1963-05-20

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members, today we celebrate the birthday of Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth. As has been customary for some time now we in this house are showing our loyalty and devotion by continuing our work in parliament. As an expression of that loyalty and devotion may I suggest that, if the house so desires, I send on your behalf a birthday message to Her Majesty.
Does that meet with your wishes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES TABLING OF TEXT OF LETTER TO PREMIERS CONCERNING ROYAL COMMISSION

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies in French and two copies in English of a letter I addressed on May 15 to the premiers of all the provinces concerning a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest, if the house desires, these could be printed as an appendix to Hansard of this date.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letters referred to, see appendix.]



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Before the introduction of the following 64 bills I would like to make what I hope will be a reasonably short statement. The house will note that there is a record number of bills, namely 64, listed for introduction by private members on today's order paper. I would like to compliment hon. members on their interest and zeal in submitting such a great number of bills on the opening days of the session.
Some of the bills were considered in the past session and are being reintroduced at this time, but there is also a substantial number of new proposals.
As a result of this flooding in the opening days it is difficult if not impossible for the Chair to review the provisions of these bills to ensure that they conform to the practices and usages of this house. Indeed, copies of most of them will be coming before me for the first time later on in the sitting during the course of subsequent proceedings.
I have two suggestions which I would like to submit to the consideration of the house in order to provide the maximum of time for speeches by the several leaders which, by tradition, are made at this stage of the address debate.
First, the house might wish to consider the advisability of proceeding with the first readings of these bills with the understanding that each will be scrutinized between now and the time appointed for its second reading, when any defects therein will be brought to the attention of the house. As hon. members know, the order for first reading of a bill merely authorizes its printing and, after it has been printed and distributed, they too will be in a position to discuss any irregularity that may be found in the bill.
I should say that a similar suggestion was submitted to, and accepted by the house, by my predecessor which is to be found at page 30 of Hansard, October 1, 1962, and also by Mr. Speaker Michener at page 2382 of Hansard, April 2, 1962.
Second, the house will appreciate that almost two hours or more may be required in order to introduce and give first reading separately to each of the bills listed for introduction in this sitting.
If the house is agreeable, I suggest that by unanimous consent the 64 bills listed for introduction be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the house, subject, of course, to my prior remarks as to the examination and regularity of each bill.
Is it the pleasure of the house to grant unanimous consent for the suggested procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, by unanimous consent of the house I declare that the 64

Proposed Legislation
bills listed for introduction by private members on today's order paper are deemed to have been introduced, read a first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the house.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-2, to provide for pay for work performed on statutory holidays for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION OF MINIMUM RATE OF WAGES FOR EMPLOYEES

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-28, to provide for minimum wages for employees in federal works, undertakings, and businesses.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-3, to amend the Representation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO CHANGE NAME OF ELECTORAL DISTRICT

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-47, to amend the Representation Act.
Motion	agreed	to	and	bill	read	the
first time.



BROADCASTING ACT


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-4, to amend the Broadcasting Act (human rights abuses remedied).
Motion	agreed	to	and	bill	read	the
first time.



AMENDMENT PROVIDING CONTROL OVER COMMUNITY ANTENNA

Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-30, to amend the Broadcasting Act (community antenna). 
Motion	agreed	to	and	bill	read	the
first time.



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING PARTISAN POLITICAL BROADCAST

Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-54, to amend the Broadcasting Act (political programs).
Motion	agreed	to	and	bill	read	the
first time.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-5, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (primary products under processing).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING WAGE EARNERS' ASSIGNMENTS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-12, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (wage earners' assignment).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-6, for the control of consumer credit.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LEGISLATION PROVIDING RELIEF AGAINST UNCONSCIONABLE TRANSACTIONS

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-62, respecting relief against unconscionable transactions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSION ACT


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-7, to amend the Pension Act (judicial appeals).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Proposed Legislation



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD ACT COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-8, to amend the National Harbours Board Act (Tisdale grain terminal).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SMALL LOANS ACT


David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-9, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO REDUCE MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE

David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-14, to amend the Small Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-23, to amend the Small Loans Act (cost of a loan).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. INTEREST ACT



AMENDMENT TO PLACE CEILING ON INTEREST RATES

David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-10, to amend the Interest Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR DISCLOSURE OF COST OF CREDIT

Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-31, to amend the Interest Act (finance charges).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO PLACE CEILING ON INTEREST RATES

Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-55, to amend the Interest Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR EXTENSION OF FISHING ZONES

Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-ll, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (twelve mile fishing zone).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-13, to amend the Civil Service Act (Remembrance Day).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND ARBITRATION

Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-51, to amend the Civil Service Act (collective bargaining and arbitration).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING WITHHOLDING OR REFUSAL OF RIGHTS

John (Jack) McIntosh: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-39, to amend the Civil Service Act (bureaucratic oppression).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-15, to amend the Railway Act (responsibility for dislocation costs).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING ABANDONED RAILWAY LANDS

Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-17, to amend the Railway Act (the public's royalties in abandoned railways).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.

Proposed Legislation



AMENDMENT RESPECTING ABANDONMENT OF BRANCH LINES

Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-27, to amend the Railway Act (abandonment).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WESTERN CANADA VETERINARY COLLEGE


James Norris Ormiston: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-16, to found and constitute the western Canada veterinary college.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (Si. Paul's) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-18, to grant amnesty to and confirm the rights of Asians, Africans and other persons subject to racial discrimination whose admission to Canada may have been irregular or illegal.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-19, to establish the office of parliamentary commissioner.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LEGISLATION TO PERMIT POLITICAL ACTIVITY

Reid Scott: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-52, to enable civil servants to engage in political activity.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ANNUAL VACATIONS ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-20, to amend the Annual Vacations Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Mr. Ormlston.l



SWEEPSTAKES


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-21, with respect to hospital and university sweepstakes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES BOARD

Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-24, to provide for the establishment of a hospital sweepstakes board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEPARTMENT OF STATE ACT


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-22, to amend the Department of State Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVORCE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-25, to establish the office of parliamentary proctor and to regulate taxation of costs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MEASURE TO MODERNIZE DISSOLUTION AND ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE

William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-50, to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION TO REMOVE NECESSITY FOR HOUSE OF COMMONS CONCURRENCE

Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Frontenac) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-41, respecting procedure in relation to parliamentary divorce.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Proposed Legislation INDIAN ACT

Rodolphe Leduc: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-26, to amend the Canada Elections Act (advance polls).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO REDUCE AGE OF VOTERS

Reid Scott: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-60, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO POLITICAL PROGRAMS

Harry Cruickshank Harley: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-63, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political programs).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-29, to provide for the development of certain provinces by the distribution of industry and for the reduction of unemployment therein.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LOTTERIES


James Norris Ormiston: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-32, to establish Canadian futures.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT


William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-33, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (instalment purchases).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
28902-5-3J



AMENDMENT RESPECTING POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF INTOXICANTS

Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-34, to amend the Indian Act (liquor rights).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-35, to amend the Criminal Code (a purge for the King's evil).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR PROVINCIAL LOTTERIES

Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-36, to amend the Criminal Code (provincial lotteries).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT EXCEPT FOR TREASON

Reid Scott: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-37, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING APPEAL IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS

Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-42, to amend the Criminal Code (habeas corpus).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR PROVINCIAL LOTTERIES

Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-44, to amend the Criminal Code (provincial lotteries).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO WATER POLLUTION

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-48, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Proposed Legislation AMENDMENT TO CHANGE RULE RESPECTING INSANITY


Francis Andrew Brewin: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-53, to amend the Criminal Code (insanity).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING BIRTH CONTROL METHODS

Robert William Prittie: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-64, to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT


Barry Mather: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-38, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age discrimination).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT


William Howell Arthur Thomas: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-40, to amend the National Energy Board Act (drainage works).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BANK OF CANADA ACT


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi) moved: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-43, to amend the Bank ol Canada Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Reynold Rapp: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-45, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (agricultural employees' coverage).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Mr. Herridge.l



AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-46, to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act (Indian reserve).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RADIO ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-49, to amend the Radio Act (community antenna).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-56, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960, with respect to the readjustment ol representation in the House ol Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANSPORTATION


Reid Scott: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-57, to provide lor Iree transportation on the railways ol Canada lor senior citizens.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Reid Scott: lor leave to introduce Bill No. C-57, to provide lor ol work lor employees in lederal works, undertakings and businesses.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HUMAN RIGHTS


John Ross Matheson: lor
leave to introduce Bill No. C-59, to provide

for review of administrative powers and to relieve from their misapplication (administrative review).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN FLAG


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-61, respecting a national flag and a national anthem of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Eugene Whelan: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-65, to amend the House of Commons Act (Speaker on dissolution).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, for the excellent reasons Your Honour has just given with respect to the bills by private members, I would ask if this item could stand until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that all items under government notices of motions on today's order paper stand until tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question relating to the meetings he is reported to have held with the secretary of labour of the United States. Could the minister give us any indication as to the gist of these conversations, and some assurance that no action will be taken until the Norris inquiry report on the great lakes strife is available?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the secretary of labour for the United States was in Ottawa for
Inquiries of the Ministry several hours on Friday evening, and at that time we held a preliminary discussion of this whole question. It is expected that tomorrow the discussions will continue in Washington, at which meeting Mr. Meany and Mr. Jodoin will be present. At this stage in the discussions I do not think anything useful can be said in reply to the detailed aspect of the hon. member's question.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG    TRANSFER OF OVERHAUL AND MAINTENANCE BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the government intend to honour the commitment made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, to retain in Winnipeg and St. James the T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had notice of the question, but I have had an opportunity of looking into this subject matter and I can find no such commitment having been made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister supplementary to the one put to the Minister of Transport by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Was not the Prime Minister's telegram of March 30 to the Liberal candidate in Winnipeg South Centre a commitment by the Liberal party to keep the Trans-Canada Air Lines overhaul base in Winnipeg?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not that statement before me; perhaps the hon. member has. But there was no commitment in that statement in the terms put forward by the hon. member who asked the question in the first instance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad to send a copy of the Prime Minister's telegram to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Transport.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO CONFERENCE ON FISCAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does he intend to call a federal-provincial conference on taxation?

