1963-02-05

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Macnaughton.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether in view of current reports he contemplates any further changes in the ministry.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the current reports are that have been turned out by the Liberal propaganda factory.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he considers the press, radio and television a Liberal propaganda factory?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I consider the inspiration to be Liberal propaganda.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the fact that there seems to be an overload on the power system, perhaps we could have more light than heat this afternoon.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house if he has named a Minister of National Defence?


John George Diefenbaker: When a minister is named, the house will be advised.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, because of the public interest may I ask the Prime Minister if it was not communicated to the right hon. gentleman today that a number of his colleagues wished him to vacate the office of Prime Minister-and be replaced by one of his colleagues?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, such a communication came to me by radio and, as I said earlier, was part of the Liberal propaganda.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Was that information as the result of a meeting which the Prime Minister knows to have taken place this morning in the office of one of his colleague ministers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we are getting into an area of debate on this matter. Also we are coming to a debate in which all these points can be raised.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the precarious financial position of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Shame on you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will reflect upon his opening words and try to direct his mind to standing order 39 I think he will see where he is heading.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he is planning to pay salaries and bills after today under the authority of governor general's warrants?
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance:) Mr. Speaker, if there were any precarious financial position it would have been largely contributed to by the hon. member for Davenport and his party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know there is a particular zest for debate in the house today, but perhaps we could reserve that sort of energy and desire for the resumption of the debate on the supply motion. Perhaps we could now have questions and answers more suitable to orders of the day.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: -what more important function has parliament than the voting of supply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not doubt the importance of the function. I am simply querying some of the expressions that have been used.


Mr. Nowlan:: We have been telling you that for months.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has made or is considering making today any series of appointments to the other place, or to the judiciary.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, every day is a day for such appointments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether any appointments have been approved by His Excellency the Governor General which have not been announced to the public?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say at the moment if they have not been announced. All the appointments that have been made have received the attention of the Governor General either yesterday or today. I know the hon. gentleman has been in touch with the privy council office regularly-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the Prime Minister's observation.


Mr. Fullon:: Anything wrong with that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, there is, and that is precisely why I am raising a question of privilege. It arises out of the Prime Minister's observation. It is well known to hon. members that two appointments were made to the other place before the last election and kept secret by this government, thus dragging the crown into politics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a question of privilege which the hon. member is putting forward.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trans-

port. Has he received a request for compulsory pilotage on all ships passing through the St. Lawrence seaway?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I have not seen such a request. However, I will investigate and I will be pleased to answer my hon. friend.


Hubert Badanai: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to take any action about this request?


Léon Balcer: The government has appointed a royal commission on pilotage which will investigate the whole matter from coast to coast in Canada.
(Translation):



SOULANGES CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   P.-A. Boutin@Dorchesier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour-


Mr. Speaker:: I recognized the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. He will ask his question and then the hon. member for Dorchester will state his.


Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Could the Minister of Transport tell the house whether the federal government received an answer from the Quebec provincial government following the order in council passed last year to transfer the Soulanges canal to the Quebec provincial government?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, we did not hear from the provincial government on that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry I did not have time to hear that question but surely it should have been placed on the order paper.
(Text):



SECRETARY OF STATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question which is of some urgency. Can he advise the house when he is going to fill the four vacancies for returning officers in British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question which I think should go on the order paper. It is a matter of detail.


Harold Edward Winch: Will there be time for the returning officers to be appointed?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is not aware of any particular urgency.
(Translation):
REQUEST THAT POLITICAL PARTIES BE SHOWN ON ELECTION BALLOTS On the orders of the day:


Mr. Maurice  Cole@Chicoulimi: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Has the minister made arrangements so that the name of the party be printed next to the candidate's name on the ballots for the next federal election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust the hon. member can look up the section of the Elections Act which governs that point.
(Text):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
1963 SUPPORT PROGRAM
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister advise the house how soon an announcement concerning the support program for the 1963 crop of sugar beets may be expected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should put that question on the order paper.
(Translation):



REPORTED INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and I hope he will not have to wait three days to give me an answer.
Is there any truth to the press reports which claim that the government plans to abolish the 12-cent a pound consumer subsidy it now pays on butter?
(Text):


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
gentleman is falling prey to the custom prevailing today of believing everything appearing in the newspapers.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of 27507-3-217
Inquiries of the Ministry Public Works. This question deals with our natural resources and not our political resources. A member of the provincial legislature of British Columbia has stated that if the-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -question of the Columbia river were in the hands of the provincial government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair would like to hear the question. The hon. member may preface his question by some identifying remark without going into great length and without quoting someone else.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether jurisdiction in respect of the Columbia river development comes under the provincial or the federal government.


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Public Works):: I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree I am being asked to give a legal opinion, and I do not believe it is my function to give a legal opinion any more than it is the function of the Minister of Justice under our rules to give a legal opinion to the house. However, I think it should be clear by now that we have proceeded on the basis that it is a question of divided jurisdiction and that is why we have been working so hard to get a satisfactory agreement with the government of British Columbia which has so far proven impossible to do.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coasl-Capilano):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister please tell the house whether any negotiations are going on at the present time, or pending, concerning the sale of Columbia river downstream benefit power in the United States?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: As the hon. member knows, there have been informal discussions on two or three occasions. I do not think any date is set at the moment for the next meeting, but I presume one will be set in due course. Those discussions were at the technical level.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INVITATIONS TO DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON BICULTURALISM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister if he could inform the house whether he has already dispatched invitations to the provincial governments for the federal-provincial conference on biculturalism which he announced the other day?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: In view of the reply given earlier by the Prime Minister, would the right hon. gentleman be good enough, with the consent of the house, to file a copy of the letter of invitation which he has dispatched to the provinces regarding the conference my earlier question dealt with?


John George Diefenbaker: I will do so. I have not the letter with me now.
(Translation):



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenieuil-Deux-Monlagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether he has received a brief from Mr. Fernand Bibeau, of St. Eu-stache, in which the latter complains that the contract for the construction of the confederation building was not awarded to the lowest bidder?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he must realize that his question should be put on the order paper.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. At the beginning of the session, you set forth the rules governing questions put on the orders of the day, and you said at that time that in order to be acceptable, questions should deal with matters of urgent public importance.
Now-then, the question I wish to ask was raised in the newspapers recently, and especially in Le Devoir where it was sand that tenders had been received.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon.
member will recognize that the same kind of question could be asked about such and such a call for tenders in any part of the country. I feel he will understand that it is not essential to get that information at this stage of our proceedings and that he can readily put that important question on the order paper.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that my question has nothing to do with the tenders themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Text):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a serious and nonpartisan question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received any recent communications from the attorney general of British Columbia seeking this government's co-operation or assistance with respect to a settlement of the difficult Sons of Freedom question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No sir.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Could the minister tell us whether discussions between the Canadian government and the state of Maine concerning the problem of unemployment insurance for lumbermen have taken place, as he announced before Christmas?
(Text):


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, sir. The state of Maine held a meeting of their own, and now they have set up a special committee to investigate the aspect of the problem particularly affecting the state of Maine. We hope that as a result of that meeting we may be able to get together with them and bring about a reciprocal agreement.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Charles Cantin (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Could the minister tell the house whether the government intends to comply in the near future with the B.B.G. recommendation for the establishment in Quebec city of a French television station by the C.B.C.?

(Text):


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: That will be announced in due course, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):


Jean-Charles Cantin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Very well.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Would the minister give the house the reasons for this further delay?


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a supplementary question.
(Text):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have the minister's officials given him any information regarding the reported subjection of Canadian citizens in Mexico to investigation by the United States federal bureau of investigation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the department is still investigating complaints which were received from the west coast a few days ago.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Nicholson (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. Is the minister in a position to give us an up to date report on the state of affairs and developments in Washington with regard to a move to exclude or put a quota on Canadian forest products being shipped to the United States?


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any up to the minute information. This hearing took place some months ago. However, I would be very glad to obtain the latest information on the situation and give it to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I hope Your Honour and the minister will recognize the essential difference between this question and the one I asked yesterday, because my question now is specific. I should like to ask 27507-3-2174
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister whether he could advise the house what specific negotiations are now under way to make up for the decline in wheat sales to date and to sell all the rest of our wheat for this crop year.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the policy of the Canadian wheat board or of the government to divulge what is going on in any type of business negotiations until there is something pretty tangible to announce. I think the point I made yesterday is sufficient, that what we measure our success or failure by are the number of bushels exported. There was a record export in the last two years, and it will be very close to that this year.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have been trying for two or three days to answer a question submitted to me by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The question was whether the Chinese are still honouring their obligations. The information I have today is as follows: Up to and including December 31, 1962, all payments due on the contract-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister can do that as well on motions rather than on questions, or in some other way.
(Translation):


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister tell the house what method of payment is used with regard to the wheat sold to communist China?


Mr. Speaker:: An attempt was made to answer that question a short while ago, and I rather think that the hon. member's question should be put on the order paper.
(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the date of the last return, which was before Christmas, concerning the appointment by the government of defeated candidates, have there been any further such appointments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that question can very definitely go on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry AIRPORTS



DORVAL-ACCESS TO TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques Cariier-La-salle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Following the news item published in the Montreal Star yesterday headed "No provision made for airport exit off new boulevard", has the minister's department any plans to provide an exit from the Montreal international airport to the trans-Canada highway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that this question belongs on the order paper, because we have a number of major airports with regard to which the same problem may exist.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In respect of the international north Pacific fisheries commission, is it true that this question is now lodged with his department, and if so, would he be prepared soon to give the house a statement of policy?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this question will have to be dealt with by the cabinet.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-PROTECTION OF SALMON RUNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: In view of the remarks made earlier by the Minister of Public Works about reaching an accord with the government of British Columbia, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he has been able to reach an accord with the government of British Columbia on the matter of protecting salmon runs from the effects of hydro installations on certain rivers.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Clarifications by correspondence are proceeding I consider satisfactorily.



REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF REPORT OF NORTH PACIFIC COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to pose a question for the Minister of Fisheries with respect to the recommendations of the north Pacific fisheries commission about

herring and halibut, and ask whether he has yet made up his mind to refer this question to the marine and fisheries committee before the cabinet or parliament makes any determination about it.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add further to the answers I have already given to similar questions.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister explain what the result is when he adds nothing to nothing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member might well reflect upon the answer.
(Translation):



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Rinfret (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning federal assistance to the construction of technical schools. Following the talks the minister had recently with representatives of the provinces, will the government take immediate steps so that some provinces, and Quebec in particular, may derive more advantages than in the past?
(Text):


Michael Starr: We have received representations from the ministers of education of the provinces asking for one thing, and recently there have been representations from the school trustees, who are as much interested in this matter, asking for another thing, and we have to decide what is best for this country. A decision will be arrived at and made known to the house and to the provinces.



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the government has given any recent indication to the government of Quebec regarding its views on the legality of a provincial lottery for charitable purposes, or on the government's position concerning making such lotteries legal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have had some correspondence with Premier Lesage. In it, of course, I made no attempt to comment on the legality of such operations. Premier Lesage asked if the

federal government was prepared to sponsor legislation to legalize lotteries conducted by provinces for revenue purposes. The reply I conveyed to him was that the government does not contemplate the introduction of any bill at the present session to amend the Criminal Code.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Murdo Martin (Timmins):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the report in this morning's he Devoir that the C.N.R. in paid advertisements refers to French as Montreal's second language, would the minister assure the house that he will inform Mr. Gordon that Montreal is the second largest French speaking city in the world?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has given the information already.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is true that he intends to appoint to the Senate the former mayor of Toronto, Mr. Nathan Phillips.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think it is competent to ask for confirmation or denial of any rumors.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General to assure the house that Sir Casimir Gzowski, the great Polish patriot who is to be honoured by a commemorative stamp, was of Polish origin and not a citizen of Russia.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Postmaster General):: If my memory serves me correctly, I think no such assertion was made. Having regard for the changes in geography since the date of his birth, I think there might be some confusion as to the actual territory concerned, but no statement was made to that effect as far as I can recall.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. lady hear the announcement on the C.B.C. this morning, which stated quite clearly that he was born in Russia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are now getting into some little bit of argument here. I think the persons concerned can settle it.
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership PUBLIC SERVICE



INQUIRY AS TO PAY REVIEW FOR CERTAIN CLASSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the question of pay increases for messengers and cleaning staff in the House of Commons and for the civil servants not provided for on December 10 still under review, or has a decision been reached?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under review.

