the whole issue on the basis of military consideration or whether they are going to have the opportunity to consider it from the other angles, the ideological aspects of the challenge, the economic aspects of the challenge, as well as the military.
Now, I do not think it is necessary for the house at the present time to discuss at length the type of armaments required and these various matters. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that should be the responsibility of the committee. I think it would save a great deal of time if it were left to that body. I would suggest, however, that the committee should give consideration to the nature of the challenge

before us and then try to come forward with some positive suggestion as to how to meet that challenge.
The second matter to which I should like to refer is one that was dealt with very fully and adequately by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Since he has dealt with it so fully, I am just going to refer to it at the moment. I believe that the committee must, somehow or other, determine as to whether or not commitments have been made in respect of nuclear armaments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred to the conflicting statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps we could tie the Prime Minister into that situation, because we find that at the present time on the government side we have the statement that commitments have been made and the present government is only fulfilling the commitments as they proceed to acquire nuclear weapons. On the other hand, we have the assertion that no commitments have been made. We find, therefore, that we are betwixt and between. It is very difficult, as has been pointed out, to find out just what the situation is.
I would suggest that these right hon. gentlemen stop talking in riddles, that they come right out and say what they mean and prove their points. Then, we in the House of Commons as well as the people at large will be able to understand the situation in a clearer fashion. So long as these gentlemen talk around in circles and in riddles, I am afraid the situation is not going to be clarified to the satisfaction of either the house or the people of the country as a whole.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the third consideration that should occupy the attention of this committee should be the nature of the contribution we can make in our own defence and the fulfilment of our obligations to the other nations of the world. On other occasions the leader of this group has pointed out very clearly what we believe would be an adequate and sane defence policy for Canada. We have suggested that we believe at the present time, so far as we can assess the situation, Canada can make its greatest contribution in fields other than the nuclear field. We have emphasized time and time again that we could make our greatest contribution in the field of conventional arms, detection and communication, and in the other phases that do not require actual entry into the nuclear situation.
But once again we find that this proposal has not apparently met with the approval of the Prime Minister or the members of his government. Some time ago we debated a subamendment in respect of nuclear arms.

Somehow or other the idea got across the country that this was a straight vote on whether or not to accept nuclear weapons for Canada's forces. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a vote against that subamendment did not constitute a vote for nuclear weapons. We all recognize the fact that it was a want of confidence motion. I believe that to read anything else into it is just a little less than honest.
We would suggest, therefore, that this committee should study very carefully the nature of the contribution that we can best make, and find out whether or not we can make it perhaps as I have said in fields other than the nuclear field. We think of our financial situation. We consider the continual increase in our national debt. We think of the difficult economic situation through which we have recently passed and we ask ourselves the question, are we in a position to assume responsibility, from a financial point of view, for the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the maintenance that this would involve? We also think of our nation as a great nation. Geographically, it is a great nation, and so far as quality is concerned. We also recognize the fact that we have just a little less than 19 million people, and when we consider the problem from this point of view, we suggest that possibly our contribution should be in fields that are not perhaps as onerous, but yet as needful, as the entry into the nuclear field.
Now we have the Prime Minister stating on a number of occasions that the government is going to fulfil the commitments that Canada has made, and then renegotiate our position with a view, somehow or other, to finding a non-nuclear role for the Canadian forces. I would suggest we have not heard much about that recently. It has somehow been forgotten and instead of searching out another field and another role for Canadian forces, it seems as though we are rushing headlong into the nuclear field without any intention whatever of stopping.
There is another matter that I believe should be considered, and it is this: This committee should consider how we can best achieve this higher goal of peace and security that every Canadian, I believe, desires our nation should achieve. We have mentioned the astronomical amounts that are being spent by Canada on defence, or at least we have inferred that. Then, we are reminded by reports in the newspapers today that perhaps we will be saddled with additional expenses in regard to our military contribution. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to give serious consideration to the means whereby we can achieve, as I have
6, 1963	761
Appointment of Defence Committee said, the higher goal of peace and security that constitutes the dream and aspiration of the Canadian people.
There have been discussions in the field of disarmament and I believe we all recognize that the governments of the past made valuable contributions in the quest for disarmament. I had an opportunity of being attached as an observer to the Canadian delegation to the United Nations several years ago, and I remember the activities of the delegation at that time as it endeavoured to accomplish something in the field of disarmament. I also followed with a great deal of interest and appreciation the activities of the former secretary of state for external affairs, the Hon. Mr. Green, as he sought in a very able and sincere manner to accomplish something in this particular field. We appreciate that, and today I believe the need is urgent, even more urgent than ever before in history, that every attempt and every endeavour be put forth to achieve some r easure of understanding with respect to disarmament, not only in so far as nuclear weapons are concerned but conventional weapons as well.
I believe the committee should consider the matter of assistance to other nations as a factor in the defence of our own nation, the defence of this continent and the defence of the free world, but above all I would suggest one of the greatest ways in which we can make a contribution in the defence of Canada is to make our nation strong economically, strong morally and, yes, strong militarily in order that we might present to the nations of the world an example of what can be done under a free, democratic and Christian way of life.
There are those who suggest in a rather sceptical, almost cynical manner, that this committee will just be a sop to silence the critics. I would not want to take that attitude. I do not intend to take it, but I would suggest that with the way the government has been moving forward in this particular field of defence it might almost develop into that, because in so many cases it seems as though the government is pressing forward rapidly, almost with indecent haste, in order to reach certain objectives before the committee has an opportunity of studying the matter and bringing it to the attention of the house.
Reference has been made to the discussions that are currently taking place with Mr. Merchant from the United States. It has been pointed out by the Prime Minister that these are more or less routine, and are the culmination of a series of discussions that have been taking place with the various NATO countries. I would point out we have had an assurance from the Prime Minister, and I