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my hon. friend any precise date, but a conference on these matters will have to be called soon. As soon as I can be more precise, I will let the house know.
(Translation):



REPORTED ULTIMATUM FOR QUEBEC PREMIER

Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Did he have any opportunity in the last few days to inquire about the ultimatum delivered on April 5 last by the Quebec premier respecting the sharing of taxation sources on a new basis?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question. Does the minister still believe, as he suggested last April, that the present government is the most qualified to meet the request of the province of Quebec for a new taxsharing agreement?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.


Gilles Grégoire: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the answer just given by the minister mean that the present government accepts the ultimatum of the Quebec government and intends to give back to the provinces their sources of taxation and income?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister does not have to answer that question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Justice was willing to answer.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO PERSONNEL OP ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister without portfolio, the hon. member for Outremont.
Does the minister intend to recommend to the government the appointment of Messrs. Gerard Pelletier and Andre Laurendeau as members of the royal commission on bicul-turalism and, if not, why?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion,

that question cannot be asked on the orders of the day.



INQUIRY AS TO TERMS OF REFERENCE OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister without portfolio, the hon. member for Outremont. Does the hon. minister intend to include in the program of the royal commission on biculturalism the question of returning to the provinces their sources of income?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the taxation question will be among the terms of reference of the commission which is yet to be established.
(Text):



INTRODUCTION OF TWO PRICE SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I must inform the hon. member that the question is still under active consideration.\n\n(Text):']
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I directed a question to the government asking whether we could expect legislation to be brought down soon with respect to the two price system for wheat to guarantee farmers $2 a bushel for wheat. At that time the Minister of Agriculture suggested he would treat the question as notice, and I wonder if the Prime Minister or any member of the government is now prepared to answer it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is an important matter of government policy, and an announcement will be made in due course.
(Translation):



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the present government intend to have Canada join the organization of American states?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I must inform the hon. member that the question is still under active consideration.

(Text):



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is his government considering at this time formal diplomatic recognition by Canada of red China?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. gentleman knows, these questions are always under review, and it is in accordance with our tradition that the government shall determine when government policy will be announced.



PARTICIPATION OF CANADIAN OFFICIALS IN DRAFTING OF PRESS RELEASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if any Canadian officials have participated in the drafting of the final official press releases for the NATO ministerial conference to be held in Ottawa this week?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, that is a wholly improper question.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Does the hon. gentleman have anything to report to the house regarding Canada's position in the international dispute relating to trans-Atlantic air fares?


George James McIlraith: I can report that the meeting of the air lines which took place in Bermuda last week was adjourned on Saturday night and will be continued in Montreal on Wednesday.



ALLEGED REFUSAL OF CANADIAN NATO DELEGATION TO USE T.C.A.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: On Friday last the hon. member for Three Rivers asked me why the Canadian NATO delegation in Paris refused to fly the Atlantic by T.C.A. to attend the NATO meeting in Ottawa which opens this week.
There was no such refusal. Normally Canadian government officials flying to and from Canada in the course of their duties travel by T.C.A. whenever this is possible. In
Inquiries of the Ministry the particular case referred to, it was necessary for the Canadian permanent representative to NATO and two of his officers to be in Paris for a meeting of the NATO council on Wednesday, May 15, and to be on hand in Ottawa in time to confer with the secretary general of NATO, Mr. Stikker, here on Friday May 17. This meant travelling on Thursday, May 16, and since there was no T.C.A. flight from Paris to Canada on that day it was necessary to use another carrier. The party travelled economy class and, before leaving Paris, booked their return flight from Canada on T.C.A. and will again travel economy class.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Does the minister intend to implement the recommendations of the restrictive trade practices commission concerning amendments to the Combines Investigation Act to control the practice of tied sales imposed upon service stations by certain petroleum companies?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his question and I find that the report of the commission has been referred to an interdepartmental committee for the purpose of determining the implications for other industries of implementing the commission's report which, as the hon. member knows, was confined to the oil industry. Having said that, I am afraid an answer to the latter part of the hon. member's question will have to await the report of the interdepartmental committee.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfori-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is reported that the Saskatchewan Liberal leader said Wednesday that the Prime Minister had agreed to assign a federal cabinet minister to look after Saskatchewan's interests. My question is this. Is this going to be the practice of the government, to assign somebody to represent the people of Saskatchewan in parliament, instead of having the duly elected members of Saskatchewan attend to this business?
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend, in accordance with constitutional practice in these matters,

Inquiries of the Ministry would cross to this side of the house we would be glad to give him that responsibility.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the very voluminous correspondence of the right hon. gentleman, when he was official leader of the opposition, with various British Columbia organizations, local authorities, and many other persons, stating his belief in the need for renegotiation of the Columbia river treaty, can the right hon. gentleman assure the house that all British Columbia interests, particularly those of the Arrow lakes water resources committee, will be consulted by the government before a final decision concerning the terms of the treaty is reached, as he indicated in his correspondence with these various people?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, before adjustments, modifications or clarifications are made to this treaty, all aspects of the matter will be considered, and we will be glad to hear representations from all those concerned on any aspect.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I directed a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the proposed discontinuance of trains Nos. 9 and 10, at which time he committed himself to look into the question that afternoon. I wonder if the Prime Minister is in a position to give me an answer to that question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this question should more properly have been addressed, of course, to the Minister of Transport, but as I did take notice of the question last Friday perhaps I may be permitted to reply to it.
In answer to the question with respect to the discontinuance of trains Nos. 9 and 10 from Winnipeg to Saskatoon, representations were received, I am informed, and forthwith referred to the board of transport commissioners who have jurisdiction in this matter. The application for discontinuance by the railway had been heard in Drumheller on November 19 and 20, 1962 after due notice

of time and place. All representations and all relevant evidence were duly covered. The board, in a judgment which runs to 47 pages, found that the sum total of inconvenience which might result to people using trains Nos. 9 and 10 did not justify requiring the railway company to sustain a continuing loss of $264,000 per annum and to forgo an estimated annual net financial betterment of $202,000. I am informed by the board that representations received since the date of the judgment gave no reasonable grounds to change the decision.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question in connection with that reply. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would now take this question under advisement and consider reversing the decision of the board.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the railroad considered giving the people in that area from Winnipeg to Calgary another type of service, such as a day liner service in place of trains Nos. 9 and 10?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure all aspects of the matter were taken into consideration. In answer to the other supplementary question, I believe there is a right of appeal from a decision of this kind.



RAILWAY BRANCH LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the serious dislocation of business and community life caused by the present railway policy of branch line abandonment, is the government giving consideration to extending the notice period prior to abandonment to allow for the necessary adjustment within the communities concerned?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member is a rather important one. The government is considering this whole policy in a rather thorough way at the moment and any announcement to be made will be made after consideration.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the attention of the secretary of

state been called to the proposal made on Saturday by the Earl of Home that the Soviet union agreed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that do not yet have them, and his further statement that "if we could attach to it"-meaning a test ban treaty-"a treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to countries which do not possess them, that too would be an enormous gain"? If the secretary of state has had his attention called to this statement, will this affect the attitude of the Canadian government in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister wish to answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed of any new British proposal in this regard. However, the British government, like the Canadian government and the other western allies, have consistently been in favour of international arrangements to prevent the wider dissemination of control over nuclear weapons. We have supported a resolution in these terms sponsored at the United Nations by Ireland; indeed, this resolution has been unanimously adopted by the United Nations. We continue to believe that measures in this field should be given careful consideration and that their adoption will be of great importance in reducing the risk of war.
So far as Canadian policy is concerned, the hon. member will be aware that there is no question of Canada acquiring nuclear weapons in the sense of obtaining unilateral control over them. No action undertaken by this government with respect to existing defence commitments would run counter to this general policy; and we continue to share the view of other western governments that extension of exclusive national control over such weapons should be prohibited as far as possible by international agreement.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister feel that Canada has any further useful role to play in any 17-nation disarmament discussions, in the light of the statement made by the Prime Minister in this house that the extension of nuclear weapons to countries such as Canada which do not now have them makes it quite impossible for any Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs to argue against other countries having nuclear weapons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman posed his supplementary question in the form of an argument, but I would say to him in reply that I am sure the great majority of Canadians feel that 28902-5-4
Inquiries of the Ministry there is increasing opportunity now for Canada to make a contribution in this very important field.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In an interview shortly after being sworn in the present minister is reported to have said that he expected a Canada-United States agreement on custody and control of nuclear warheads to be signed in about a month's time, an agreement which requires both parliamentary ratification and congressional approval as well as the signatures of the contracting parties.
In view of this statement, would the minister now refute his former claim, which misled the Canadian public, that the Conservative government had fully committed Canada to equipping its air squadrons and Bomarc missiles with nuclear warheads-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member state his question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Would the minister now refute his former claim that Canada had made such a commitment?



CHURCHILL, MAN.-STATEMENT ON MAINTENANCE OF U.S. AIR BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Churchill asked whether the recent announcement regarding the closing down of the S.A.C. refuelling base at Frobisher Bay would affect the operation of the base at Fort Churchill.
In reply may I say that on May 15, 1963 a press release was put out under the authority of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In that release details were given to the effect that U.S.A.F. refuelling aircraft were to be withdrawn from Frobisher and Fort Churchill by July 1, 1963. This action was prompted by the development of newer longer range tanker aircraft, which has rendered further refuelling operations from these two bases unnecessary.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister inform the house as to his intentions with respect to tabling the main estimates for the current fiscal year and also whether he intends to table supplementary estimates at the same time?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will make an announcement on that subject a little later, after the debate on the speech from the throne has been completed.