The house resumed, from Monday, February 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Thompson.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal opposition are prepared to support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), which expresses in somewhat different words the same lack of confidence expressed in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. We particularly welcome the opportunity to express the view that the government has failed to give a clear statement of policy respecting Canada's national defence.
Last evening I put on the record some of the factual material relating to our present defence dilemma, which should have been put on the record by the government. The facts demonstrate that the government undertook, without any coercion, certain commitments in the common defence which it now refuses to honour. Furthermore, it attempts to confuse an already complicated subject by introducing irrelevant and misleading information designed to camouflage its bungling and indecision.
The Prime Minister, for example, in referring to the adequacy of the United States strategic deterrent, attempts to give the impression that the Canadian contribution would be an unnecessary supplement. The hon. member for York South even more skilful in his confusion, quotes the Leader of the Opposition as saying that Canada should not contribute to the strategic nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Speaker, no one is suggesting that we should do so. There are three classes of atomic weapons, and these are well known
3438	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership to most people. They are the strategic, the tactical, and the purely defensive. It is true that in the strategic field there is more than adequate under the control of the United States. But it is equally true that in the opinion of military people in charge of these matters, tactical and strictly defensive nuclear weapons are required both in NATO and in NORAD.
One point that is worth mentioning is this. In fulfilling our commitments to NATO and NORAD-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to inquire of the hon. member whether he is reading from a speech or a text. If he is doing so I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Benidickson:: Every time you speak you are literary and read from a text.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter of reading is a difficult one. Sometimes there are rather extensive notes and sometimes it is difficult to say whether what is being said has any relation to the notes. However, we will go along, as long as we are not getting into difficulty.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to send my notes to the hon. member later so that he can use them for the Toronto Telegram. In the meantime let me say to him that last night in this house I made a 30 minute speech without any notes whatsoever, and that is something that is very seldom done.
In being asked to fulfil our commitments to NATO we are doing what others of our allies have already done. Nine countries in NATO have signed bilateral agreements with the United States. Not all of them have nuclear weapons, but most of them in fact do have them. They are not considered to be members of the atomic club in the same sense that Britain, Russia, the United States and now France are considered to be. We are just asked to do what the Prime Minister committed himself to do in principle in December, 1957 when he adopted a NATO strategy which involved signing bilateral agreements between the United States and the respective countries in order to provide from time to time the tactical nuclear weapons required in NATO.
In our negotiations when we should have been demonstrating good faith we must have made some outrageous proposals to the United States to store nuclear weapons south of the border. Such a patently impractical suggestion


must have driven the United States state department and the former minister of national defence to distraction. Is it any wonder that they both took the rather unusual courses they felt they must take?
The Liberal policy in this matter is clear. We are convinced that the only honourable way to resolve the present dilemma is to live up to our commitments in full. The leader of the Liberal party stated this clearly when he said:
The government should re-examine at once the whole basis of Canadian defence policy.
Later in the same speech he said:
However, until the present role is changed, a new Liberal government would put Canada's armed services in the position to discharge fully commitments undertaken for Canada by its predecessor.
In office, Mr. Speaker, we would reexamine our defence policy, but any new policy would be designed to give Canada the maximum contribution to peace and security and on no other basis. The Liberal party is proud to have at its head a leader-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Jones:: Which one is it this week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is one member who has the floor.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, our leader is a man who is not afraid to take a stand on the great issues of the day even at the cost of losing votes. He is a man who can make decisions and who will make the decisions necessary to restore Canada to its position of influence and responsibility amongst the nations of the world.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me today to get into the argument as between the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for York South, but as I listened to the hon. gentleman a moment ago I recalled an occasion in 1960 when he performed a feat which was never before performed in this house. A speech appeared in the Ottawa Citizen in detail purporting to be what the hon. member for Trinity had said in the House of Commons, when he had not spoken at all. That was indeed an example that none of us, including the hon. member for York South, would ever want to emulate.
May I say that this afternoon I am going to review something of the situation as I see it based upon the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, an amendment so general, so widespread, so obviously diffuse that one can only conclude that it was placed in such general terminology so that he would sidle away from the question of nuclear arms. He

was afraid to face that question. He spoke strongly, he spoke shrilly. He used the same expressions that he used back in 1957 and 1958, the same decayed platitudes, the same single concern, the same cry for office. Mr. Speaker, the closer that Bob Winters looms, the louder speaks the Leader of the Opposition.
At the end of all these generalities the mountain brought forth a mouse. The amendment simply states that for various reasons the government does not have the confidence of the Canadian people. There is not a single definite challenge. He did not dare challenge on the question of nuclear arms. He was afraid. The hon. member for Trinity says "We have a leader who speaks with such directness; we have a leader who speaks with authority and definiteness". A few weeks ago his leader was saying "No nuclear arms under any circumstances".
He cried out against the government's defence policy and generalities. He referred to some of the general problems facing our country. He turned, he contradicted, he did violence to logic, and when he concluded he produced an amendment which he believed would have the effect of securing the support of other members of this house.
I am going to refer to one or two matters today. I am going to deal first with the general situation in so far as defence is concerned, and in order that there will be no misunderstanding I will simplify what I said previously, underlining in every particular what I said on that occasion. Before I do so I think I should read in part an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune which deals with this matter. It refers to the campaign that has been going on which has so many forms, the campaign which brings known nuclear advocates to Canada to brainwash the public, that encourages various people to become captive audiences. There was the farewell visit of General Norstad, and then there were other statements that were made by other generals. I think it was Clemenceau who once said that "the business of defence is too serious for generals. It requires civilian control."
The editorial in the Tribune goes on to say with respect to what happened following the declaration that I made in 1959:
In the intervening period the whole military strategic and tactical situation has changed. But the military men and their spokesmen, just because they have the carriers they asked for four years ago, are now trying to pressure the dominion government into the ultimate decision in military planning. They think they must go the last mile-
Then there are some words in between, and we find this:
-regardless of public or political opinion on this fateful question.
Then I should like to refer to what I said on January 25 when I outlined the policy
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership agreed upon by this cabinet. I am going to read this and then I am going to summarize it. I quote from page 3136 of Hansard for January 25, 1963:
Following SACEUR's recommendation, as we saw the situation in 1959 and as I said earlier in my remarks, we undertook to equip our squadrons assigned to NATO for a strike reconnaissance role, which role would include the mission of delivering nuclear weapons.
This was the basis, and every man and woman in this parliament knew that course was undertaken and understood. A program was approved and appropriated by parliament. The second point was, and I quote:
Delivery of the F-104G has commenced, but the strike reconnaissance role has been placed under doubt by the recent Nassau declaration concerning nuclear arms, as well as other developments both technical and political in the defence field.
Well, I could pick up almost any newspaper in either the United States or Canada and indicate that that was the interpretation given, those were the views of the conclusions arrived at there when the two leaders got together. I have before me the Christian Science Monitor. This represents a completely changed viewpoint. I quote:
The United States wants its principal allies to submerge their own national defence in a collective defence, where for example, General de Gaulle would merely be one among many and lose direct control of French defence. In present circumstances this unified defence quite simply means final control by the United States.
These are not the views of any Canadian newspaper; this is a statement made by a reputable newspaper whose editorials are quoted everywhere.
The allies do not like it. This is partly because they do not want to yield up control of their own nuclear destiny

a sacrifice they know the United States is not prepared to make. And partly because they have strong ban the bomb minorities who fear that American control in a crisis means control by the Pentagon, by men trained to think in terms of war, not peace.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: Then again, in the same issue this appears under "Allied defence", and it sets out the change in United States strategy in this regard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are referring to strategic weapons, not tactical.


John George Diefenbaker: I come back to my statement which appeared in Hansard of January 25, and I quote:

Alleged Lack of Government Leadership It will be necessary, therefore, at this meeting in May, for Canada to give consideration to this matter and we will, in co-operation with the nations of NATO, undertake a clarification of our role in NATO defence plans and disposition.
We are united in NATO. We have never and will never consent to Canada breaking any of her pledged words or undertakings.
I underline that.
It is at that meeting where there will be reviewed the entire collective defence policy, that we shall secure from the other member nations their views, and on the basis of that we will be in a position to make a decision, a consistent decision, first to maintain our undertakings and second to execute, if that be the view, the maintenance of our collective defence. In the meantime the training of Canadian forces in the use of these weapon systems can continue.
Now, I say to the House of Commons this. After that meeting we shall bring this matter before parliament clearly, definitely and finally. I want to make that clear. There is no suggestion of any underhand agreements being entered into.
I summarize now the views that I placed before the house on this question. First, with regard to bringing nuclear warheads on Canadian soil, we will continue to negotiate with the United States so that they will be readily available in case of need. This means that our security will be assured while at the same time we will be doing nothing to increase the nuclear family. Second, in that reference I made to negotiation, there was no prejudice in that. I referred to the fact that negotiations were being conducted. There was no secrecy about that. I did not go into the facts in any way because those negotiations, in so far as agreements are concerned in connection therewith, naturally could not be revealed and are confidential. I point out that Secretary of State Rusk in his conference said this in connection with the negotiations, and I quote:
These are matters which have been discussed with the Canadian government in private talks and I would suppose that these private talks would be resumed.
It is the intention of the government to carry on these talks. It should be pointed out that some proposals already have come from the United States government. With regard to the question of nuclear warheads for Canadian forces in Europe, the Nassau declaration stated in paragraph 6, dealing with action which may be taken to bring about multilateral nuclear forces within NATO:
This could include allocations from United States strategic forces, from United Kingdom bomber command and from tactical nuclear forces now held in Europe.
This proposal for multilateral nuclear forces in NATO went much further than any previous proposal and is one upon which

discussions are already under way in the NATO council as to whether tactical forces such as Canada's would be included. This whole new development will be under intensive study and preparation for the NATO ministerial meeting. I have already pointed out that in the meantime the training will take place.
Now, sir, I am not going to go again into the question of the United States having issued the document which it did. However, there are one or two references I intend to make to it, and then pass on to some other questions. I repeat that the issue of that statement on January 30 was an intrusion into Canada in a political subject, and a controversial one, that cannot be excused by mere words. In the course of that statement challenges were made of several statements I made, all of them matters of opinion. We have not yet come to the place in the fellowship and freedom of nations when the views of any one of them in matters of opinion must be the views of any other one belonging to that group.
I just want to refer to one, and that was with regard to the Bomarc. I have stated that the Bomarc was simply a part of the plan for North American defence and was not to defend Canada. That is not its purpose, but in its statement the state department said two Bomarc B squadrons would protect Montreal and Toronto as well as the United States deterrent force. Well, we installed these Bomarcs and the decision to do so, as part of a ring to protect the nuclear strike force, was announced in September, 1958.
What about the changes in between? What is the position of these things today? On the one hand the department of state says they will defend Montreal and Toronto, that they are effective today; but on the other hand, on January 31 it was reported that defence secretary McNamara suggested that Bomarc missile squadrons have only limited usefulness even against manned bomber attacks. Are they going to continue with them? Yes, they are going to continue them, and the reason given was because the United States government has already paid for them. That does not sound as if their defensive properties are very high today, simply because they have been paid for already.
Earlier the defence secretary told the United States committee that a general review of United States military strength shows that the continental interceptor force is vulnerable because it has no modern protection against missile attacks. Intercontinental missile attack is the great danger today, and this is what I say.