Appointment of Defence Committee believe we can depend on it, that before any move is made with respect to this type of force which goes beyond defence and constitutes an offensive force in many respects, it is something which should be brought before the committee and before the house for full discussion before action is taken.
The terms of the resolution indicate that the committee will present its observations and opinions, and the Prime Minister has also indicated that the committee will not have access to classified information. It almost seems as though he is pulling the teeth out of the committee before it starts its work. He is putting limitations upon it which will make it almost impossible for it to function adequately, and we only trust that in the area of classified information it will just be classified and not the type of information that perhaps the government does not wish, or does not think, the committee should have in its possession.
I also trust that the observations and opinions will not just be considered observations and opinions, but will be considered recommendations that are worthy of the careful consideration of the government, because we would like to think that every hon. member of the house, whether on the government or opposition side, is desirous of arriving at a policy that will be consistent with the standards of morality, and also be adequate for the defence of our nation. With these observations, Mr. Speaker, we would like to rest our case at this time and trust the committee will be set up and allowed to proceed with its work.


Mr. G. L. Chaiterton (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks at this time. I notice of course that the Prime Minister is very anxious to stand up and close off the debate, but before he gets that opportunity I wish to say the substance of my few remarks is an appeal to an appropriate spokesman for the government, either the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence, to give this house and the people of Canada, at this time, a rather comprehensive statement on the position of the government with regard to the question of national defence, nuclear arms, our relations with NORAD and with NATO.
The reasons why I feel this is an appropriate time for such a statement are, first, that although the resolution is to set up a defence committee the Prime Minister, when he moved the resolution, confined his remarks to the question of whether or not the committee should be set up, and to what the terms of reference of the committee should be. But, subsequent to that by agreement, as stated

by the house leader, the debate on the resolution came to be of wide content on the whole field of national defence. Actually this is the tone of the speeches that have been made in the debate to date and, this having taken place, surely this is a time for a spokesman of the government to give the house and the public the statement I have suggested?
When the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) first spoke on this question he suggested that the Minister of National Defence might want to make a statement. At the time the minister declined. Subsequently that evening, a week ago today, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) again coaxed the minister to make a statement. The minister did but, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the contents of the statement he made further indicate the need for a different type of statement at this time, because what the minister said a week ago tonight indicated the complete lack of information that exists.
He did give us one or two little gems of information, one of course being that a survey during the last election showed 30 per cent of the people believed Bomarcs were intercontinental ballistic missiles. Then he went on to say:
-some of the facts and figures used in this debate are just about as absurd as that.
Surely that statement by the minister indicates that some further elucidation is required? The minister went on to say:
This is no reflection on anyone, but really only a demonstration of the fact that for the last three or four years the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament have been starved of real information on which they could base an intelligent opinion.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the starvation has now turned into a famine. The Minister of National Defence went on to say, in his statement in this debate:
Consequently I had to go outside this country in order to seek this information. I had to get the reports of the United States congressional committees and read them at length, where they told not only about the defence forces of the United States but gave much more information about Canadian forces than X could get from my own government.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is some compulsion on the Minister of National Defence to share this information with the ignorant members of this house, certainly those on this side of the chamber. I submit that this is a second reason for now being an appropriate time for the minister to make a comprehensive statement on this subject. I recognize that under the rules of the house the Minister of National Defence has made a statement in this debate, but I am quite sure that if he were to request unanimous consent