STATEMENTS BY SPEAKER IN BOTH FRENCH AND ENGLISH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that it is his expressed desire to speed up the operations of the House of Commons so as to facilitate dealing with the people's business, will the Prime Minister take under consideration consultation with the Speaker of the house, in light of the fact that we have simultaneous language translation to determine whether it is necessary for all statements made by the Speaker in French to be repeated in English and all statements made in English to be repeated in French?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is entirely a matter for your own decision, but if you would like to discuss it with me I shall be glad to do so.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Did any members of the federal cabinet get in touch with the premier of the province of Quebec, Hon. Jean Lesage, before recommending that federal loans be granted to municipalities?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of no communication such as the one mentioned by the hon. member.



CLAIMS FOR REFUND OF TARIFF SURCHARGES

Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister intend to recommend that the government pay the claims for refund of the tariff surcharges levied last June by the Conservative government by order in council
[Mr. Barnett.)
and presumably paid by merchants and businessmen, and which would amount to approximately $80 million?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I replied to that question last Friday by saying that, since the matter is pendente lite, it would not be proper for me to answer such a question at this time.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Justice if it is the intention of the government to put in a defence to the action when it comes before the courts?


Lionel Chevrier: I think my hon. friend will realize that government policy in this respect will be announced in due course.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question in connection with the strange answer given by the Minister of Justice. Specifically, it is this. Does the government intend to settle the actions instituted by the law firm of Mr. MacTavish, Q.C., without having recourse to the courts in that regard?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the same answer I made originally to this question applies to the question of the former prime minister. Because of the manner in which the question has been put I do not think it deserves any other reply than that since this matter is now before the courts it would be most improper for any minister of the crown to make a statement or reply such as that which the Leader of the Opposition now seeks.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I now ask the hon. gentleman this question, which does not concern the stand to be taken by the government. Does the government intend to put in defences to the actions that have been taken and have the matter come before the courts, or does it intend to settle these actions started by the law firm of which Mr. MacTavish, Q.C., is a member?


Lionel Chevrier: I now reply to the prime minister in the same manner-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I apologize. I meant to say that I now reply to the right hon. gentleman that he perhaps more than anyone else knows that these matters are the subject of court action, not only one action but perhaps 30 or more, and he knows that questions of that

nature should not be replied to on the orders of the day, particularly when the matters in question are sub judice.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Justice intend to make recommendations to the crown attorneys concerning those cases which are now before the court?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, that question has been answered at least four times, and I certainly do not intend to give a reply which could in any way involve the Minister of Justice in a case or cases now before the court.
(Text):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, after first congratulating him on his appointment. In view of the announcement of a major lay-off and an eight week shutdown period at Wabana iron ore mines at Bell island, Newfoundland, the community's only industry, may I ask the minister whether the government intends to take any action in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind reference to me at the beginning of his question. In so far as the question which he asked is concerned, I shall be glad to investigate this lay-off to see whether any action can be taken in addition to the rather large array of anti-unemployment measures proposed in the speech from the throne.



CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS NATIONAL PARK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria asked me whether I had received protests over what he described as indiscriminate lay-offs in Cape Breton Highlands national park. The answer is simply that I have received no protests because there have been no indiscriminate layoffs. I think the question probably originated from the fact that on April 30 our department completed a piece of work on behalf of the Department of Transport which had been employing 25 men.
28902-5-4J
Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED LAY-OFFS AT POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Cape Breton South asked a question, which I took as notice, with regard to the lay-off of civilian employees at Point Edward naval base at Sydney.
I am informed that a reduction in the refit work load necessitated the lay-off of nine casual ship repair labourers effective May 3, 1963. A release list was prepared in accordance with the department's standard point system, based on seniority, efficiency and veterans' preference.
The possibility of re-employing these personnel with other service establishments and government departments in the area is being investigated.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: As a supplementary question following the minister's answer, would the minister care to indicate what other areas in that particular region he has in mind for re-employment of these personnel?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I understand there are other departments in the area where these people might be employed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I love to ask questions of a lady. Is it the intention of the minister to propose, this session, that a special committee be appointed to consider and report upon (a) the law and practices relating to the control of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs and, (b) the danger arising from contamination of food by the use of chemicals to kill weeds, insects and other pests?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: It is always a delight to answer a question by a gentleman-an honourable gentleman. I should like to advise the house that the government is considering this matter and proposes to recommend to the house that a committee dealing with the area mentioned by my hon. friend be set up for this study.

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



NORTH PACIFIC COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Last Friday it was indicated the government had decided to accept recommendations made by the international north Pacific fisheries commission. I can find no order in council which has been passed. Would the minister care to indicate to the house by what means the government intends to implement this decision?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: In reply to the hon. gentleman I
would advise him, and advise the house, that the matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries has indicated that the government has decided to accede to the recommendations of the international north Pacific fisheries commission, what means does the government propose to take to implement that decision? Will the government bring down legislation to amend the treaty, or does it intend to deal with the matter by executive order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, following the announcement which was made last week this matter of renewal of the treaty is now under negotiation outside of this country with regard to the consideration of the abstention principle so far as Japan is concerned. With regard to the question my hon. friend asked, I may say that after we have had an opportunity of ascertaining the results of these negotiations we will be in a position to announce in this house the course that we believe should be taken.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Does the minister intend to submit the Gill report to a special committee of the house for study?
(Text):


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not the intention of the government to

send this report to a special committee, but I can give to my hon. friend, and the house the assurance that any proposed legislative changes to the present unemployment insurance system will be sent to a committee at the appropriate stage.
(Translation):



TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. Could the minister tell the house on what grounds he approved the choice of the present site for the international exhibition which will take place in Montreal, whereas, only a few weeks ago, he was favouring the east of Montreal?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I never favoured the east of Montreal, and the decision which was taken was the best under the present circumstances.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How did it happen that the minister sent an open letter to the newspapers recommending eastern Montreal as the international exhibition site during the election campaign?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, at that time, I recommended that the eastern part of Montreal be included among the numerous sites which were to be taken into consideration.
(Text):



TARIFF REDUCTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Ontario):: would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, but since it is of a general nature I did not believe notice was necessary. As a result of the great uneasiness found now amongst all branches of manufacturing and industry concerning tariffs, and especially as a result of the reports of tariff slashes sought by the government of the United States, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether this government is considering reductions in Canadian tariffs in any field? If the answer be yes, will the various segments of the industries involved be informed and allowed to make recommendations before a final decision is reached?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is certainly not a proper question for
orders of the day, and I am not sure whether

it is a proper question for the order paper. However, out of courtesy to my hon. friend I would inform him that of course all questions concerning tariff reductions and the elimination of other forms of obstacles to trade are under consideration by the government. Perhaps when the Minister of Trade and Commerce returns later this week from Geneva, where these matters are now under consideration, he will be able to report to the house.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask whether the task of dealing with the recommendations of the Glassco report has been assigned to one minister of the crown and, if so, which one?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, every minister of the crown is concerned with the study and, where appropriate, changes made, arising out of the recommendations of the Glassco report. The President of the Privy Council has been given the responsibility of co-ordinating this work among other ministers taking special responsibility in this matter.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to direct this question to the Minister of Finance or the minister from Windsor, but the question is, what are the government's intentions regarding the recommendations of the Bladen report on the automobile industry?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the government's intentions in connection with the Bladen report, and all other reports of that kind, will be made known at the appropriate time.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister say whether
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker the legislation regarding contributory pensions will be introduced at an early date, and whether it will provide for an immediate increase in the amount paid under the present old age pension legislation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to note the hon. member is so interested in our new legislation, but I ask him to contain himself for just a little while so that he may see the bill.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 17, consideration of the motion of Miss Pauline Jewett for an address to His Excellency the Administrator in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to express the hope that His Excellency the Governor General will continue to improve in health so that he may soon again be able to discharge fully the duties and responsibilities of his office, which he has done with such distinction and honour during the period of his office.
I also wish to convey to you, sir, with the greatest deference my hope-and it is one which has been supported by the experience hon. members of the house have had during the period you were chairman of the public accounts committee-that in the discharge of your responsibilities you will carry them out, as we know you will, with fairness, with ability and, above all, with that integrity for which you have always been noted by hon. members of this chamber.
Next I want to do something that is not perfunctory in any way, and that is to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) for the manner in which she discharged her duties-and they are trying duties-in the making of a maiden speech. I also extend my congratulations to the seconder. Both are new members of the house and performed so creditably that I am sure in the months and years ahead their contributions to the public life of Canada will be in keeping with those whom they succeeded, with Harry Bradley in Northumberland, and with my longtime friend, the Hon. Raymond O'Hurley in the constituency of Lotbiniere.
At the opening of every new parliament it is always interesting to see the new members who come into the house. Without the infusion of new and able members the house tends to become more or less static. It lacks.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker that enthusiasm and that idealism which new members bring to the thinking and the general conduct of this chamber. I welcome too the new ministers of the crown and also those who have fringe benefits in the position of parliamentary secretaries. To each and every one of them I extend my congratulations. I have been somewhat surprised, however, by some of the recent events that brought about seniority within the government of Canada. All of us who have known the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) for so long hoped he would have been in a position second only to the Prime Minister. As I suggested the other day, possibly in the light of retrospect of recent events, if he had only followed the course taken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) in leaving his province of Ontario and departing for Quebec, his seniority might thereby have been assured in a manner which would have been appreciated by hon. members of this house. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) shakes his head. I have here, but I am not going to waste them on him, some of the clippings in this connection in which reference was made along the line I have just mentioned.
To the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) I extend congratulations-I have already done so-on his achievement of this high office. At the same time I extend to him warmest felicitations on the honour that has come to him in becoming a member of Her Majesty's privy council, one of the greatest honours that can come to anyone within the commonwealth.
I hope this parliament will be an effective one. I hope no action will be taken by any member to degrade in any way this institution. I can assure the government that there will be no repetition of those things that took place last December, when from one end of Canada to the other there was condemnation against the opposition of that day for their attitude and action in refusing to allow the prime minister of Canada to speak in this chamber. The attitude of this party will be to do everything it can to make strong and effective its contribution to the bettering of the welfare of our country.
There are great problems to be faced. We shall criticize in a spirit of constructive fairness. Whatever practical knowledge and experience we have will be made available so that we may do our part to contribute to the economic and social welfare and prosperity of Canada. I do not intend to be very critical. I am not going to relive the days of the election or the events of last year, excepting in so far as those things will have to be referred to as a basis for argument. I do say this, though, that as a result of the election-
IMr. Diefenbaker.]
while, naturally, it did not turn out as we had hoped-the Conservative party has a stronger opposition today than at any time in all its history since 1867, with the one exception of 1925. I say, sir, with the utmost sincerity, that I believe, in the light of subsequent events, the policies that were advanced will be vindicated in the thinking of the Canadian parliament.
I am glad there is going to be some action taken in regard to making parliament more effective. I think we will have to give consideration to the shortening of the period between the date the writs are issued and the holding of the election. I think now, having regard to the events that have taken place, the technological and transportation advances, we might even consider shortening the period to five or six weeks. That could be done, provided a permanent voters list is set up.
I think, too, we should give consideration to restricting the amount of expenditure that can be made by any candidate in an election campaign, for otherwise potentially good members are denied membership because of lack of financial assistance. I believe that expenditures will have to be limited if democracy is to be preserved within our country. I betray no secret when I say that the tremendous amounts available to the Liberal party in the recent election leads one to ask whence came those contributions. Wherever they came from, I want to emphasize once more the need of action being taken to prevent the ever mounting increase in the costs that are incident to elections.
Having made those few general remarks, I come now to the 60 days of decision. That is a most interesting expression, borrowed from President Kennedy, with the deletion of 40 days. President Kennedy thought it would take 100 days. The Liberal party decided on 60 so that they would not, according to those in the press gallery who know, be charged with political plagiarism. Sir, I too, read a book the other day about 60 days, 60 days of disaster in 1914, when a great tragedy followed from false optimism.
Today we live in this period; we are still in the 60 days, although the government is starting to recede from that. They do not like an attitude on the part of anyone of directing the attention of the people to the particular inning we are in. There have been some errors and few hits in the past 30 days. But we are in the beginning of the golden age of miracles, these 60 days, with generalities made brilliant by propaganda stardust, by splashes in the press and public relations gimmicks. It has been