While on the one hand the department of state issued its statement, on the other hand, on the day after, the secretary of defence said the very opposite. He said:
Our principle concern in the years ahead must be the dangers of an intercontinental ballistic missile and submarine-launched missile attack and the main thrust of our efforts should be redirected to meet these rising threats.
Mr. Speaker, there is the story. I do not often quote from the Toronto Star but this is what the Toronto Star said on that occasion:
Washington contradicts itself. Whatever else may be said about them, the arguments the American state department marshalled yesterday in its statement on nuclear arms for Canada are, at best, dubious.
In fact, they often run head-on into the views defence secretary Robert McNamara presented earlier yesterday to a congressional committee. It would almost seem as if the left hand in the state department did not really know what the right hand in the Pentagon was doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That sounds like the government of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: There are three or four other points which can be analysed in the same way. On this occasion I am going to restrain myself from again referring to the document in question, but I do say this, without any reservation; that the subsequent statement made by the United States secretary of state added to the seriousness resulting from the earlier statement. He said in effect that what I said was incorrect. Then he wound up and said that Canada of course has the right to decide. Certainly it has the right to decide, but in that subsequent statement over and over again there is reiterated a viewpoint that is inconsistent with the relationship between allies.
There has been no criticism on our part of the United States on occasions when we might have done so. I can think of events which have taken place within the last year, but self-control is necessary and must be exercised as between nations. We might have spoken out. Mr. Speaker, I say no more about that statement issued by the state department.
What I said on the opening day I repeat, and to that I add that the further restatement by the secretary of state constituted a further intrusion into Canadian public debate and public consideration of this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: So far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, he has a way of finding himself in a hole and then coming through the same hole he created for himself. He said this thing is wrong, but then he 27507-3-218
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership proceeded to use all the arguments that were wrong in that statement to devastate us if he could.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So did Mr. Harkness last night.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize the joy that has been given to the heart of the hon. gentleman by making that statement, but I am saying that the arguments that were used in the statement that should not have been issued, should not have been used. That is not the way for diplomatic relations between countries. It has become the cornerstone of the argument of the opposition, indeed even before the statement was issued. I refer of course to the Liberal opposition.


William Moore Benidickson: You cannot explain that to the Conservatives in Calgary North.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see the hon.
gentleman back. Now, there are some who say to me that if you take a stand like this it is anti-American. Mr. Speaker, it is nothing of the kind. I do not think it is other than pro-Canadian, or Canadian, to point out when something is wrong. That is unjust.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Somebody said to me that if I take this stand then we are going to suffer danger in Canada, damage to Canada, and that we are going to do harm to Canada's economic strength. I do not accept that argument. It is an unworthy one. Does anyone tell me that the United States, which has spread its beneficence all over the world, would retaliate because we failed to adopt a suggestion that they offered? Such an argument, and I hear it spoken today in various parts of our country, if carried to its logical conclusion means this, that our country has ceased to be a country wherein we have the right to make our own policies. I do not accept that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I believe in co-operation because I believe in good relations. Franklin said we hang together or we will hang separately, and I believe in co-operation. Without it there is no survival. But I cannot accept the fears of those who believe we must be subservient in order to be a good ally of any country in the world. Macdonald fought this battle. The great merchants in the city of Montreal in those days-not the French Canadians-had their views on this subject, that after all Canada would be that much stronger if it were joined with the United States. That was not Macdonald's view. That idea comes in with almost every generation.
I say this, Mr. Speaker. We are influenced in this way every day in our country on
3442	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership radio, television and in the press. When the leader of the United States speaks, we get it in detail over our television. I should like to see more of an interchange in this regard so they would learn something about our country. When I hear some saying that the fact that one dares to speak out will endanger Canada's economy, I wonder what the future of this country would be if those who have such fears and those who are of little faith held office in our country. I believe in co-operation, in the closest co-operation, but not in the absorption of our viewpoint by any other nation. I believe in the maintenance in spirit and in fact of Canada's identity, with the right to determine her own policy without extramural assistance in determining that policy.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: We all agree with that.


John George Diefenbaker: I now pass on to the next phase in connection with this amendment, Mr. Speaker. As we listened to the Leader of the Opposition he repeated the same old statements. I was reading some of the speeches he made in 1958. He has a mighty good memory, because he used the same words then, right from the beginning. He speaks of the degree to which parliament has failed to act. He would lead the country to believe that we are responsible for this. Well, Mr. Speaker, I take up the order paper and look over the amount of legislation we have on it. Can we get anything through? I am not speaking of the other parties now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking of those who openly boasted that they would hold up this house until finally we would not have supply and would have to go to the country. This is legislation necessary for Canada. With regard to the national development act they said that, subject to the proper criticism and examination, it is good legislation. Do they let it go through? They talk and talk; then they end up denying its passage. It has been the same story, Mr. Speaker, all down the line, and I am going to refer to that in some little detail. They say we should organize the business of the house.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I hear one solitary voice, Mr. Speaker. We could organize the business of the house. We have placed the business before the house. Let us look at the legislation on the order paper. How many measures are before the house? The number is 31. There is the measure respecting the national


economic development board, which is something that should have gone through; there is the measure with respect to the Freight Rates Reduction Act. We cannot even get that before the house. There are other measures here which are not of the same importance. There is the motion of the Minister of Labour for the second reading of Bill No. C-70, to provide for the safety of persons employed in federal works; there is the measure respecting industrial change and manpower adjustment; the measure to amend the Export and Import Permits Act; the measure to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act; the resolution in connection with Canadian National Railways, and so I could go on. There is measure after measure which waits. There is the measure to set up an Indian claims commission; to amend the National Productivity Council Act by providing for the appointment of additional members, and so on. These are matters that we want to get through. In addition we have several others to come, to which there will be reference before I conclude.
What happens? They come in and spend almost an hour a day on questions. One of the most spectacular contributions to wit, humour and waste of the time of parliament was that made by the Leader of the Opposition the other day when he rose and gave his condolences to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the burning down of some building in Toronto.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The George H. Hees building.


John George Diefenbaker: The Leader of the Opposition, holding a responsible position, talks facetiously like that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A fire is not a facetious thing.


John George Diefenbaker: Wasting the time of parliament; that is what has been going on. How can we organize these things if they hold up everything?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I could go down the whole list and indicate exactly what has happened in this regard. On January 21 I put before the house, not by way of dictation in any way but simply the suggestion, that we get on with the business; that we endeavour to extend the hours of sitting; that we arrive at a plan whereby we will be able to deal with such matters as the bill to amend the provisions of the Railway Act, based on the recommendations of the MacPherson royal commission-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has not yet appeared.


John George Diefenbaker: -a resolution arising out of the recommendations of the O'Leary royal commission on publications, the amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act following the report of the Gill committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That has not appeared.


Michael Starr: Well, get the others through and these will appear too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When were the reports made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are not on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: I sometimes wonder how that man is able to stand up with the guilty conscience he has. I am referring to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister has suggested that I have a guilty conscience. I would certainly have a guilty conscience-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course if hon. gentlemen opposite do not want to listen to me- I would certainly have a guilty conscience if after 17 government bills had been passed with opposition assistance in the first 60 days of this session, compared with an average of eight when the hon. gentleman had a majority of 200, I was complaining violently of obstruction.


John George Diefenbaker: I will not answer that, because it is just time wasted as well. All through the piece the hon. gentleman is not guilty. He is not doing any time wasting and I am going to accept his denial. We feel he is. He does not.
What about this question: when are we going to get this legislative program before the house? It all depends. The hon. gentleman says they do not hold it up. That leads me to deal with the course which has been followed by the official opposition. They say "Why don't you get these things before the house?" Hon. members heard the speech made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. It was part and parcel of that unrelenting search for power. I cannot explain the attitude. Last June, last May, by their guerrilla tactics they endangered the confidence of people in Canada. They continued to do that throughout the campaign. They sabotaged public confidence. They sniped at national achievement. Why have they been pushing for an election since the opening day last fall? They have been pushing for it because 27507-3-218J
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership they know that every day we are in office, with the rising impetus of our economy, the falsity of their arguments in the election is being proven.
I look down this chamber to my friends in the Social Credit party. I am dealing with them now; in a moment I shall be speaking about the N.D.P. I wonder what they must think of a leader who voted for an amendment proposed by the Social Credit party in accordance with their beliefs, an amendment proposing debt free money. When they were asked whether they believed in debt free money they said "No, no, we do not believe in it." As far as the New Democratic party are concerned the Liberals say "We are ready to merge with them, or at least to take them in". There is only one down there they do not want, according to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), and that is the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). He is a marxist, according to the hon. member for Davenport. The rest of them are all right.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would ask the Prime Minister to prove I ever said that. If he means by it the implication which sometimes goes with it, he is not telling the truth and it is high time he did.


David Lewis: I think, Mr. Speaker, I have the only legitimate question of privilege, and I want to inform the house, in the words of Karl Marx, that I deplore the word "marxist".


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Davenport did not deplore it, according to the Canadian Press. He asked me to read the statement. I will give the exact words. This is the report which appeared in the press. I read from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of January 14:
The New Democratic members of parliament range all the way from those who would easily assimilate Liberal theory ... except David Lewis who is an out and out marxist and who would never fit into our party.


David Lewis: On a question of privilege may I say that the last part of the report, namely that I would not fit into the ranks of the Liberal party, is accurate. The first part is utterly false.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. gentleman for answering the other hon. gentleman.
I am going back over the arguments they used, the same arguments with which they undermined the confidence in this country. They said that as a result of our action in pegging the dollar, the dollar of the Canadian housewife would be worth cents less. They said the cost of every item of food, every article of clothing, every household requirement, would be increased. They said the cost of services would be increased. If
3444	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership they want proof, I have it. They said-and they did this for political purposes-that we were ruined as a nation. They predicted soaring inflation which would wipe out the savings of widows and pensioners. How did they support this? They offered counterfeit dollars to support a counterfeit charge in a counterfeit campaign. That is the hoax they almost succeeded in perpetrating on June 18.
When we said our trade was increasing they said "Nothing of the kind". They painted a dreadful picture of ruin within this land. They do not speak about that any more. They speak about other things. I ask this question. What of their prophecies? Have living costs increased as they said they would? Mr. Speaker, the increase in the cost of living in Canada in 1962 was the lowest in any of the free world countries. We told them what would happen when we pegged the dollar. We told them it would increase our export opportunities, substantially increase the revenue of the tourist industry and provide more opportunities for Canadian manufacturers to produce for the domestic market. They ridiculed, they ranted and they prevaricated. That is why they were so anxious to get an election in the fall, so that their campaign of falsehood would not be answered by the facts.
The increase in our gross national product? They said there was nothing to that. They reviewed the situation. We know today what the situation is, and in order that the record may be clear before this vote takes place I intend to put a few of the answers on the record. Who told the truth about the Canadian dollar?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Agriculture.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman is so right. He does not say he did, or that anyone associated with him did. Who told the truth about the Canadian economy? As I went across this country after the election two people said to me, "You told us that the economy was on the uprise, a great upsurge, and it was not true because you had this foreign exchange difficulty". They had it in 1948.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In 1947.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, 1947. They had the pegged dollar then at 10 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You might as well have the facts right.