in order to make a further statement, all hon. members on this side of the chamber would give such consent.
Another reason for my thinking this is an appropriate time for the government to make a comprehensive statement is this. Although it is proposed to set up this committee, the fact of the matter is that from all the information I have been able to get from the press-very little in this house-a major decision as to defence has already been taken by the government, namely to accept nuclear arms on Canadian soil subject to an agreement with the United States, and to accept what might well be offensive weapons for our forces overseas. Surely if that decision has been taken by the government this house is now entitled to an explanation from the government as to the reasons which prompted them to make such a decision. Is the major reason the fact, as they maintain, that the previous government had committed Canada to accepting nuclear arms? We are entitled to know from the government what their position is. A further reason for my thinking the government should at this time make a comprehensive statement is the events of the last election. The question of defence and nuclear weapons was a major and important issue in the last election campaign. This government has been in power since April 22 and as yet we have had no statement of a comprehensive nature or of any substance from any member of the government on this important question. I should like to quote from an article in the Montreal Gazette of February 15 this year commenting on what the Prime Minister had said on this question, that he has "some ideas" of Canada's defence role in the future, and that he will make his views known in detail if the Liberals are elected.
Mr. Speaker, when, may I ask? Perhaps the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence, his spokesman, will tell us, if they are not prepared to make their views known at this time, when they will be prepared to do so. If the defence committee is set up, as I assume it will be, and sits, when will be the next occasion this house will have an opportunity to debate the question of national defence? As I see it, it may not be until the defence estimates are placed before the house and, judging by the hesitancy on the part of the government to deal with this question to date, I would hazard a guess that the defence estimates may be the last of the estimates to be placed before the house. So it may not be until late this year, or perhaps later than that, that the house will again have a formal opportunity to discuss national defence. Unless the Prime Minister or the Minister of
Appointment of Defence Committee National Defence tell us otherwise, I believe there is some reason for a general suspicion that the motion to set up this committee is a way of sweeping something under the rug for a period of time.
Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of the 60 days of decision. I hope the government will on this occasion make the important decision of giving this house and the people of Canada a statement as to their position on the whole question of defence and nuclear weapons.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, the remarks coming from the other side of the house show once more the arrogant position they want to take in debate by preventing members of the house from expressing their views on nuclear arms. This is nothing new, because we have known not only an arrogant Liberal government in the past, but also an arrogant Liberal opposition during last session.


Mr. Rouleau:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: If the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) wants to speak about nuclear weapons, he may do so tomorrow. If I accepted to take part in this debate, it is because I am convinced and I am aware that the people from Quebec have been betrayed by the members elected to this house to make the views of the province of Quebec known on this vital question of nuclear weapons.
The Quebec Liberal members-and there are quite a number here-stated during the electoral campaign that their leader would leave them free to express their opinions on a question as vital for Canada as the acquisition of nuclear arms.
A few days ago, when we had a vote on that issue, the Quebec Liberal members without exception supported the nuclear arms policy of their leader who promised on numerous occasions that no nuclear weapons would be stored on Canadian soil if he ever became Prime Minister.
That is the reason why I agreed this evening to say a few words on the resolution, which is nothing but a smokescreen to hide the arrogance of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) who, even before the NATO conference in Ottawa, accepted a nuclear role for Canada even though parliament had had no opportunity to examine the question. That is further evidence of the