very interesting to follow the course of events. Only the other day the Ottawa Journal said:
With one fourth or more of these now famous days of decision passed, the only thing Mr. Pearson seems to have decided is that we must not expect him to be deciding in so little time.
It has been most interesting. I am not going over these days; the opportunity will come on another occasion to outline them in some detail. But the Liberal party have learned a lot; they have changed a lot. Some of the policies of a few months ago have been altered in these days of decision. Within 20 days the 60 days had become shifty days. It is most interesting to follow the course of events, for in the light of responsibility the promises which were made in 1962 and 1963 have in many cases been found impossible of application. As far as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) is concerned, some mention was made of him the other day and the question was asked whether he was the senior or the junior minister. Well, during the election campaign an announcement was made by the Prime Minister that there would be a Minister of Agriculture and an Associate Minister of Agriculture. However, in the light of experience, in the light of the search on the part of the Liberal party for biculturalism and bilingualism, these ministers are now to be co-equals and equals. Indeed, as far as the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) is concerned, he would not be in the cabinet at all if the promise made by the Prime Minister had actually been carried into effect that the portfolio should be abolished as one without responsibility. I am pointing out that in the light of experience the responsibilities of office do change the thinking of those who take office.
Now I read in the Financial Post of April 27 a statement that those who expect miracles from the new government are bound to be disappointed. The article goes on to say that our basic problems were created neither by the Diefenbaker regime nor by the previous Liberal regimes-so we are both cleared there. They were created, it says, by the exigencies of our history and brought to a head by economic developments in Canada, in the United States and in the whole Atlantic community during the two decades since the war. The article then goes on to deal with a subject about which we have heard much from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). That hon. gentleman did not regard it as anti-American to advocate over and over again the need to assure control by Canada of her economic destiny. That has been the purport of his argument ever since he had the honour of being the head of a commission. Indeed, it says in this article
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker to which I have been referring that the problems of manufacture and of United States ownership are the heart of our present difficulties. They determine our potential for economic growth; they limit our capacity for creating new jobs.
I intend to deal with the particular plan the government has in mind-the plan to set up a board whose purpose it will be to interest Canadians in buying Canadian stocks, to take over United States companies and to ensure that the ownership of our resources in Canada shall be guaranteed to Canadians as far as this can be done. Well, with $23 billions of foreign investment in Canada, if this proposed corporation is to be effective it would mean an addition to Canada's national debt beyond anything one can contemplate today.
What about the speech from the throne? All of us were led to await it in anxious expectation. What a document was going to be produced when that group of brains over there, coupled with other brains, was to bring forth the salvation of Canada, with the assistance of the Secretary of State (Mr. Piekersgill) as general factotum bringing them together. We expected tremendous things. I intend to deal with this speech from the throne, because in every part of Canada there is national disappointment. It is full of platitudes spaced out among economic generalities which indicate that the planners and the bureaucrats know best. Certainly, it is a new world they are going to take us to-one which they have criticized for many years; one in which all-powerful boards will be set up. I shall make reference to that later. All around us will be boards. The Atlantic development board will have $100 million made available to it. Its membership will be increased from five to eleven. The explanation put forward is that this is being done to strengthen the board. But it is perfectly obvious that the real reason for the increase in numbers is to assure that those whom we appointed to office will thereby be removed. That is the purpose. That is the aim of this alteration to be made in the bill, whenever it may be introduced.
As far as the budget is concerned, we have to wait for that now. Rumour has it that it will be introduced immediately after the speech from the throne. Rumour has it-and it is usually well authenticated-that there is a possibility there will be a baby budget followed by a real budget later. Oh, it is interesting to watch these planners. Certainly planning is necessary. But planning which turns over the government of Canada to any group of men without control, making available to them a sum of money to the extent of $100 million, is another matter altogether. Unless there is control by parliament we have

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker taken a step which no other government, provincial or federal, has ever taken in this country. As a matter of fact, in 1957 the then leader of the C.C.F. party, Mr. Coldwell, moved an amendment which called upon the government to give immediate effect to the social and economic planning necessary to cope with certain problems. The amendment set out what those problems were-inflation, rapidly rising unemployment and other serious matters. Each and every member of the Liberal party at that time voted against the amendment. The speech from the throne indicates that today a new kind of philosophic and theoretical planning has become the essential program of the Liberal party, the theme being that the government knows best. If carried into effect by one or two of the ministers sitting over there-and by one who would have been a member but for the fact that the leader of the New Democratic party was successful in that constituency- the philosophy of hon. gentlemen opposite is a philosophy of planning, a philosophy of placing control in the hands of a few bureaucratic individuals who, unless circumscribed by protective measures in the legislation, will bring about in our country government by a bureaucratic autocracy.
It is most interesting to see these developments. What are the promises which were made? We know, now, that there is to be a dominion-provincial conference. The reason we know that, and knew it when we came here today, is because it was announced outside the House of Commons by Premier Robichaud on Friday last. Where is the plan announced by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing)? He went to Vancouver and announced that great plan on behalf of this government. Ten thousand scholarships were going to be brought into effect at once. He said there was a tremendous plan to assist in relieving unemployment. Is that going to be brought in? Has there been any consent from, or consultation with, any of the provinces yet? Has the premier of Quebec agreed to this?
What of the promises in 1962 and 1963 on the part of the Prime Minister in respect of all of these programs? These joint programs were going to be done away with. They were dangerous to confederation. They were going to be removed. Yet in the face of that promise we now have on the part of the minister of northern affairs a complete recital of a new plan. I ask, has that received the approval, the consent, the consideration of any of the provinces?
Then they were going to abolish these joint plans. An amendment is being brought in to the Trans-Canada Highway Act whereby, according to statements in the press, 90 per


cent of the cost will be made available by the federal government. Premier Robichaud dealt with that. Is this the way in which the government that mocked joint planning, and which is now in a position to implement it, is carrying out their promise?
Then there was the medicare plan. What language was used in Saskatchewan against that plan. Has the Liberal leader in Saskatchewan been consulted in this connection? He said that there was nothing more dangerous than the medicare plan. What has happened to that? Mr. Kent is reported to have said that this would be one of those things to be introduced within 60 days. Of course, Mr. Kent is "up above". The others are "down below". I ask, what of the medicare plan? What of the plan to assist portable pensions? These were all matters which were discussed. These were matters of instant moment. We in this party came out in favour of action in this regard. We believe it is necessary that the federal parliament pass the necessary complementary legislation so that this proposal respecting a pension may be made effective in cases in which the provinces, under their own jurisdiction, have brought this plan into effect. I ask, what of these things? I believe that action must be taken along this line.
I am glad to see that those opposite today believe in technical training and the expansion of technical schools. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), when minister of labour, brought this question before the house. We brought into effect one of the greatest plans of expansion of technical education in Canada to be found anywhere in the western world. As a result of that action $300 million is being made available to the provinces. Some 135,000 young Canadians will receive training each year. This is to be expanded. I should like the Prime Minister to give some indication as to his plans when he speaks, and whether he means to put flesh and blood on the skeleton of the promises which were made.
What about university assistance, aside from the scholarship plan? We were criticized very harshly, even though we were able to arrive at a plan acceptable to the province of Quebec, for extending the amount of assistance to universities by raising the amount from $1 to $1.50 and then $2. What is going to be done about that? It was said during the election that this matter would receive attention. The minister of northern affairs apparently placed some credence in those promises. I should like to ask the Prime Minister to indicate now what is going to be done. Has he received permission? Has he received consent? What provinces have been consulted?