John George Diefenbaker: I was half way between. I said 1948. It started in 1947 and went through to 1949. Now, being face to face with them in the House of Commons, on the basis of what has taken place since then, I charge them with an offence and say they were guilty of one of the greatest election frauds in our


history. I refer to all of them. They went across Canada. They put their greed for office before the needs of Canadian citizens. Now we are able to offer the facts. Do they quote the London Economist any more?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We should be glad to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Even the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) has not referred to it for some time. What does the London Economist say? In this year end edition of December, 1962, it says that Canada in 1962 outstripped every nation in the world in the rate of economic growth.
The hon. member for Davenport is not here at the moment.


An hon. Member:: He is coming in now.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad he is now here. May I say that we reached the present level three years ahead of the target date indicated by the royal commission headed by that hon. gentleman. I am placing the record before the house and the country, and answering that campaign about which I shall say no more than I have already said. Newsweek states as follows:	.
World wide industrial expansion is 7 per cent over last year with the United States (coming out of a recession) and Canada registered the top gain.
What of these purveyors of doom and gloom? What of the statements they made before the Canadian people? What does Business Week say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Justice in Tokyo said-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I know you ridicule anything with regard to Canada's economic growth and expansion. That is part and parcel of the Liberal attitude.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister has once more chosen to make a personal reference to me, suggesting that I was ridiculing something. All I was pointing out was that the Minister of Justice in Tokyo said we had the highest level of unemployment in the western world.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This assertion has been made twice in the house. It was raised first of all by the Leader of the Opposition. I said then that I never made any such statement and that a report to that effect appearing in one of the Tokyo papers was not true. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, notwithstanding that denial,

came back and made the same statement in this house later. It was again denied. He is repeating it again now. This is the plainest breach of the privileges of the house in repeated assertions of something that is not true. I say that what he is saying and what he is trying to do is dastardly and false.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cannot understand that language, he cannot understand English. I mentioned Business Week which states as follows:
Canada chalked up the highest growth rate of any Atlantic community country-
Where are these people who went about in sepulchral tones and talked about the awfulness of the Canadian economy? No wonder they want an election. Their sins are now finding them out.
The Mercantile Bank of Canada has this to say:
Devaluation has provided a powerful force contributing to a better external balance, increased production and more employment.
I have only to look at the records as to Canada's foreign exchange position. It is one of the best, if not the best, in all our history, according to the record in today's Globe and Mail. The Financial Post states:
Canadian steel makers-
And may I say that steel is always indicative of an economy going up or down.
-are being hard pressed to cope with the record flood of orders for cold rolled steel sheets.
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, states:
One of the main sources of strength as this year progressed has been the substantial rise in the volume of exports .. . Personal incomes have continued to expand in the wake of increased employment opportunities, higher rates of pay, and record levels of farm income.
Then, Canadian business had this to say. I do not like to put these things on the record, Mr. Speaker, because I know how hon. members opposite feel. They, who predicted that the country was going into bankruptcy today, are compelled to sit and to realize that their statements have no basis; and they knew they were false when they made them.
I mentioned the reserve. In today's paper the Canadian Press carries this report:
Canada's reserves gained $123,100,000 during January to a record $2,662,500,000 due to the receipt of $125,000,000 in U.S. dollars from a government bond issue in New York last fall.
Then it goes on to say this:
Still to be repaid from the reserves is $300,000,000 borrowed from the international monetary fund by the government at the time of the foreign exchange crisis last June when the reserves reached their low point of about $1.1 billion on June 24.
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership
That has been the picture all the way along. Have they learned their lesson?


An hon. Member:: They will never learn.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, they are at it again. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) was out west. He said, "Oh, things are gloomy ahead, as I see them". May I say that he did not see ahead very well. He said that our national production would not attain the present level until three years from now. They are all starting at that same old dirge again. I think Mr. Winters joined in it the other day as well. I say this, Mr. Speaker. The same authors and the same spokesmen are abroad in the land again. The propaganda trumpets are being tuned for another doleful dirge on this nation's economy. Mr. Speaker, may I say that the people today know who told them the truth.
I could go into the questions of trade and agriculture. As far as trade is concerned, all of us know the tremendous expansion that is taking place. Every effort is being made to ensure that for the first time in the Department of Trade and Commerce we go out after trade in every part of the world.
Agriculture? All you have to do is ask the farmers: "What about your incomes"? What did the pegging of the dollar do? You remember what hon. members opposite said. They said to the farmers: "You are going to lose your markets. This is a very serious situation. Prices are going to go down." That was repeated over and over again. Let me say this. We have extensive measures in mind under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, ARDA, which in the years ahead I believe will stand as a monument to the greatness of the contribution of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), a charter for the development of rural communities and maximum utilization of the nation's land and resources.
I am not going into the question of social security, except to say this. We cannot get anything through in this house because all the official opposition does is watch the clock to be sure nothing will pass within a reasonable length of time. That has been their attitude. Let none of them say they have not been boasting about it, because during Christmas week the old propagandist for that party started to say to the press: "We will hold them up so they will not be able to get their estimates through. We will hold them up so they will not get any money and then they will have to go to the country." Then the individual in question, whom that shrug of the shoulders along with other movements identifies, went on to say: "They will not
3446	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership get anything through; they will not get their estimates through." That has been the attitude throughout.
Social security? We want to bring about an opportunity to have portable pensions under way in co-operation with the provinces. We want an opportunity in this house to bring in a program for a contributory old age security plan on the basis of survivor benefits. It cannot be done without an amendment to the constitution. In view of the opposition of one of the provinces I feel that we should now give consideration to bringing about the adoption of such a plan without survivor benefits in order that we may carry out that which we have tried to, namely an improved and beneficent social security program under which you and I will contribute during our earning years up to a date when we become pensionable.
In addition, the hon. member for Bed Deer asked: "What are your further plans?" I think one problem that has to be met is the question of urban redevelopment by means of a program in that connection. That is something that affects almost every member of this house. The constituency of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) covers an area that was farm land when I was a boy and today it is settled with 250,000 people. There must be co-operation with the provinces. A plan must be worked out. We want the opportunity to present this kind of thing. We want to get the legislation on the order paper passed-


Donald Methuen Fleming: And a lot more.


John George Diefenbaker: -and, as the Minister of Justice says, a lot more. You say: "What would you do?" I ask you, what can we do but invoke closure, and I shall never adopt closure because I remember the way the official opposition crucified parliament. If our hands are tied they are not tied by the other two parties but by the official opposition. They bear the responsibility. Oh, they can smile. The Leader of the Opposition smirks-


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, smiles.


John George Diefenbaker: -but at the same time he knows who it is that is holding up legislation. We put it before parliament. They hold it up. We place before you our views on defence.


An hon. Member:: Which ones?


John George Diefenbaker: We will bring in the new
estimates-they are available-within a period of two weeks.


George Clyde Nowlan: One week.


John George Diefenbaker: Within a period of one week.


George Clyde Nowlan: They are available today but only in one language.


John George Diefenbaker: We will bring down a budget within four weeks or so-I think within four weeks.


George Clyde Nowlan: By the last day of February or before.


John George Diefenbaker: By the end of February.
I thought the opposition wanted a budget. They do not want a budget, Mr. Speaker. They are afraid of what it will contain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They do not want it. Oh, they will go to the people. Do you know what they thought I would do? They thought I would recommend dissolution and then they would say: They denied us a budget, they denied us the opportunity to pass legislation, they denied all these things. I have put it on their doorstep now.
I can understand their feeling. You know, they are conscience stricken over what happened to the Canadian economy. They are fearful of what will be in the budget, so they come along and challenge on the same old grounds and in the same old words, the same vocabulary, that they used before we were in office a matter of a few weeks. They do not want a budget. They came up with the idea that we should use Governor General's warrants instead of supply. We are giving them the chance to permit us placing the rest of our legislative program before the house, in addition to what we already have on the order paper-a program which is needed in every part of this country.
The Leader of the Opposition quoted Cromwell or rather misquoted him. I say, using Cromwell's words: Do something to assure Canada legislation that we will pass with your assistance, and which we cannot pass unless you co-operate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Who said that?


An hon. Member:: Cromwell never heard of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Jimmy Cromwell.


John George Diefenbaker: Do you want to frustrate
our program? Certainly you do. Do you want to prevent a budget? They want to prevent us, Mr. Speaker, from completing the national development act, and they have done so. We have been five years in office and development in all parts of the country has been greater than under any government in the same period. We want to complete the national economic development board act. What good

is it in its present form? What are we supposed to do? They say, why don't you organize? How can you organize to secure the consideration of something that the opposition is doing everything in its power to prevent being enacted? They have followed that course.
I want to see an examination of legislation. I want to see all the bills looked into carefully. I do not want to take from parliament the right to discuss any particular matter, but when you get the same repetitious nonsense during the discussion of all the bills that have been introduced you can only conclude that what is being done is being done for a purpose. They are going to vote nonconfidence to prevent us bringing in this legislation, they say, to prevent our bringing into effect something that has been requested over and over again, a feed policy for the eastern farmers; that is on the order paper today.
The following resolution will appear on the order paper, to introduce a measure to provide for the adequate supply of feed grain for livestock in eastern Canada, for the establishment of an eastern livestock feed board; to provide for the making of assistance payments by the board in respect of the transportation, carrying and storage of feed grains. My hon. friends over in the Social Credit group have been asking for something like this. It is being placed on the order paper now, following a full examination that has taken place. Now you are asked to vote it down; to say you do not want it. Well, that is what the Liberals want to achieve.
What about the western farmer? What about the two-price system and the distribution we have made over the years? Are you going to turn that down? This is what it amounts to if you vote non-confidence. You say to the western farmer and the western people that such a system should not be adopted.
We have other matters of legislation in the field of trade and commerce, and so on, to accelerate the economy. I do not come before you to ask for your support. I simply say this. If you vote against us in the house you are actually playing into the hands of the official opposition. What about the other two parties? What about Social Credit? Well, no part of our policy is determined elsewhere than by ourselves. Yesterday, you were cajoled and pampered by the Leader of the Opposition. I never saw anybody smile with such a benign look in your direction. He loves thee, but he loved you not until yesterday.


An hon. Member:: We know that.
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, do you remember the stories they told of the Social Credit member immediately after the election? I am not going to put them on the record, but they had you as people who were going to government house in order to get your car and chauffeur and some of you supposedly went to Quebec city in order to find your office in the legislative building. When I heard that stuff I said that was the same old song as they sang in 1922 regarding the Progressives. They told the same stories, then, but at that time they did not have a chauffeur included. That was the attitude of the Liberal party and that has been their attitude throughout.
Do you remember the night of November 9 in this house when you were held up to contempt? Now they say, join with us. What for? For your benefit? I say to my friends of the N.D.P., greater love hath no man than the Leader of the Opposition for you today. When you line up to prevent this legislative program, you deny the budget for which you have been asking. I say to each and every one of you-I cannot speak to the unregenerate opposite because there is no hope of salvation for them-remember this group. I see them here often. This is the same bunch who trampled on the rights of parliament day after day, who destroy any vestige of argument and refuse us even the opportunity to speak. Have they reformed? Well, Mr. Speaker, we saw the nature of their reform a few days before Christmas when, by organized disorder, they prevented me from speaking in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the old question comes back, can the leopard change its spots? These are the facts. I place them before you as fairly as I can under the circumstances. They talk in the amendment about lack of leadership. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, is it leadership that he is showing in preventing parliament from dealing with these matters?
"Confusion"-who used that word?
First he said "I don't believe in nuclear weapons." Then he went to New York and came back and said, yes. Then he went to his constituency and said "I did not say 'yes, I was in favour of nuclear weapons'. I would only have them until I am able to get an agreement not to have them."
Mr. Speaker, I ask this house for a vote of confidence, for the opportunity to do the things we want to do and have been denied the opportunity of doing. I have no appeals to make but I feel that the people of Canada want us to complete our legislative program, get our estimates through, and then all of us
3448	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership will be able to say to the people of Canada, "We received a mandate. It was an uncertain one. As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) said, we are a house of minorities, but we carried out the mandate given to us."
We can only give the people a chance, but before we do that do not let us risk an election campaign now. The other day I saw the benefits of calling an election, thinking only of the political consequences in our favour. But I asked "What will its effect be on a rising economy in the years ahead and the months ahead, unless we get those things on the statute books that would continue the upsurge of the economy of Canada?" I now ask a vote of confidence from all hon. members in the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would not intervene again in this debate but for the remarks of the Prime Minister, so many of which were directed to me, and the remarks of the house leader last night, so many of which were directed to me personally, challenging me to do this and challenging me to say that. I feel I must accept the invitation given to me again this afternoon in such courteous tones by the Prime Minister, to state my views on certain matters which apparently he had not satisfied himself about in my previous intervention.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a passionate plea on the part of the Prime Minister for support from the opposition parties so that he may remain in power, so that he may remain in power not to complete the work but to begin the work that he promised to do.
The Prime Minister and his friends accuse us of being arrogant for power when we do our duty as an opposition, taking advantage of every legitimate opportunity to get rid of this government which has done so little for the Canadian people. How are we to describe the plea of the Prime Minister speaking for a government which has failed for five years and demanding that we give them another chance to bring their legislation before parliament? It reminds me of the story of the teen-age boy who killed his mother and father with an axe and then pleaded for clemency from the judge on the ground that he was an orphan.
It was a plea for power and a plea for support from those sources which are necessary to the Prime Minister, if he is not to be defeated this evening; and that is why he made his direct and definite appeal to the parties to my left. Indeed he went so far as to murmur something, trying to challenge our right to address our remarks to all parts of the house, about greater love has no man.