Appointment of Defence Committee arrogance of the Liberal party, not to speak of this new betrayal on the question of nuclear armaments.
When the NATO meeting was held in Paris, I had the opportunity of being present -the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) can make his speech some other time-I had the opportunity of being there last fall, with my good friend, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who is now Minister of National Defence. On that occasion, and the verbatim reports printed after the meeting are there to prove it, the majority of the member countries of NATO were against accepting a nuclear force imposed by the United States. And the Minister of National Defence did some lobbying. He went to see General Norstad and Admiral Smeeton to promise them that Canada would accept nuclear arms if the Liberal party were returned to power following the election which he was preparing in collusion with the United States.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, an excerpt from a statement which makes it very clear that the present Minister of National Defence, the member for Trinity at the time, had committed Canada beforehand to a nuclear arms policy. A quick look at the reports of debates and proceedings of the NATO plenary assembly is sufficient to convince us that the member for Trinity kowtowed to General Norstad.
I have before me an excerpt from the report of the NATO meeting and I shall quote the very words uttered by the Minister of National Defence. I quote:
(Text):
We all enjoyed the addresses of General Norstad and Admiral Smeeton which were most helpful, but in our own deliberations we appeared to be reluctant to come to grips with reality. For example, our dismissal of the question of control of nuclear arms as a political problem-
Thus, by his own words, the minister has made a public profession that members of NATO were not ready, then, to accept multilateral control of nuclear arms within the alliance. This, the minister knew. He also knew that the people of this country did not want to participate in contributing to augment the nuclear club.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I have quoted those sentences in English because I wanted the Minister of National Defence to realize that what he said at the NATO conference last fall was irresponsible and gave evidence that he was already in collusion with his friends, the Americans, in order to make sure that his party would have the necessary funds for the forthcoming election campaign.
Liberal members are much more eloquent when they say nothing, because, then they

cannot contradict themselves. But not all of them have the courage of their leader, a Nobel peace prize winner-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friends would rather applaud than listen to the truth. Just like the appointment of a special committee to consider the nuclear weapons question, that applause is a smokescreen to prevent members of the opposition from expressing the feelings of the Canadian people in this house.
If the Liberal members applauded when I mentioned the Nobel peace prize-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Georges-J. Valade: I wonder if the Liberal leader who, at the present time, does not have the courage to ask his supporters, his followers, to allow us to speak freely in this chamber, would have been awarded the Nobel peace prize-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Georges-J. Valade: The violent and quite loud interruptions from our opponents remind us of that dark day in Canada's parliamentary history when, by their applause, they boycotted the then prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that the hon. member talk to the motion now under study.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I accept your remarks with humility and respect but it seems to me that you should also ask the members of the party in power to let us express freely our views without interrupting us with the lack of courtesy and the arrogance familiar to the Liberal party. In fact, that attitude proves once again that arrogance is the main concern of the government members and I would ask you to call to order those "trained seals" as they have been called in the past.
Mr. Speaker, if I spoke as I did, it is because the defence committee to be set up is nothing more than a smokescreen to prompt the Canadian people to accept a nuclear arms policy which they have refused and rejected. Furthermore, the Liberal government should keep in mind that as a political party, they are only a minority here and that the majority of the electors voted against nuclear weapons.
I think this committee on national defence will be set up simply as an effort to obviate the government minority in order to force upon our Canadian citizens a nuclear policy which they rejected at the last election. Moreover, that committee will certainly not settle the question, because it will be made up so as to give the party in power a clear majority in case of a vote. Besides, the Minister of National Defence stated that the government

policy would not be made known to that committee. In brief, it will be a free discussion which will lead nowhere, but will absolve the Liberal party for having betrayed the people in the matter of nuclear weapons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I regret very much that the hon. gentleman who just sat down has indicated that he will not be able to support this resolution setting up a defence policy committee. In doing so, he was, no doubt, speaking for his party which has in the past always opposed the establishment of such a committee. I am very sorry they are opposing it on this occasion.
A defence policy committee could serve a most useful purpose at this particular time and it is remarkable that only one of the four parties in this house has seen fit to pour scorn on it, to call it a smokescreen, and thereby oppose it. That is most regrettable.
6, 1963	765
Business of the House
May I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if the leader of the house is able to clarify the statement on business he made last night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can now confidently, or with reasonable confidence, predict that this debate will end tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: You can't be sure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, one cannot be sure. Orders of the day may be dragged on all day. But we hope that this debate can be ended in orderly fashion. As soon as it has been concluded we shall take the resolution to precede the economic council which, I would hope, if the debate can be focused on the subject, should not take very long. After that we will take the resolution to precede the bill on the department of industry. Should that be completed, the next resolution to be taken tomorrow will be the resolution preceding the bill respecting the Department of Agriculture. I doubt if we shall get beyond that before five o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
767
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 7, 1963