Then in order to assure that the youth of our country can carry on, what is going to be done in respect of the important matter of family allowances, of extending their applicability to youths up to 18 years of age who are attending school? What action is being taken in this regard?
We had a complete unveiling of the speech from the throne from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) when he spoke in Toronto a few weeks ago. What is going to be done in face of what now appears in the speech from the throne? There is nothing in the speech effectively to meet the problems we face, nor indeed to maintain the tremendous rate of economic growth in Canada which took place in 1962, and which is still continuing.
What of agriculture? The government are going to bifurcate the department. East is east and west is west, and only the twain shall meet in cabinet. What an idea. A problem which is facing all parts of Canada is to be divided. It was never originally intended that the heir to the eastern throne would be a co-equal, an hon. minister without portfolio. But this has now been changed; they are going to be equal. Who is to decide? Who is going to be the auctioneer when it comes to deciding the problems regarding the agricultural rights of eastern and western Canada? Where is assistance for agriculture? Have the government forgotten this? I can find nothing except generality in the speech from the throne. I find nothing of new programs promised to make farming as a whole more stable. I find nothing to provide expanding markets. Special attention was to be given to dairy products. We were ridiculed and reviled about our policy regarding dairy products, and now in office hon. gentlemen opposite adopt our plans and carry them on. Do they or do they not agree that it is necessary to expand credit for agricultural export sales? Do they or do they not agree on the need for a special feed grain and storage assistance plan for the eastern farmers? Do they or do they not agree that the promotion of better land use and conservation through ARDA should be followed? Do they or do they not agree that surplus products should be made available to support the world food bank? These are things that we would like to know about. But read the speech from the throne. It is noted for its brevity; it is equally noted for the paucity of the policies it contains.
What about economy? I spoke with admiration of the speech of the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett). She spoke with facility and ease. She had greater faith in those sitting opposite than, as will be
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker understood, is shared by us. But she did speak of the need of getting the economy moving. That is one of the brighter examples of Liberal mythology-getting the economy moving. I intend to refer in general to what has been done, the actions we took for which we were ridiculed and the effect on the Canadian economy of the course we followed, so as to answer once and for all that spurious argument.
The Liberals inherited a buoyant economy. On the basis of what we did and the action taken the economy has remained buoyant and there has been an advance in the economy not equalled anywhere else in the western world. They speak of getting the economy going. Well, Mr. Arthur J. R. Smith, director of research for the Canadian-Ameri-can committee, speaking in the city of Toronto on April 27, said: "The task of the new Liberal administration would be not to get the economy moving but to keep it moving".
I might point out what the situation was when we came into office. It was well summarized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), speaking in the house in 1957, when he said that we claimed to have inherited declining revenues, and that was right; a shrinking national income, and that was the situation; a deteriorating economy, and that was a fact; and an arrested national development and foreign markets going or gone. That was the picture in 1957. In every part of the western world since there has been one serious recession and one lesser recession.
All through the piece one of those who said that the economy was moving forward very well was the president of the council. I have his address in that connection in which he pointed out that the economy was moving ahead very well in the summer of 1962, while at the same time in every part of Canada a doleful dirge was being sung playing down Canada's economic position. And today they pretend they have taken over a broken down Canadian economy. Sir, that kind of action is a despicable exercise in political deception endeavouring to lead the people to believe that the country has been slipping back. This is a myth, a myth resulting from a philosophy of undiluted despair.
I am going to review the situation in the country shortly to point out what the Liberals inherited when they took office, in order to answer these allegations that are so generously made without foundation and without being based on fact. Liberal despair over the Canadian economy has run into a flood of optimistic items in the financial pages of the press. Here are some of the recent headlines: Montreal Star, "Steel Climbs To

The Address

Mr. Diefenbaker New Highs"; Financial Post, "Canadians Will Run Up Record Tourist Mileage All 1963 Signs Indicate". The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), as the former minister in charge brought about the expansion of tourist development during our period of office. It increased to such an extent as a result of our action in pegging the dollar that in 1962 we had the lowest deficit for many years in tourist expenditures.
Here are other headlines: Financial Post, "Liberals Riding Upturn"; Toronto Telegram, "1962 Best Year On Record Possible". The Toronto Star refers to the tremendous expansion in automobile production and in employment in connection with it. Here is one in the Globe and Mail: "Predict 1963 Record In Chemical Sales".
Canada's economy has enjoyed a high plateau of achievement ever since the upturn registered early in 1962. If the problems were so easy to meet why were they not met in the United States? I remember the promises of 1960, the new frontier and what was going to be brought about. What about meeting unemployment there? Look at the record and you will find that we in Canada have done better than has been done in the United States in meeting a problem that has always been serious in our country by reason of climatic conditions.
Sir, the steel industry is a sound basis for Canada's economic progress. It is advancing as never before. An economy that was supposed to be receding has exceeded the forecasts of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) when in 1956 or 1957 he, as head of a commission, produced a report forecasting the future. Last year was the greatest in steelmaking history. Production was up 10 per cent and home market saturation around 87 per cent. Exports exceeded imports for the first time. Already Canadian steel exports appear to be running ahead of the Gordon commission's forecast of 12 million tons by 1980.
And so on. I could mention various industries and the expansion that has taken place. While the Liberals ridiculed we worked to bring about policies to strengthen the economy. In December, 1962, the London Economist reported that Canada had outstripped every other nation in the world in the rate of economic growth. I want to pause here and say that with the kind of policies announced in the speech from the throne the expansion this year will not equal the expansion that took place last year compared with the preceding one. I make that prophecy on the basis of the uncertainty of the nebulous promises contained in the speech from the throne.

The gross national product was over 8 per cent higher by value last year than in 1961. Again I point out the prophecy that was made by the Minister of Finance when he was a commissioner in regard to gross national product. Employment was higher month by month in 1962 than in 1961.
The latest figures show that 90,000 more Canadians were employed in April 1963 than in April 1962. This is the fourth month in a row in which unemployment has been lower than in the corresponding month of the year before. Labour income exceeds the 1961 figure by 6.8 per cent, and this is a new record. While we did not have the support of big business in many areas or in many fields of industry, corporate profits in 1962 were 12 per cent higher than in 1961. It is well known that without profits there are no jobs.
Foreign trade reached an all-time high in 1962. An unprecedented increase occurred in exports and in that year there was a surplus of $155 million in exports over imports. When we took office what was the position of those giants of intellect that today occupy the front benches? What was the position when we took office? Well, in 1956 there was a trade deficit of $713 million. Those were the halcyon days. We brought about a surplus in 1961 and 1962 when the challenge to our trade in every part of the world was infinitely greater than it had been following the war.
Mineral output was up 10 per cent during 1961 and there was a record production of nickel, copper, asbestos, crude petroleum and natural gas. What about the developments in western Canada in connection with oil? Markets were found in the United States and kept, as a result of which there was a tremendous expansion unequalled in the history of the petroleum industry. The construction of new residences was 8 per cent higher in 1962 than in 1961. Business investment in nonresidential construction, machinery and equipment rose 4 per cent in 1962.
Sir, I place these figures on the record in order to answer the sham arguments that were advanced, and effectively advanced by those who today speak for the government of this country. Canada has never enjoyed a sounder business climate than that reflected in the 1962 figures which showed higher consumer spending, restocking of industry and general progress. Do you remember, sir, how they ridiculed us when we pegged the dollar? They said it was a frightful thing to do, and Canada would be bankrupt. They filled Canada with counterfeit dollars on the back of which they indicated there would be a tremendous increase in prices. They knew better than that. The high priest and prophet of