This apparently was an attempt to undermine any appeal I might have made.
I do not recall making any great appeal. The members in the other parties will do what they think is right and best for the country, and we shall leave it at that. But I would like to adapt the Prime Minister's quotation of greater love, in view of the events of the last few days, to put it this way, that perhaps greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friend for his life. I think, however, that the Prime Minister, who got a great deal of assistance from prompters around him-and I am sure he appreciated it as I do on this side when I am privileged to receive it-should be given that kind of admiration and sympathy that is afforded to a surgeon who is conducting an operation for appendicitis on a table in the cook's galley of a plunging ship in the midst of a North Atlantic storm. He is certainly doing his best with the weapons at his disposal and in the circumstances in which he finds himself.
This afternoon he made a great play of the fact that all the rumours that have been spreading are put out by the propaganda machine of the Liberal party. Mr. Speaker, since when has the propaganda machine of the Liberal party found its headquarters in this building in the office of a Conservative cabinet minister?
The Prime Minister went over the legislative proposals of the government which he says only the Liberal opposition are preventing from being put into effect. He exempted the other two opposition parties from any charge or any criticism of this kind. He says "Only give us a chance and we will get all these things through." One of the things he mentioned-and I will pick only one because I have not time to expose the falsity of the other arguments and illustrations that he brought forward-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have unlimited time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -as one illustration of what they had been trying to do was the matter of portable pensions. There is something. He said, "If we had only had a chance we could have got that measure through". Well, Mr. Speaker, that proposal was in the speech from the throne. A national scheme of portable pensions, to which this party is committed, of course requires co-operation, consultation and agreement with the provinces. When we asked the question the other day as to whether any steps had been taken to get in touch with the provinces in connection with this very important matter, when we asked for a return on this matter, we found that at the time the question was asked not

a single communication had gone to a single provincial government. This is what we mean when we say this government does not know how to conduct the business of parliament and the business of the country.
Then he goes on to say, "Over on the opposition side they filibuster. They stand in the way. They obstruct. Everything would be through if it were not for them". He ignores the fact that, as I said yesterday, the government rejected every opportunity but one to bring supply forward last autumn and they kept parliament from meeting until September 27. They have allowed only one supply day this session and we have had no request for interim supply even though the last interim supply was exhausted on February 1. Can they blame it on us if they managed their business that way?
So far as taking up time is concerned, the Prime Minister has made some very general accusations, in his normal way of making very general accusations, without supporting them with detailed evidence which will stand up under examination. Not the kind of evidence he brought forward the other day when he was quoting from a report of a statement which I made and from which he left out the word "not". I do not mean that kind of evidence; I mean evidence that will stand up under examination. Let us see, Mr. Speaker, what is the record of this parliament. It has already been stated this afternoon in a question addressed to the Prime Minister by my hon. friend to my left that a good deal of legislation has been passed. More legislation has been passed this session than was passed in the last session, when the government had 205 members. So that in itself does not bear out the accusation of complete obstruction. But who is doing the talking? Who are holding things up, if things are being held up? Who is responsible for exercising the time honoured right of members of parliament to discuss legislation and proposals before they go through? According to the Prime Minister the situation is, "Let us bring them in. Let us get them through. That is all that matters". He is so anxious to get things through this house that he will not even let us discuss $200 million of taxation imposed by order in council. He will not even bring that matter before the house. That is really carrying efficiency to the maximum.
But in so far as those matters which have been brought before the house are concerned, what has happened? With regard to the national economic development board, a very important piece of legislation, on November 27, 28 and 29 five Liberals spoke, three Progressive Conservatives, four Social Crediters -four out of a party of 30-and three New Democratic party members out of 19. On the
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership Atlantic development board, a government measure which had the support of the government, which they now claim they wanted to get through at once and that we were holding it up, 17 Progressive Conservatives felt it necessary-and I do not criticize them -to talk in favour of a measure which they already supported and which they were not going to change. Twenty one Liberals spoke on that measure and put forward amendments to make it a better measure, and there were seven Social Crediters and 12 New Democratic party spokesmen. When that bill went into committee there were 49 Progressive Conservative members who spoke on it without proposing any changes whatever, but who rose to their feet to say, "This is a wonderful bill. Let us get it through, so 49 of us will make speeches on it". On second reading, Mr. Speaker, there were four Liberal, five Progressive Conservative, two Social Credit and three New Democratic party spokesmen; and on the last day, November 20, the Conservatives had to filibuster their own bill in committee for an hour and a half because there was no other business ready for the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) was, I think, in Japan and was not aware of what was going on here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was in Japan when the house was in recess.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He may have been telling the Japanese people there was no unemployment in Canada. Then we had a supply motion, the only supply motion brought forward last autumn. This government complains that they cannot get their estimates through, and they brought in one supply motion last autumn and introduced the estimates of one department of government-


Mr. Churchill:: Six.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They introduced the estimates of one department of government, the Department of Agriculture, for consideration. Most of the time in considering item No. 1 of those estimates was taken up by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) filibustering his own estimates in order to explain what he really meant by something he said out west. It took him an hour or so to do it. Speaking on the supply motion on November 5 and November 6 the Conservatives spent two hours and three minutes, the Liberals
3450	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership two hours and 49 minutes, the Social Creditors one hour and 43 minutes-which is a pretty good percentage of the time-and the New Democratic party one hour and 10 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I have to go through this evidence because the Prime Minister made these vague and general statements and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) made equally vague and general statements last evening. In view of this we will just look into the facts and try to get the truth, which is a very important thing to do in these situations. The budget resolutions last autumn took up eight days, including four short days, in committee of ways and means. On those discussions-and they were very important discussions on the economic state of the nation-in the budget debate without a budget, as we called it, the Liberals spent six hours and 44 minutes analysing the economy and the government's proposals, if they had any, to deal with the state of the economy, the Social Credit party spent six hours and 19 minutes, the Progressive Conservatives three hours and 36 minutes, and the New Democratic party three hours and 49 minutes. With regard to the debate on the address, the Conservatives spent 14 hours and 16 minutes, and we spent 14 hours and 31 minutes. On the resolution in connection with the farm loan bill, a bill which was so important and so perfect that no change could be made to it, all we had to do was get it through the house at once, the Progressive Conservatives-this was a bill they were supporting and which they did not want to change; all they wanted to do was praise it- spent two hours and 48 minutes, while it took the Liberals two hours and 26 minutes to try to make it a better bill.
Mr. Speaker, that is the evidence to support the record. If, in the face of that record, the Prime Minister and his government want to go to the country on the charge of obstruction, as they tried to do last June, that is perfectly all right with us.
The Prime Minister made great play this afternoon on the improvements in the economy and he produced evidence to support his statement that there has been an encouraging improvement in the economy in recent months. The Prime Minister is, of course, following his usual practice of manufacturing straw men of enormous size so that they will be much more impressive when he knocks them down. He accused us last year of prophesying doom and gloom in the budget debate-


John George Diefenbaker: Throughout the campaign.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the Prime Minister would bother to look at the speech I was able to make in the few minutes which remained after the budget, before dissolution, he will find that my criticism at that time of the minister of finance, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) was that he had been a little too pessimistic in his calculations with respect to the economy during the current year. We thought it would be rather better than the prediction the minister of finance had made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You cannot support that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has talked about greed for office. I would remind the right hon. gentleman that his government, in its determination to go to the polls at a time they thought it would be best for them in order to hold on to office-and I am not complaining about that-called an election a year ago, one year before they needed to do so. They called that election without the budget having been discussed. They called that election knowing a financial crisis was approaching, and the evidence which has been submitted to parliament this session proves this to have been so beyond a shadow of a doubt.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is false.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They called an election in these circumstances hoping they could get through it before the financial crisis occurred in a way which would require devaluation of the dollar during the election period. Unfortunately, the government's calculations were wrong. The financial crisis developed more quickly than they had expected and they had to devalue the dollar under pressure, in crisis conditions, in the middle of an election. In spite of devaluation the financial crisis got worse and worse until we reached the situation which confronted the government the day after the election. What did they do then to get Canada out of that really critical difficulty? They went down to Washington and saw "those people" in Washington and New York. They sent their experts across the border to say: We are in trouble. Will you help us out to the extent of one billion United States dollars?
The Prime Minister had a good deal to say about defence. He was somewhat harsh with me because I had not said anything on defence in my statement yesterday-although I did, I believe, spend some 25 or 30 minutes on the subject of defence, using it as an illustration in support of the amendment we were moving that the government, as a result of its indecisive, weak and contradictory policies is incapable of handling the nation's business. Defence was a good illustration of

that contention. But the Prime Minister wants some more categorical statements from this side as to our defence policy even though he, as the head of a government, refuses to tell us what his defence policy is. There seems to be no way at all by which we can force this government to undertake its primary responsibility of telling this house and the people what exactly its policy is in national defence at the present time. They just will not do it. They are drifting along hoping for the best and hoping they can continue to drift until after the day of the election-and that is not going to be far ahead now.
This afternoon the Prime Minister did not have anybody else to clarify or interpret his remarks, so he attempted to do that himself. He attempted to clarify-I think the word he used was "simplify"-his earlier stand. His earlier stand certainly needs both simplification and clarification. I defy anyone to get either simplification or clarification or, indeed, intelligence from the Prime Minister's statement today as to what the defence policy of this government is. He rambled around a good deal. He attempted to throw some light into dark corners. But he did not succeed in any way, shape or form in reconciling the differences, which are now out in the open, and obvious, between himself and the former minister of national defence. Those differences were made very clear last night by the minister when he appeared before a television press conference. And I may add that the stand taken by the former minister last night can hardly be attributed to the Liberal propaganda machine.
Then, apparently in an attempt to justify his own position in this matter, whatever that may be, the Prime Minister struck a blow for civilian control of defence policy. It should not be necessary to repeat in this house or in any democratic assembly in a sovereign state that civilian control of military and defence policy is essential. It has been so in our country. It will continue to be so, as well as, I hope, in all free countries.
As the Prime Minister said this afternoon- I think I am quoting him correctly-"The business of defence is too serious to be left to the generals". Presumably it requires civilians. But the former minister of national defence had something to say about that, too, last night in his television broadcast. He indicated that the business of defence is also too serious to be left to people who do not know anything about it and who are not experts in it.
Then the Prime Minister, in order to justify this government's policy of drift and delay, which has been going on for so long in defence, this afternoon repeats what he tried
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership to convince us was the situation a week or so ago, namely that there have been two recent developments which require further delay. He referred this afternoon, once again, to the NATO council meeting in Ottawa in May-and we shall be very glad indeed to welcome that NATO council to Ottawa in May-and the Nassau declaration, the declaration by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Our Prime Minister said once again that this declaration places our role in NATO and in continental and collective defence in some doubt-that it may be changed. It is strange indeed that one of the parties to that declaration, the United States itself, denies that any such result will flow from that declaration. I should not need to say anything more about this, because the minister of national defence took that view last night, and he ought to know. So far as the NATO meeting is concerned, are we now in a position in this country when the re-examination, reconsideration and renegotiation, if you like, of our defence policy is to be made in May of 1963 at a NATO council meeting in Ottawa without this parliament knowing anything at all about the proposals the government is placing before that council?
Of course this is just a smokescreen. We all know that. Some of us know something about how the NATO council operates. This is the spring meeting of the NATO council. It will last for a couple of days at the most. Here in fact this NATO council meeting in Ottawa is going to re-examine and revise Canadian policy. We are in February now, Mr. Speaker. Believe me, the government of this country should have some indication of what that renegotiation and revision is. Of course they have not any indication of it. They have no proposals for that purpose. However, they are using this council meeting as an excuse for further delay. They hope they can get beyond the election period without having to say anything about this matter. They blame it on Nassau. They blame it on NATO.


Howard Charles Green: Of course that is not true.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is true; it is the truth and the whole truth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are, of course, some negotiations going on. We do not know about any negotiations going on with NATO. But we do not know about negotiations going on as a result of Nassau with Canada. We know, of course, that the whole question of a NATO nuclear deterrent is under review now. It did not take a Nassau communique to tell us that. In December, 1957, the NATO council committed itself to the use of nuclear tactical
3452	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership defensive weapons for deterrent and protection purposes. They have discussed how to do that ever since. At Nassau the United Kingdom and the United States leaders brought forward a positive plan by which one aspect of this nuclear deterrent could be transferred from intermediate ballistic missiles to submarines with Polaris missiles. That was the extent of their contribution to this discussion of a NATO nuclear deterrent, and this has nothing whatever to do with any Canadian contribution to NATO. The Prime Minister himself must know that if he knows anything about these matters.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does he place no importance at all on this question of a multilateral nuclear force which, as he knows, is practically a brand new subject for discussion in NATO?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed, I place the greatest possible importance on it and I shall be glad to discuss that matter in a moment. However, I also know that this question of a multilateral nuclear deterrent force in NATO, as the minister knows, has been under discussion for quite a long time.


Howard Charles Green: No; this is a brand new scheme.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the minister should know, the alteration in some of the earlier plans takes the form of building up a NATO nuclear deterrent on the sea with Polaris missiles in submarines under NATO control.


Howard Charles Green: Plus tactical weapons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, plus nuclear tactical weapons. But what has this to do with the Bomarc in Canada, the CF-101 in Canada or the CF-104 in our NATO air division which has the role of strike reconnaissance which will not be effected at all by this change?


Howard Charles Green: The Leader of the Opposition would not wish to misinform the house. The question of the CF-104 comes primarily under that multilateral nuclear control and is under discussion in the NATO council.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course that is so. There is no doubt about that. Every part of the NATO force in Europe is under NATO control in that sense. Every contribution from every NATO member which is part of SACEUR comes under the NATO command. However, the minister knows that no proposal has been made to remove the function of strike reconnaissance from NATO and that no proposal has been made to take that function away from the Canadian air division. That is the point at issue. These changes which are


taking place now are not changes which are going to affect the role which the government has accepted for the Canadian forces overseas.


Howard Charles Green: They may do so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree with me in this regard, if that change were recommended by the NATO authorities, and they may in time be recommended. In view of the fact that it took us four years from the time we agreed to take on this role until the planes were being delivered, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs think these changes could be made overnight? If it takes a long time to make these changes-and I am thinking of a year or two years-is the Secretary of State for External Affairs satisfied to leave this air division in Europe without any effective weapons at all during that time?
The Prime Minister said the other day "We are continuing to negotiate with the United States". This was the first mention of negotiations. This mention of negotiations was criticized, and quite rightly, by the United States secretary of state as making public the fact of such confidential negotiations without letting them know in advance. It is something we had no right to do, any more than they had a right to issue that note of theirs. However, I have not heard any indication of regret on the part of the Prime Minister that he let this information out in his speech, about these negotiations. We were not told in this House of Commons even what department of government was taking part in them. We have not yet been told that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You were told that yesterday.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, you were told that yesterday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read your Hansard.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: You refused to answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In these negotiations the Prime Minister said we will continue to hope to make arrangements so that nuclear warheads will be readily available. What a farcical position to take in the light of the experience of last October over Cuba: we will continue to negotiate so that these nuclear warheads will be readily available after the emergency develops. It would be of great comfort to the air defence command of this continent to know this if there should be-and I pray God there never will be-a bomber attack on this continent. These things are no good against missiles; we all agree on that matter. If there should be, supplementary to a missile attack, a bomber attack on this continent it

would be a great comfort to them to know they would have two bases in Canada which would play their part in defence after we get the missiles from the United States when the attack has begun.
Nothing could be more ridiculous than that policy. As long as there was any opportunity of changing that policy before the missiles were in place and before the stations had been acquired, we thought it should be changed. But the missiles are there now. The CF-101's are in the squadrons. The CF-104's are being delivered to the squadrons. If we have got so far, as the former minister of national defence is now pointing out, where these weapons are in place and where our men are expected to use them, we must now take that final step without which the other steps do not mean anything at all. We have just thrown away three quarters of a billion dollars. What we on this side say is this, and- I hope this will answer the Prime Minister, when he says that we have no policy. What we on this side say is this. The time having come for a decision-a decision which could have been avoided perhaps up until a year ago, as the minister of national defence admitted in his statement-we on this side think the government should make the decision; and if they do so, if they take the final step, we will support them in that step. If they refuse to do that, and if they leave our squadrons without the weapons, and if we have the responsibility, we will see that our men are armed with the weapons with which to carry out the role which this government gave them for Canada and which the Prime Minister admits now was given to them for Canada. However, that is not the whole story.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He said so a week ago last Friday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, he said so a week ago last Friday. Something which makes it all the worse, he said so in February, 1959. He makes that statement, "We will carry out our obligations", but he makes it impossible for the men who are in the field to do that. What we say is this, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat this. We say that we should honour our pledges, keep our promises, and put our forces in a position to do the job we have asked them to do for our country. We are not a country which welshes on its commitments. We are not a country which welshes on the means necessary to carry out our commitments.
It is perfectly true that in the literal sense we have discharged our commitment. We have got an air division in Europe and that is what we promised to do. But we promised more than that. We promised to give this air division the means to discharge a certain role and we have not done that. That goes also for the Bomarc bases and the interceptor
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership squadron. But having done that, and this is where the New Democratic party and, indeed the former minister of national defence misinterpret our policy completely, we reserve the right-this is one of the very first things we would do if we had the responsibility-to re-examine the whole basis of Canadian defence policy.
We said at the beginning that these were not the right things for Canadian forces to be doing, that we thought there was a better contribution that Canada could make inside the alliance, because we believe in the alliance. We differ from the New Democratic party in that respect, because on the evidence of the resolutions at the founding convention of their party they are dedicated to the proposition of getting rid of NATO and getting rid of the Warsaw pact at the same time. We on this side are not dedicated to any proposition of that kind.
They are also dedicated to the proposition that NATO itself should not become a nuclear power. I say, Mr. Speaker, and I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) will perhaps agree with me on this, that, even if the nuclear weapons may be under the custody of one country, if control can be shared in some effective way through a NATO coalition, if we can do that, if all NATO members agree on a NATO nuclear deterrent, then Canada should not contract out from contributing to that collective deterrent. If I felt that way I would advocate withdrawal from NATO. That is not extending the nuclear club but limiting the nuclear club. That is taking nuclear weapons out of national control and putting them under collective international control.
I should like to think that that is possible. I do not know whether it will be. It is going to be a very difficult thing indeed to do, but surely that is the line along which we should be moving, toward the isolation of the nuclear deterrent under NATO-we do not want to get this all mixed up with strategic nuclear bombs-as a kind of reserve force under NATO control, whoever may have custody of the weapons, so that if there is an attack of any kind on the NATO front line that attack can be met by conventional forces and held at least for the length of time required for the political decision to be taken on which the whole fate of the world may depend.
That seems to me to be a very intelligible position to take, and this does not mean that we on this side are in favour of nuclear weapons as such.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly not.
3454	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hon. gentlemen opposite may laugh. Perhaps they are in favour of nuclear weapons. We are in favour of doing away with nuclear weapons, of doing away with testing, of doing away with all weapons, of doing away with war which is the ultimate immorality. But we are not going to take steps now that will dishonour the pledges we have made until we have a chance to reexamine the basis of defence policy and find a better defence policy for Canada than that which has been in effect in the last five years. That does not mean-of course it does not mean although it is being misinterpreted to mean-that the day after we accepted these weapons we would, if we were in power, repudiate that acceptance and renegotiate ourselves out of that pledge at once. Of course that could not be done. It will take time, it will take effort, and during the time that is required and the effort that is required, because we do these things in co-operation with our friends, we will continue to ensure that the men we have over there will have the weapons to do the job which they are there to do.
There are a great many things that we think can be more effectively done by Canada than some of the things we have been asked to do in the last few years or in the last 10 or 15 years, if you like, because these things go back prior to 1957. But the point is that we have now at this time accepted a certain pledge and we will carry out that pledge until we get a better defence policy for Canada which will make this kind of weapon, I would hope, unnecessary. I am not even going to say now that our renegotiation will be on the basis that we will never be able to use nuclear weapons because by that time we may have a genuine NATO nuclear deterrent under NATO control. So I will not in advance, so far as I have any responsibility and so far as my own views are concerned, contract out of participation in that kind of NATO defence activity.
There is the situation so far as our defence policy is concerned. I am satisfied that we can work this out in collaboration with our friends-our friends in Washington in so far as continental defence is concerned, our friends in NATO in so far as NATO defence is concerned. It does not add anything to the dignity of debate on these matters for the Prime Minister of this country to suggest that any time anybody on this side goes across the border he goes across to get his instructions and come back and make a speech here. That is the kind of cheap insinuation in which the Prime Minister is so expert.
IMr. Pearson.]

The Prime Minister made great play with the fact that we make our own policies in Canada. Who is doubting that? Who made policy in Canada from 1935 to 1957? If you think that Canada was a satellite of the United States during those years, go down to Washington and ask the people who were in charge then. Go to the United Nations and find out what Canadian policy was at the United Nations and whether we were a satellite of any country.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Suez.