finance of that party, himself, advocated the pegging of the dollar several years ago, yet all through the 1962 campaign they dealt with arguments that they knew were baseless. This policy elevated the Canadian economy to the plateau it achieved. I ask them, then, are they going to remove the peg?
We introduced surcharges in order to meet a situation similar to the one which had occurred in 1947 when the economy was expanding. They criticized us for removing all these surcharges on March 31. We undertook to remove them as soon as it would be proper to do so, and that was the end of the fiscal year. We removed them, and thereby brought to our country new confidence in financial circles in every part of the world.
Now, sir, what about the halcyon days of 1956, the last year they were in office? Well, the gross national production has gone up 32.74 per cent since; labour income 36.7 per cent; personal income 40.7 per cent. During our period in office we were able to keep in check inflation which is the thief of economic progress. I am not going to go farther into that because other hon. members will deal with other phases. However, I should like to point out that only a couple of days ago the Canadian National Railways reported that their financial position showed improvement by $18.2 million over the previous year and that Canadian National operating revenues were up $28 million over 1961. Sir, we left the Canadian house in good economic order.
In this party we have, throughout the years, from its beginnings advocated the need for maintaining and preserving Canada's integrity as a nation. There have been two particular policies that this party has followed throughout the years. One of them has been the maintenance on the north half of the North American continent of a free and independent Canada. In the days of Macdonald, on two occasions he fought battles for the maintenance of that principle. We followed it throughout the years. They charged us with being anti-American because we took a stand on behalf of Canada and her rights. I have no apologies to offer now or in the years ahead for that stand, which will be proven right. Never before, though, was there as much interference by certain elements in the United States in a Canadian election.
We had the closest of relationships with the United States. Only the other day the former president, General Eisenhower, that great American and great leader of men, said that we had no differences that could not be solved. We were able to get together. There was no interference on the part of either side. I say, sir, that we have a right to declare our policies for Canada and to determine
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker them without dictation. I am going to refer to one policy and ask what is the position today in that connection.
A nation cannot survive if it becomes a satellite. Those are not my words. Those are the words of one of those who occupy the treasury benches today. Were we anti-American? What did the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) say? It is surprising how things said by them turn out to be proCanadian, but if we say the same thing we are dangerous to the unity of the western world. Let me read some excerpts from a speech given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at Windsor on November 9, 1962. "Can Canada preserve a separate identity beside the United States," was the topic for discussion.
As some of my friends have remarked, however, I have much to learn about politics, and one of the things I find most difficult to learn is always to play it safe.
He proved that in London a few days ago when he took his stand against the commonwealth. I will refer to that in a moment.
Then he went on to say this, that we need not fear the commission of a sexual offence or even an offer of marriage from the United States.
Then he said this:
I suggest however, that we are in danger of losing the essentials of nationhood and perhaps our will to survive as a nation.
This is the man who today is Minister of Trade and Commerce in this government. He asked:
Can anything be done about it?
Then he went on to say:
-the key to the preservation of our separate identity is not so much to resist American penetration as to reduce and minimize our dependence on American money, ideas and culture.
Is that anti-American or not? Quote me as ever having gone that far. Then he went on to say this:
We shall have to begin to regain control of our own destiny.
I had better read the whole of it or they will say I left something out.
The remedy for this dependence is not to raise barriers against the capital inflow but to order our internal affairs that our international accounts are brought into balance, that is, to learn to live within our means. When that happens we shall begin to regain control of our own destiny.
What does that mean-that we have lost it? Then he said:
Then and only then can we hope to bring the process of alienation of ownership and control of Canadian industry to a stop.
Then he said this:
We should not be dependant upon foreign capital to maintain a healthy rate of economic growth

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
any more than we should be dependant on United States magazines and T.V. for information and opinions.
When I speak about television, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the fact that United States television stations on the west coast and generally across western Canada on election night were broadcasting into Canada the results in the Atlantic provinces before the polls were closed in western Canada.
Then he mentioned the trading union involving only Canada and the United States, and said that the decision about easier tariffs in the beginning would be made in Washington and in the interests of the chief party, and added:
I find it difficult to believe there could be free trade between Canada and the United States in agricultural commodities... You will understand from these remarks, Mr. Chairman, why I said at the outset that we shall be able to preserve our separate identity as a nation if we believe strongly enough in ourselves and are prepared to pay the price of remaining separate and distinct from our great neighbour.
Who said that? The now Minister of Trade and Commerce and, sir, he went on:
By any standards Canada is a very fortunate country and if we lose our separate identity it will not be because we lack the means to sustain our Canadian way of life. It will be because we do not make the effort.
Sir, that was the stand we took. In order to have some control over our resources we brought in effective measures governing our mines, oils and gas located in territories under our control, and one of those regulations stipulated that 50 per cent of the equity stock in companies exploiting those areas should be made available in Canada. Now I ask the Prime Minister to tell us, when he replies, whether there is any foundation for the suggestion presently widespread that that regulation is going to be changed? I ask that because everywhere we hear it said that there are going to be changes in this.
I shall pass on to the international situation mainly for the purpose of asking a number of questions of the Prime Minister.
The NATO conference will be convened here this week. The former government invited the NATO nations here and the invitation was accepted. Union within this group of nations must be maintained. However, I must say I was somewhat astonished, when I asked the Prime Minister the question regarding Canada's ideas respecting the multilateral force, that he could not give me a reply. That was on Friday last, and in effect he said we have to wait until the meeting of the NATO nations. Is that not what I said all through the campaign?
I read press reports pretty carefully and just the other day I read where the Prime Minister spoke to a newsman in the United


States. This is one story which he has not yet denied. I am just paraphrasing his words and if I misquote him I will be glad to make a correction, but what he said was that it is so much easier to say what you would do in international affairs when you read about them in newspapers than when you have available to you the information that comes from the various embassies maintained by the country.
This week's NATO meeting is an important one. At it there will be material discussions on the problems of defence; yet when I asked the Prime Minister what is Canada's view he said, "We cannot tell you that." They have not yet made up their minds and they will not be able to make them up until they sit down with these other nations. Did he not, when talking to Mr. Kennedy, discuss Canada's attitude in this regard? It said so in the papers. I do not know whether that has been denied but it is about the only thing the Prime Minister has not denied, except that he possesses the qualities that Jayne Mansfield ascribed to him.
If Canada is not going to fall in line with the views of the United States in this, should we not know? Is the course going to be determined by Canada as to the stand we will take? I ask should such a force be set up? The arguments generally have revolved around the fact that if it is acceptable it will deny Germany having atomic weapons for itself. It will assure a greater degree of unity in the western world by preventing France and Germany from having a joint deterrent force.
What of the mixed crews? Is Canada going to contribute to that idea? The Prime Minister said he thought he might be in a position to answer today and I hope he will be able to give us some idea as to what stand will be taken on the morrow regarding a question so important.
Today's press indicates that for now the United States has abandoned the multilateral nuclear force proposed for NATO. Is that correct? I ask these questions not for the purpose of dealing on this occasion with defence. That subject will be fully dealt with when action is being taken to set up the defence committee, but I ask them simply so that we will know in this country what attitude Canada will take at the NATO meeting.
I should also like to ask the Prime Minister what Canada's stand will be in connection with the maintenance of the United Nations. Today the United Nations faces the most serious fiscal worries of its time; $106 million is owing in assessments. If action is taken to exclude members then, of course, you have the beginnings of the end of this institution.

On the other hand there must be some action that can be taken to provide for the peacekeeping assessments being paid. Today more than 60 per cent of those in default, as I recall it, are the Soviet bloc and France. What is going to be done in this connection? What ideas has Canada in this regard? How can that institution continue to discharge its tremendous power for good and for peace in the world if its membership, or any of its members, refuse to pay the costs of belonging to that institution, without which there cannot be the hope of peace in the world?
I express the hope, in welcoming to Ottawa on behalf not only of the opposition but, I am sure, all Canadians, the NATO ministerial conference, that out of this conference will come a strengthening of the ties of NATO. In recent months, as a result of things taking place in Europe, there has been shown a weakening of the cement that binds that institution together. Without it there is no survival. Therefore a great challenge faces those who represent the several member countries to do their best at this conference.
I mentioned a moment ago that I would like to find out about something that is also omitted from the speech from the throne. Today an answer was given to the effect that the matter was being considered. Does the house remember how through the years they said to us, "You should get into the organization of American states. That will be the salvation of Canada. It will bring us closer to our friends in south and central America". I believe in close relations with them. The government of which I had the honour to be head extended to a very great degree the diplomatic posts in South America. I am frank when I tell you that I felt at one time it was a course that had an impelling demand to be followed by us. But events changed that. What is being done about it now? Today the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) was his evasive best; when he was asked about this he seemed to be getting away from it. Have the government not decided their course in this regard? The Prime Minister over and over again said we should get into that organization, that it would mean a great deal in the influence we would have. I wonder. What about the present difficulties in Haiti? What about other events that have occurred recently? They have said it might improve our trade. We want to expand our trade.
The Prime Minister was reported by the Boston Globe as having said that Canada would announce plans to join the organization of American states. The Prime Minister denied that afterwards, but it is interesting that the question should find its way into a United States newspaper. I ask the government, what
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker is your decision in this regard? This was something upon which President Kennedy gave us advice. Standing over there, speaking in this chamber, he told us this was something we ought to do. Sir, we heard that during our term of office. We believed it was not something we should rush into, whether asked for by a friendly neighbour or not. We were pressed-some interpreted it as pushed-to get into this organization. The Prime Minister has been an advocate of this. I ask him now, why was there no mention of it in the speech from the throne? Has the enthusiasm of five years been dissipated in the experience of 25 or 30 days of decision? Has the Prime Minister found it easier to declare than to perform?
Indeed, there must be some basis for this newspaper report, because Mr. Charles Lynch said in the Ottawa Citizen of April 11, "Canada now to join O.A.S." He went on tc say:
This view was put forward forcibly by Paul Martin in his role as Liberal foreign affairs critic ... Liberal leader Pearson is known to favour O.A.S. membership for Canada ...
What are they going to do in this regard? They do not want my view, naturally, but I give it for what it is worth. It is pretty well summed up by an editorial in the Financial Post, to which I shall refer only in a general way. Summarized, it is this:
Despite President Kennedy's blandishments, Canada's reasons for staying out of the organization of American states look as good as they ever were- and perhaps better.
Then the article says:
There is no contribution to hemispheric peace and welfare that we can possibly make as a member of O.A.S. that we can't make as a non-member. And in some cases non-membership can be a positive advantage.
It is quite understandable that President Kennedy wants more votes for his side in the O.A.S. He wants us to come in so we will vote with him the way other satellites like Byelorussia or Bulgaria vote with the Soviet union in the United Nations ...
As a member of O.A.S., Canada would everywhere be regarded as accepting a cat's-paw role for the United States.
I am not adopting those statements; I am simply saying that the Financial Post holds that view. What is the view today of the government of Canada? Was it omitted from the speech from the throne because of the effect of sober second thought?
I mentioned the commonwealth a moment ago. This party through the years has been a strong commonwealth party. We believed in the necessity of preserving this institution, though it has no authority, there are no agreements among its members excepting the trade agreements and it is held together without seal. But to be a member of that organization and to be present at a prime ministers' conference is to realize the strength it exerts for peace and its preservation. Yet