John George Diefenbaker: Who made the policy in 1938 when you kept Britain out?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We want to get back to those days when Canada was so respected, because she did make her own policy; when Canada was so respected because she made her own policy in co-operation and friendship with her allies.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, about a month ago, while the members of this house were at home in their riding during the holiday season recess, an American general, General Norstad, visited Ottawa. He made some statements and the Liberal party got so excited that they find themselves in confusion today.
During the last week or so, we heard very long speeches, four in all by the Liberal party leader and several also by the government head, but in all those speeches, no mention was ever made of the programs required_to solve this country's problems. Efforts were made particularly to spread confusion and to cast blame on the other party. I suggest that everything the Liberals said about the Conservative party is true and everything the Conservatives said about the Liberal party is also true. Both parties are right when they criticize each other. It is remarkable that when a party is in the opposition, it always seems better than when in power. But when they are in power, both of them, whether it be the Liberal party during 22 years or the Conservative party today, we find that they are irresolute and confused. The opposition party can always pretend it can do everything. Those gentlemen are so efficient when they sit on this side, they make fine speeches and from what they say one would think they can do anything.
If the Canadian people could only attend the debates of the house, they would realize that the old line parties are better in the opposition than in power. They would then

take the two old line parties and place them both in the opposition. Then, with a new party, we should be-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: That is the comedy which has been repeated for 97 years, with those two old line parties always contradicting themselves, depending on which side of the house they sit.
I hope this situation has enlightened the people of Canada and that they will resolve to cast aside these two old political parties that for years have been encrusted in routine and have done absolutely nothing for the people, except to rant at each other. I hope that before long they will elect a party which will not merely hunger for power but will legislate for the people, so as to enact legislations which will give satisfaction to the people and enable them to live contentedly in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have been amazed at the attitude taken by the leader of the Liberal party in this house in the last week. In four long speeches, each lasting about an hour and a half, he repeated himself, of course, but brought forward no policy. He quoted statistics; so many hours, minutes, and seconds for the speeches of each party. Much good that did us. That is what he does all the time. He contradicted himself. Ever since General Norstad made his statement, the Leader of the Opposition seized upon it to make political capital out of it, and changed his stand and his line of argument as often as he changes shirts.
Mr. Speaker, what is exactly the position of the Liberal party at this moment? That position was stated yesterday by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who made a good job of it indeed, but I find the position taken by the leader of the Liberal party so ridiculous that he cannot expect to run the affairs of a country like Canada, and this is something that we should do well to point out today to the people of Canada.
The leader of the Liberal party says: We are against atomic weapons, but we have given our word. Let us honour our commitments, let us accept atomic weapons and, afterwards, we shall do everything we can to get rid of them. That is the situation.


Mr. Legare:: He never said that.


Gilles Grégoire: Did you ever hear a more ridiculous argument, coming from a statesman. And that proves one thing. When he was second in command, when he was working behind the scene, in other words, when
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership he was only a civil servant and relied on his superiors for orders, the present leader of the Liberal party could afford to work for peace. But the leadership of his party went to his head and since he cannot do without orders, he sought them from foreigners. Since then he has been putting forward arguments like the ones he is setting forth now.


Mr. Caouette:: Silly arguments.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is quite right; those are silly arguments.
While listening to the speech the Leader of the Opposition delivered a few minutes ago, I noticed two striking contradictions.
He called for the arming of our NATO forces with nuclear weapons and, then, a few minutes later, he stated that NATO should not be allowed to become a nuclear power.


Gérard Légaré: He did not say that.


Gilles Grégoire: That is what he said this afternoon. If your ears are blocked, wash them.
I should like to refer to certain remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition on January 25, 1963. Page 3125 of Hansard bears witness to another contradiction on the part of the hon. member. Here is what he said:
-as I stated earlier today, I accept the necessity, as does our party, of the nuclear deterrent.
A little further, on the same page and in the same column, he continued as follows:
I therefore repeat that, while keeping our pledges-
And by that he meant the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
-we would seek a better and more effective defence role for Canada in the alliance-
Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the Liberal opposition wishes our country to play a better role, why is he satisfied with mediocrity, with playing second fiddle? He has been contradicting himself without end on that point. The statement he made this afternoon was yet another contradiction.
The saddest part of all this is that only a few months ago hon. members, especially those from the province of Quebec, were strongly and uncompromisingly against the acquisition of nuclear armaments for Canada. And now, like sheep and followers, like slaves before their master, they crawl before him. Even if it is not their opinion, they agree. Yes chief, all right chief, we want nuclear weapons now.
Mr. Speaker, as I said already, voters of this country were betrayed in the past by
3456	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership members of the old line parties because they were crawling on all fours before the contributors to the electoral funds. In fact, instead of following ideas expressed by their constituents, those members were willing to bend backwards in order to please their leader, to remain within their party and to keep the electoral fund well filled. What we see today is another striking example.
Mr. Speaker, when we think of all the travelling done by the Liberal leader to New York or Washington, when we see all the support he can obtain from the Americans, we are wondering whether the electoral fund of the Liberal party will not be replenished by our neighbours to the south, for the next election.
The June 18 election has established one fact. Today, the people understand, the people have seen through the makeup of the two old parties. They have realized that they have been too long betrayed and deceived by the old parties. People know that there is something stronger than electoral funds, something stronger than the financial backers behind the electoral funds. That is the will of the people expressed on voting day which can make or break political parties, financiers and electoral funds. Now gentlemen of the two old parties, you will see in the next election that the people have understood that you were betraying them and selling them down the river to financial interests.
Mr. Speaker, when we are told: "Let us accept nuclear arms, let us arm the Bomarc missiles with nuclear warheads", and at the same time we hear that, "of course, the Bomarc missiles are now obsolete, they are of no use by now, they are just like peashooters", we may wonder why there is so much propaganda today in this country for having Canada buy obsolete armament, which is not going to be used anyway.
Those gentlemen on the back benches while blindly following their leader, who is serving other interests, might well wonder, if such attitude is not simply helping those financially interested who, as they always did in the past, want to get rich producing arms, for which we have to pay taxes and levies.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party has won a good name in the past. Our Canadian citizens, and more particularly those of the province of Quebec, were hired for our armament plants. In that way, the Liberals created work, paid salaries, and, once their munitions were manufactured, these were thrown into the St. Lawrence river, under the bridge to the island of Orleans, which gave the Liberal party an excellent reputation.
{Mr. Gregoire.]


David Réal Caouette: And what about Sorel?


Gilles Grégoire: At Sorel, it was the same thing.
But today, they don't even want our Canadians to work in arms factories. No, they want to get arms from the United States, to enrich American money-men, forgetting, at the same time, that they failed to give jobs to our Canadian citizens. I would rather that those arms were made in Canada to be thrown into the river later. At least, our Canadian citizens would be able to get some work. Today, they would rather go and buy nuclear bombs, which only the Americans are able to manufacture and which are controlled by them, when and if they sell us some. Afterwards, we are told: "We shall never use them."
And, as far as we are concerned, we must pay for them. Should we let them do this without telling the Canadian people that it is their own money, paid in taxes and imposts, which will buy arms that will not only increase the danger of war and tension in the world, but will never be used and will remain under complete American control? Should we accept that? Never.


Mr. Cardin:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Ask any question you want.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Does the hon. member not think that it is up to the Canadian government to take all possible action and to acquire every possible armament to protect Canada against communism?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly. But the hon. member does not know which arms can really fight communism. In fact, communism has never been successfully fought by warfare. On the contrary, it has developed during wars. And those who are responsible for the resurgence of capitalism throughout the world are politicians like those who are sitting on my right and on the opposite benches, who have never tried to help people find lodging and food, and who have done nothing to alleviate their hardships. It is then that communism is born. Russia is the most striking example I can find of a country where communism crept in under cover of a war. The Polish people did not want communism. It was forced upon them in the course of a war, and the same thing happened in Czechoslovakia and in Hungary. The citizens of those two countries did not want war, but they were compelled with guns-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Could I put a question to the hon. member?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Does the hon. member not admit that, had it not been for NATO, Russia would have invaded the whole of western Europe?


David Réal Caouette: It has in fact invaded it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Not western Europe, eastern Europe.


Gilles Grégoire: Listen carefully-yesterday, some hon. members opposite said that you do not always ask intelligent questions, and you just did again. Do I believe that had it not been for NATO, and so on-come now. How should I know? NATO was there. Would Russia have invaded Europe had it not been for NATO? I do not know, no more than you do. If you have other questions, go ahead, but no hypothetical questions like that one.
Communism has never developed nor expanded over the world through wars-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: NATO was not in existence during the war.


Gilles Grégoire: -but always as a result of hardship. And from the day you get that into your little heads, you will really begin to fight communism.
Go through Canada, through this country of ours, go out in your constituencies and see how many people are unemployed, how many farmers are not even able to live on their land, how many people are living on unemployment insurance benefits, on unemployment assistance or on social assistance. You will find cases of extreme poverty. If you are near the people, you will notice that in the minds of each and every individual who is undergoing hardship in a rich country like Canada, there are germs of revolution against government, against parliament, against our institutions. Why? Because those people see that they cannot prosper in spite of the wealth of their country.
I can remember when, in the 1957 election what a walloping you took, you Liberals, and you are not through getting it on the nose unless you change your attitude. I remember when the Prime Minister and his ministers were making the round of constituencies in a "baby kissing" campaign. Indeed there was no end of pictures showing the Prime Minister kissing a small baby he was holding in his arms, while you yourselves went about the country repeating "Canada is rich, Canada is prosperous."
You were saying about the same thing I have been hearing since yesterday, when the
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership Conservatives claimed they have been doing everything, that everything is going fine, that production is growing, and so on. If that is so, why did they bring in the austerity program? But then you Liberals had done the same thing.
In 1957, all over the country, you were saying: "Everything is fine; we are rich; we are prosperous." Where was this country's prosperity, this country's wealth? The people took it upon themselves to tell you Liberals, that you had wandered away from them, that you no longer understood them, that you were remote from the real problems of the people, and the people took it upon themselves to send back home the group of ministers who were then cabinet members. Just remember that time, gentlemen.
But five years in the opposition have not been enough to open your eyes. Five years in the opposition have not made you any wiser. You have not changed, you Liberals, and your stay in the opposition has not been long enough. But, if it is any comfort to you, we will send a second old party to sit alongside of you next time.
The Liberal party today is thinking only in terms of petty politics. It is not concerned with the administration. What is the Liberal party, exactly? It is the party of taxation. Remember the financial situation of this country when you took office in 1935, and what it had become in 1957 when you went out.


David Réal Caouette: The party of taxation, the party of war.


Gilles Grégoire: The party of taxation, the party of debts that now weigh upon us. The other day, you voted for debt-free money, and you did not even know what it was. In fact, you have never even understood the first thing about it. You will never understand anything, because you grovel before big interests. When man is dazzled by the golden calf, he does not see anything on either side of him: he is blind. That is just about where you stand today. You did not understand anything.
The Liberal party, especially between 1935 and 1957-and the people now know it-has always sold our natural resources and our industries to foreigners.


An hon. Member:: It was Duplessis, your leader, who sold them.


Gilles Grégoire: It was Mr. Duplessis, and it was also the doing of you Liberals. So it is that now, each year this country is being bled of our money to the benefit of the United States in order to pay out $770 million in interest or dividends on foreign investments in Canada.
3458	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership
You, Liberals, are responsible for that situation.
You want a general election? Well, you will have one. But you will be judged according to your past. You will be judged by electors who know that you have always been the party subservient to finance, a party which did everything to enrich the rich, and was satisfied with the crumbs.
The leader of your party denounces indecision. But what did he ever decide? He does not make his decisions himself. He changes his mind according to the wish of his adviser, who helps him write his speeches, whether it be Maurice Lamontagne or Maurice Sauve. When the Maurices change, so does his opinion. Most fortunately, one of them has lost some of his influence, because someone saw to it to defeat Lamontagne.
Mr. Speaker, the political situation has been discussed in the last two days. The Conservatives tried to explain the position of the Liberals, and vice versa.
I ask the Canadian people to judge according to what they have obtained from the old line parties. In the next election, how can the people declare themselves satisfied with what they have obtained in the last 96 years? How can they pretend to be satisfied when confusion has been prevailing in the country for the past several years, through the fault of our two old line parties, when labour is set against management, and management against labour, when there is still, after 96 years, a struggle for bilingualism and bicul-turalism, when there is only wrangling everywhere, when our resources are being developed by foreigners, when our taxes are higher than anywhere else in the world?
With all the information media at their disposal today, how can the people fail to understand that it is time to do something in Canada?
It is time for a change; that has been said before-


David Réal Caouette: We have nothing to lose.


Gilles Grégoire: We have nothing to lose. We must try something new, that is obvious.
Besides, there are several incompetent people we could lose and it would not matter much.
Mr. Speaker, for a few months already, the people who elected our candidates have been saying: We have not lost anything, let us keep them. To those in the other ridings, we say: You have nothing to lose either.
Tonight, we will be called upon to cast our vote. We will vote neither for one old party nor for the other. We are not interested in


supporting them. We will not vote against something, but for something. In any case, we will vote according to our conscience.
A while ago, I heard the Prime Minister say: "But after the way the Liberal party has treated you, after the abuse they have thrown at you, surely you are not going to vote with them?"
No, because we believe that voting with them would be prostituting ourselves from a political standpoint.
On the other hand, we have put forth a reasonable and quite sensible motion, and they will be the ones who, for once, will have the opportunity of supporting common sense and logic.
Mr. Speaker, after the events which have taken place these last few days, I cannot help saying that, if the Canadian people had been able to follow, on television-as was once suggested by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau)-what goes on in the House of Commons, they would now be in a position not only to pass judgment but to realize that the two old line parties waste their time playing politics and do not worry enough about the people's interest.
I hope that at the next election the two old line parties will be sent back home in order to make room for those who are more competent than they are.
(Text):


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this is a momentous debate in what may be the dying hours of this parliament. We have listened this afternoon to statements both by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Pearson) and I have no intention of getting into this controversy of the pot calling the kettle black. I have always felt that to be led down the garden path by either a Liberal or a Conservative would add nothing to one's pristine purity. In a no confidence motion a party with a small representation in this house naturally faces certain difficulties, because while we may not approve of the government, on the other hand a vote against the government would be interpreted in some quarters as being in support of the official opposition.


An hon. Member:: Heaven forbid.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A group like ours has considerable difficulty, of course, in getting its views before the public. If there is one thing the Prime Minister said this afternoon with which I agree, it is the fact that in recent weeks the press, radio and television of this country have certainly been playing a song closely akin to the desires and wishes of the Liberal party in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The points of view expressed by other groups have, in many cases, been very successfully silenced. We in this group ever since June 18 last have refused to take a destructive attitude with reference to public affairs. Even before this parliament was convened the Leader of the Opposition was calling upon all groups to pledge themselves to voting no confidence in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Even before parliament met-


Mr. McCleave:: Irresponsible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -every newspaper, every radio and television station was telephoning members elect and asking them what they were going to do about turning the government out. The members of this group made it abundantly clear before parliament met and after it assembled that we were not here just to turn the government out; that we were here to support any legislation which in our opinion would grapple successfully with the national and international problems confronting Canada. We recognized then, as we do now, that Canada faces a serious situation. As to the international monetary exchange crisis of last June, let me say that in spite of the Prime Minister's optimistic statement this afternoon I am not convinced it has entirely disappeared. There is the subject of economic growth and unemployment. There are the difficulties facing agriculture; the fact that we lag far behind other western countries in health and welfare programs. There is the need for new trade policies in the light of changing trade patterns throughout the world. We said that all these things demanded aggressive action and dynamic leadership. We said we were prepared to support the government if they produced this leadership and that we would vote against them if they failed to do so. Our votes have not been motivated either by a desire to get the government out or, God forbid, by a desire to get the Liberals in.
But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that having sat since September 27, because of the indecisiveness of the government and also, I think, as a result of a good deal of obstruction by the official opposition, this parliament has been reduced to a state of such impotence that the only answer now is to give the people of Canada an opportunity to go to the polls.
Let me just mention a few things we had hoped might be done during this session. We had hoped the government would grapple with the need to plan this nation's economy. I do not need to elaborate on that subject
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership because, fortunately, in the last 12 months everyone has apparently become converted to the idea of economic planning. But all we have had to date from the government is the prospect of four boards composed mainly of part time members meeting periodically in Ottawa; four boards reporting to four separate ministers without machinery for coordinating their efforts or their plans. In many cases their terms of reference overlap and, above all, no provision has been made for a national economic development fund without which these four boards are simply groups of men holding little meetings in a corner.
We are still faced with serious unemployment. The Prime Minister talked this afternoon about the growth in the gross national product, but the fact remains that this growth has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in employment. Unemployment continues to be a source of serious anxiety. The speech from the throne talks about providing one million jobs over five years. I have not seen anything in legislation which indicates how these million jobs are to be created, and if we do create them this would only take care of the young people leaving our universities, schools and technical colleges to enter the labour market during that five year period. We would still have to make provision for the half million or so who are presently unemployed in addition to those who may be displaced as a result of modem technology and automation.
The matter of trade is to the fore. I am convinced that Britain's application to join the European common market having been rejected, this country will find itself facing circumstances whose difficulty we have not yet begun fully to appreciate. I would have expected that during the past four or five months the government would have put forward some ideas about the future development of our trading program in the light of such events as the emergence of the European common market and the United States trade expansion legislation in order that Canada, one of the great exporting nations, might have some part in this trade revival and this changing trade pattern all over the world. But we have had no statement other than that there is to be a ministerial meeting of GATT.
The subject of medicare is to the fore in every province in Canada. The government announced the appointment of a royal commission in December, 1960, and we are told the commission is to report some time in June or July of this year. That is a long period of inaction. As a matter of fact, since the provision of health services lies within
3460	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership provincial jurisdiction the federal government already had all the information it needed in order to bring forward the kind of enabling legislation which would permit parliament to pay sums of money to any province which wanted to set up a medical care insurance plan, and leave it to the individual province concerned to determine the conditions and the type of plan it was ready to offer. I submit that the appointment of the commission has been merely a stall to avoid the necessity of facing this issue.
Action is needed with regard to agriculture. We were told this afternoon that the eastern farmers are to have feed grain. We were told there is to be a two-price system for wheat. These proposals are certainly not before us at the present time and nothing has been suggested as a remedy for one of the main complaints of farmers of every kind in this country, namely that all across Canada they find costs increasing while, on the average, the prices they receive are going down.
I see Your Honour getting a little restless and I would therefore suggest we call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for the dinner recess I was in the process of giving some of the reasons why we in the New Democratic party feel that the government and the official opposition have failed to give the kind of decisive leadership that will enable this country to cope with the major problems confronting Canada. I was just going to discuss the question of the acquisition of nuclear arms and the government's failure to give us any clear and decisive statement on this matter.
The government's constant delay in making a final decision ought not to obscure the fact that they have been moving steadily, step by step, toward the acquisition of nuclear arms. We have the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon that negotiations would continue with the United States so that nuclear arms would be available for the Bomarcs and the Voodoos. They may not physically be accepted into Canada until they are needed, but they will be available. From the statements which have been made in the last week or ten days there is no doubt that nuclear arms will be acquired by our NATO forces.
Mention has been made of the ministerial meeting of NATO in May. However, I would


remind the house of the statement of the former minister of national defence, one which has never been repudiated by the Prime Minister, to the effect that at the May ministerial meeting of NATO, should NATO reaffirm a nuclear role for Canada, then Canada will equip her NATO forces to discharge her obligations.
Reference has been made to the Nassau agreement. It seems to me that this is sheer window dressing. There is no likelihood of France's agreeing to making NATO a multilateral nuclear power. I would further add that making NATO a multilateral nuclear power is certainly one of the most serious ways of increasing the membership of the nuclear club.
I say that the government has not given us a clear statement. If the Prime Minister or any member of the government had come into this house this afternoon and told us that the government was prepared to negotiate Canada out of that nuclear role in NORAD and in NATO I think we would have been able to take a different position with reference to this whole question of confidence in the government. However, they have not done so. We feel that the only difference between the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition is that the Liberal opposition are prepared to accept nuclear weapons now, whereas the government is delaying the final acceptance of them but is undoubtedly committed in that direction. As was said by the former minister of national defence, it probably means a delay of only some four months.
In supporting a motion of no confidence in the government we in this party wish to make one thing perfectly clear. This does not involve a vote of confidence in the official opposition. They speak of decisiveness. One has only to look at the amendment which they moved. They have refused to take a definite stand of any sort on any question of policy. They have refused to put forth any constructive proposal. Instead, they have contented themselves with negative criticism. The fact is, of course, that the Liberal party have never taken a stand. They always believe that a moving object is harder to hit. They are in favour of medicare in Ontario; and in Saskatchewan, where the government are trying to put medicare into operation, they fought it tooth and nail almost to the point of civil insurrection. In the province of Ontario they are in favour of progressive labour legislation and in Newfoundland, under a Liberal government, they have the most repressive labour legislation that has been passed in this country in half a century. The same thing is true of their stand in reference to nuclear arms.


An hon. Member:: But you are going to vote with them.


Frank Howard: We are voting against you.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) this afternoon said they had a leader who is not afraid to take a stand. The obvious answer, Mr. Speaker, is "for how long?"
A bulletin put out by the Canadian committee for nuclear disarmament quotes a statement by the Leader of the Opposition in January of 1961, when speaking to the Liberal men's club of Vancouver, as follows:
Canada must remain a non-nuclear power. By doing so, Canada can lead the middle powers m the struggle to abolish nuclear weapons and eventually all armaments. I don't believe we need the Bomarc, which is not an effective defence in any sense, and will probably be scrapped by the U.S. one of these days.
There is no suggestion in this statement that we have commitments which we must honour. There is no statement there that, since the government has committed us to nuclear weapons, we must accept them. When the Leader of the Opposition made that statement and other statements we were just as much committed as we are at the present time.
The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon tried to drag a red herring across the trail. He said that we do not want to leave our forces without effective weapons. But, Mr. Speaker, anyone who listened to "Viewpoint" last night and the talk by Paul Simon of Toronto knows that he quoted from the military journals of the United States and the textbooks of the Pentagon to show that in the case of the Bomarc, the Voodoo plane, the Honest John rocket and the F-104 all of them can use conventional weapons, as well as nuclear weapons, with deadly effect, and that it is simply beside the point to argue that we are leaving our forces without effective weapons. This is merely swallowing the propaganda of the military-industrial complex which has terrific propaganda power on this continent.
Since under the rules of the house we must take a vote in a few minutes, I want to say that as far as this party is concerned we feel that the time has come when the people of Canada should have the chance to elect a new government and a new parliament. We in this party hope to give them the chance to elect a government that will so plan the economy of this nation that the major economic decisions affecting the people of Canada will be made by the people of Canada themselves, to so plan the economy of this country that we will have economic growth and that the increased production will be used to raise the living standards of the people of this country, to elect a government that will bring this country into line with the high standards of welfare, health and federal assistance to education which have already
Division
been undertaken by some of the other countries in the western world. Above all, Mr. Speaker, we need a government which is prepared to pledge itself to a non-nuclear role for Canada so that this country can make its contribution to world peace by strengthening the United Nations, by giving of our personnel and our resources to raise living standards throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, we suggest that the hour of decision has come. Let the people decide.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment carried. The question is now on the amendment as amended. All those in favour of the amendment as amended will please say aye.


Some hon. Members:: Aye.


Mr. Speaker:: All those contrary will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members. Is it agreed that the members are in?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment as amended, which reads as follows:
This government has failed up to this time to give a clear statement of policy respecting Canada's national defence, and has failed to organize the business of the house so that the 1963-1964 estimates and budget could be introduced, and has failed to outline a positive program of follow-up action respecting many things for which this parliament and previous parliaments have already given authority, and does not have the confidence of the Canadian people.
All those in favour of the amendment as amended will please rise.
During the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment as amended carried.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall advise His Excellency the Governor General tomorrow.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), the adjournment of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.05 p.m.
The twenty fifth parliament was dissolved on Wednesday, February 6, 1963, by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General.