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker it is being downgraded in some parts of the world. Dean Acheson, who is high in the administration of the United States, early in the year relegated Britain and the commonwealth to a "has been" position, the commonwealth by inference and Britain directly. The Right Hon. Selwyn Lloyd spoke these words in referring to that statement:
Mr. Acheson's statement was as damaging to the commonwealth as any I have ever read from either side of the iron curtain.
There was a meeting last week in London.
How they ridiculed us, when they were in opposition, when I suggested a meeting of the trade ministers of the commonwealth in London before the Geneva meeting. They laughed at the suggestion. Now, the stone they rejected in the House of Commons has become the cornerstone of their policy. They ridiculed the idea I placed before the prime ministers' conference last September. I do not intend to quote what they or their supporting press had to say. They said the proposal to convene a meeting of the commonwealth, of the European common market, of representatives of the United States, Japan and other like-minded nations was an ephemeral dream. They said it was worthless. Worse than that, they said that in advocating it I had lost standing for Canada among the nations of the commonwealth. Well, a little later on, after the President of the United States had secured his trade powers, I brought the suggestion to his attention. I shall not repeat what he said but I ask hon. members to read Hansard. I placed the suggestion before him and he accepted it and said he would join with Canada in taking the initiative. Out of that has come this meeting of these nations in Geneva which holds hope for all mankind, in the western world in any event, for the reduction of trade barriers between nations. However, that did not in any way close out the commonwealth.
Now let me say this: without discussion in parliament but in keeping with the views expressed by the Liberal party over and over again, when this matter came before the conference in London a stand was taken on which I intend to comment now. I intend simply to use comment which has appeared in various newspapers to support what I have to say. The Toronto Telegram said the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) had tossed a blockbuster into the conference.
Canada's new trade minister, Mitchell Sharp, tossed a blockbuster into today's conference of 16 commonwealth ministers by giving blunt warning that the Liberal government was writing off the commonwealth as a trading group.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: When I mentioned this a moment ago there were jeers from over there. Let me read on.
He declared he had no suggestions on commonwealth trade to put before the two-day economic review.
Does that mean we are going to remove those preferences which we have-preferences which have stood the test of time and which have over and over again been a stumbling block among other nations? Let me go on to quote another statement from the Toronto Star. Both these newspapers, by the way, are not noted for being our supporters at this time. The Star says: "Sharp Rejects Commonwealth Trade Pact". I point out that there was no suggestion of an exclusive pact. It was a general agreement among the trading nations of the commonwealth. To read on:
The political commonwealth, yes. The economic commonwealth, no. Trade minister Mitchell Sharp yesterday set Canada's face firmly against all proposals to rebuild the British commonwealth as an exclusive trading or economic bloc.
I go on from there. The Toronto Telegram of May 13 carried a headline: "Sharp Erases the 'Family' As Trade Unit". And so on. I could give the house various quotations. For instance, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported: "Sharp Firmly Rejects Proposal for GATT Commonwealth Bloc". Finally, the day after, the Star has a story headed: "Sharp Answers U.K. Critics; Says He's No Trade Villain".
I say this: no one asked that this be made an exclusive body. But is there any reason why we, within the greater amplitude of GATT, to which members of the government whose head I had the honour to be gave their support and leadership, there should not be consideration given to the expansion of trade within the commonwealth? That is our view. That has been the view of the Conservative party throughout the years. It is not a backward-looking view, because the commonwealth has in it inherently a power in the future for good as in the past which demands its preservation, its expansion and its strengthening.
In the speech from the throne there is surprisingly little about dominion-provincial relations. I shall not take the trouble to quote exactly what it says. It is beautifully general. It says that as Canadians we can now work with hope. Then it goes on to deal with biculturalism, and says:
To make us a more united people, the government will in all things strive to strengthen and to give new direction to our Canadian confederation. It will foster the spirit of co-operative federalism-

That sounds suspiciously like the words of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) in his immortal book on the federal system back in 1954.
-fully respecting the rights of the provinces while safeguarding and extending the equality of opportunity which properly belongs to all Canadians in all parts of our country.
Well, I should like to look into that for a moment. I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) this question: did he promise Mr. Lesage, the premier of Quebec, directly or indirectly, that he would bring about a new plan for sharing corporation taxation, personal income tax and estate tax? It is interesting to note the attitude of hon. members opposite in this connection. When Mr. Lesage was a member of the government, along with other distinguished people, Mr. St. Laurent, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) and others, 10 per cent of income tax and corporation tax was sufficient. Now, it is 25 per cent of each of them. What undertakings were given? What has been the answer to the ultimatum? I noticed on Friday the Prime Minister said there was no ultimatum. Well, I would simply quote the words of Mr. Rene Levesque who called them immediate demands and an ultimatum. In other words: "Either you do, or you are out". The Prime Minister said it was not an ultimatum. Mr. Levesque said it was.
I ask the right hon. gentleman now whether he accepts the proposition advanced by Mr. Pierre Laporte that we should build up in Canada during the next few decades a confederation of sovereign states. That is not the concept of Canada, but they are the views which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) took with him from Ontario to Quebec when he went there "in exile".
These are very serious matters, and I ask, what is the attitude of this government? What undertakings have been given? I point out this fact, that had we not during the period we were in office increased from 10 to 13 per cent the tax on companies and incomes, added to the amounts being given in the past to the provinces, we would not have had a deficit in any year; but we chose to increase the allowances to the provinces in order to permit them to carry out their constitutional responsibilities. What is going to happen if this new plan is carried into effect? What is going to happen to the promise of hope which we do not hear about any more, that of a balanced budget? That was the first objective. It does not appear in the throne speech any more because this plan, if brought into effect, according to the estimate before me would bring about an increase in the amounts paid to the provinces of $301 million. What is going to be done in this connection?
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
What are the plans for the setting up of a municipal development board? Whatever the amount may be, be it $400 million or what, who is going to determine which municipalities will receive support? Has this in any way been cleared with the provinces?
There is about this, in the general terms as set out in the speech from the throne, great dangers of centralization in the country. That has been the bureaucratic dream since the days of Macdonald-to centralize power. The municipalities are the creation of the provinces. What is the attitude of the provinces, or any of them, in this connection? What about the meeting which is going to be called? Premier Robichaud told us about it. What is going to be the attitude of the federal government in this regard? I suggest that instead of a royal commission being set up, as the government intends, they should do what we suggested in order to meet the problem of reaching a greater unity of understanding and of equalizing opportunities for Canadians: place this matter before a meeting of the provinces; bring together representatives of all four political parties and secure their views; bring them together and take the first major step. If this government is able to attain it, I will salute them for patriating our constitution. We tried it, and but for the action of only two provinces we would have achieved it. You cannot bring about a discussion among various provinces of our national symbols by means of a royal commission. You can do it only through a meeting between the federal government and the provinces so as to secure in a common unity the acceptance of principles. Without this they cannot be brought into effect. That would bring about a concept of a new sense of national purpose and destiny. We did much to ensure that under confederation there should be a recognition of the bicultural nature of the nation as the foundation to the building of a greater unity within our land. This we did. We were unable to bring about agreement on the constitution. I suggest now that if there is a new feeling in the country in this regard, bringing the provinces together would achieve this purpose.
There are many other matters which I could deal with but I do not intend to go further today. The opportunity to be critical will come later. Today I have been constructive, as constructive as possible under the circumstances. I have pointed out that there is very little in the speech from the throne excepting for the fact that certain things which we advanced are again being brought forward under new names. Beyond that, the

The Address-Mr. Pearson imagination which was spoken of so generously and for so long by the former opposition is conspicuously absent.
Let me make a short review. Biculturalism I have already dealt with. The speech says that-
-my ministers will strive to lessen international tensions and halt the arms race by seeking measures of controlled disarmament, including a treaty to end nuclear tests under reasonable safeguards.
We tried to do that for five years. For three years the Hon. Howard Green gave a leadership at the United Nations which brought honour to him.
Then the speech says:
It is my ministers' intention to assist in enhancing the unique value of the commonwealth partnership in international relations.
I cannot understand how it was that when the Prime Minister arrived at Hyannis Port he forgot he had been to Great Britain, because he said: "This is my first visit outside of Canada since I became Prime Minister". His visit to the United Kingdom could not have had a very great effect upon him; or perhaps, in fairness and in frankness, I should say that the new stage was somewhat unsettling.
With regard to trade, the speech says:
Canada will take a constructive part in trade and other economic negotiations.
This will expand Canada's export trade. That is what we did. It was our co-operation with the President of the United States in bringing together like-minded nations which will have this effectual result when the meeting takes place at Geneva. In that connection, a few months ago the Prime Minister was all for the president's plan of a 50 per cent lateral cut in tariffs. It was a great thing- imaginative and bold, he said. I would ask him, is he for it now? I read in the press that he has some doubts. Certainly the Minister of Trade and Commerce has doubts. What is going to happen to us? I ask the Prime Minister this question; I know he has the answer. What will happen to us with the 50 per cent cut between Canada and the United States? Their tariffs are away up high; our tariffs are away down low, the lowest of any country in the world. If they cut theirs by 50 per cent theirs will still be high tariffs, but we will be open to competition the like of which Canada has never suffered before. I ask the Prime Minister, does he still believe in the 50 per cent lateral cut?
At Geneva today, according to press reports, there is agreement among the nations of the European common market in this connection. They realize what is going to happen. They are going to have little or no tariff

and the United States is still going to have a very measurable tariff. When you had your discussions with the president did you point out to him that if he were to reduce tariffs on Canadian products to the same extent that we have on American products that would be one of the greatest steps forward in bringing about an expansion of trade between our countries? I would be glad to hear what took place during those meetings at Hyannis Port.
Unemployment will be dealt with by the former minister of labour. Suffice it to say I have already referred to the fact that there has been a great improvement in this regard, and on the basis of our policies we were able to look forward to the day when unemployment would be reduced to a minimum. I think the setting up of a department of industry is a very good idea if it carries out its purposes, to foster industrial expansion and provide a central point to which industry can look for consultation, stimulus and assistance. We did something in this regard. We set up a small business branch. We assisted small business by reducing company income tax and in many other ways endeavoured to encourage it. But if setting up a department of industry will bring about what is stated in the speech from the throne, naturally we are in favour of it.
I have dealt with the amendments to the Atlantic Development Board Act. The measure to establish a Canada development corporation is certainly a tremendous thing. I should like to know who is going to choose which United States companies are to be taken over. Who is going to choose in respect of what companies the individual will be advanced money so that he can purchase stock? I should like to know who is going to take the risk, because there is always a risk. At least, that has been my experience. There was a time when I was interested in stocks but I was never successful in knowing what was going to happen. What are they going to do in this connection? This is what they say:
-a Canadian development corporation, by means of which Canadians can more readily direct their savings-
I think there are approximately $8 billion in the savings banks. That is the figure in my mind. What co-operation are you going to have from the lending institutions and the banks in order to channel those savings in the direction that you desire?
A measure will be placed before you to establish an economic council of Canada, in order to assist the government, industry and labour to develop means of ensuring in Canada the highest possible levels of employment, of efficient production, and of sustained growth-
We had the productivity council which did exceptionally good work in connection with efficient production. We endeavoured to bring


about a national economic development board. We brought the legislation before parliament. On the face of it this measure appears to me to be much the same as what we had in mind, but the opposition of that day and government of today spent six days debating our legislation and preventing it from becoming law. However, we are not going to react in kind. If this legislation when revealed indicates that it is not going to bring about a bureaucratic set-up whereby we will have anything of the bureaucracy that existed between 1945 and 1957, then we will do our part to give it constructive support.
My ministers will pursue constructive policies for the development of Canada's great resources for the benefit of Canadians.
How? When? Where? What? Nobody knows. It is a beautiful generality.
The government will undertake discussions with the government of British Columbia and with the United States, aimed at securing action on the development of the Columbia river.
I noted that the Prime Minister said the other day that he had to clear something with Washington before they could take up the matter with British Columbia. That was most interesting. He has to clear that up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a treaty with the United States signed by you.


John George Diefenbaker: But they have got to clear it up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We certainly do.


John George Diefenbaker: Then we have the answer. I am glad the Prime Minister made that interruption. I ask him: What discussions are you having with regard to that treaty? What arrangements have been made for any change in the treaty in any particular? Have you agreed in any way upon any terms in that connection? If you have, we want to know. The very fact that the Prime Minister answered as he did indicates that something has been done in that connection. We will get the truth if we keep at it. I love these interruptions because they always reveal and never conceal.
The government is initiating consultation with the provinces to work out a program for national fishery development. My ministers intend to secure the establishment of a 12-mile limit for the use of the Canadian fisheries-[DOT]
That is a very laudable objective. They would not have it in the speech from the throne unless they had made some advances in this direction. We were within half a vote of having an international agreement in that connection. We were that close to having an agreement on a 12-mile limit, or six and six, with the nations gathered together in Geneva on two occasions. We have pointed
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker out, however, that unilateral action is dangerous when 80 per cent of our fisheries products are sold in the United States and action taken unilaterally like this might very well lead to retaliation that would have serious economic effects for the fishing industry of Canada. What discussions have there been in this connection? Have you got to a point where there is any agreement within the realm of possibility?
Then there is the comprehensive railway problem with regard to which the speech from the throne says that we will be asked to continue the existing payments to the railways pending the approval of long term measures concerning transportation. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when we said there should be a full examination of the Mac-Pherson report the now Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) and then opposition critic on transport had all the answers. He said what could be done. He said, "Go right ahead". We would like to hear some explanation as to the reason why there has been a decision to change the assurance that was given so frequently that this was a problem easily met.
In that connection I do not wish to deal with individual cases. However, when the minister referred this afternoon, in answer to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski), in such an offhand manner to the removal of those two trains in western Canada he indicated that he did not have any realization of the serious nature of this action both on a social basis and from the point of view of employment. Even now I ask him to give consideration to using the power which I believe rests with the governor in council to stop this action until a general and comprehensive policy has been worked out.
We come now to the question of contributory pensions. We will be looking forward with interest in this regard. We endeavoured to bring it about. We had the legislation ready but we wanted to provide for survivor benefits and in order to provide for survivor benefits, without which a contributory system will not be very effective, we found that a constitutional amendment was necessary. Has the government decided that we were right in that regard or is it determined to bring into effect a system of contributory pensions without survivor benefits?
Redistribution is referred to. I think this is a most important matter. We brought legislation before the house in the 1961 and 1962 sessions. We had it ready again last fall but we were unable to get the organization set up to secure passage of the legislation. I hope that this matter will be proceeded with and that for all time we will remove the

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker partisan nature of the redistribution procedures of the past. I would point out in this connection that while representation by population is the objective and the desirable mean toward which we should work, having regard to the widespread nature of this country there can never under our system be equality in population between rural constituencies and urban constituencies. We provided for the determination of the bases for redistribution, and then having determined them allowed for freedom within percentage limits to the end that reasonable consideration would be given to the necessity of assuring that rural members would not be required to have the same population basis as those representing cities.
Then, there is the committee on procedure for the strengthening of parliament. I commend the government in that connection. From year to year steps forward are being made. I have often said, in that connection, that I think this chamber could be reduced in size by almost 50 per cent. You would not have desks here, then. Everybody would not have a seat that each day would be set aside for him or for her. This brings the members closer together, and brings about that relationship which the mother of parliaments has found so necessary to the establishment of a free and conversational style in the general discussion of public affairs. I think we can go a long way in the procedure committee. I should like to see an extension of the hours of sitting. I think we use up a great deal of time with the adjournment at the supper hour. A number of members could be present, as is the case in the United Kingdom, and an opportunity would be given to many members to have their say at that time. There would be an undertaking that no vote would be called during that period. We have so much to do and our sittings are taking longer and longer. We are still back many, many years in many of the procedures of parliament. I will deal with those again. I often brought them up when I had the responsibility of office. However, sir, I found out that tradition and a jealous regard on the part of members for the preservation of their prerogatives denies changes being made which would in any way interfere with rights to a degree that would be unfair to a private member.
In summary, may I say that many of the measures set out in the speech from the throne are simply a rehash of legislation that we had available and before parliament, with the added benefit of having a new name but which, taken together, do not constitute the kind of program which Canadians had hoped for and had reason to expect. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for

Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), that the following be added to the address:
While recognizing that Canada's economic growth during the year 1962 exceeded that of any country in the western world, this house regrets that many of the pledges made by the Prime Minister and his colleagues have not been incorporated in the government's declaration of Intention as outlined in the speech from the throne, and further regrets that the policies announced fail to provide full opportunity for the people of Canada to continue the social advance and large economic growth of the past year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising for the first time to speak in the house from this place I should like to mention that I do so on the official birthday of Her Majesty, our Queen. I should like to express to you, sir, if I may on behalf of all hon. members of the house our appreciation of the fact that you made reference to this fact and that you are conveying to Her Majesty the greetings and loyal good wishes of this house. I should also, Mr. Speaker, wish again to congratulate you on having been chosen by the house for the important and honourable post you now hold, and to echo what the prime minister has said about-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was bound to make that mistake, and I am glad that I made it at once. It is not easy, but in this case it is easier than is often the case, to abandon the habits of six years. I should like to echo what the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), said about your qualities which will ensure that you will fulfil this important position with dignity and complete acceptability to all members of the house.
Then, I should like to pay my respects, and I do so in no formal way, and to extend my congratulations to the mover (Miss Jewett) and seconder (Mr. Choquette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, for what I thought was the very thoughtful and distinguished way in which they discharged the responsibilities and duties which are never easy but which they made seem to be easy. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may also be permitted to associate myself with the Leader of the Opposition in his gracious observations about His Excellency, the Governor General, and to express the wish of every member of this house for his speedy and complete return to full health so that he may continue to discharge the duties which he has already discharged with such great distinction as the Queen's representative in this country. The Queen, whom we do not forget today of all days, is the Queen of Canada and the head of that commonwealth to which we are

all in this house, irrespective of party affiliations, devoted, and whose usefulness in the world for international peace and security we would like to see enlarged.
I would also like to extend a welcome on behalf of the government to hon. members in all parts of the house, and in particular I think it would be appropriate for me to extend that welcome to the new members who are with us. I did my small best to keep some of them from enjoying the honour and the privilege of membership but, Mr. Speaker, they got here in spite of, and perhaps even because of my intervention against them.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition congratulated himself-and I am not complaining about this at all, indeed quite the contrary-that during his two hour speech he showed a great deal of charity and forbearance, and for that measure of charity and forbearance which he displayed this afternoon we on this side, I suppose, should be grateful. However, he continued to show that passionate preoccupation with personalities, which he used to show on this side, and he interested himself in certain matters which I thought had very little to do with the business of parliament or the business of government at this time. In that respect I hope he will forgive me for saying so, and in respect of some other parts of his speech he showed he had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
He pleaded with me, if pleaded is not too strong a word, to give certain decisions at once on matters of policy, when I got up to reply and to announce at once the decision of the government in respect of some very important matters of policy. He rather complained that we had not done so on this side right away. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I could remind him that this government has been in office for less than a month, and I think I am being accurate when I say that during that very short time we have made more decisions on matters of policy than the previous government made in a much longer period of time.
For instance, the Leader of the Opposition complained that we have not done anything about dairy policy except to make some minor changes and to indicate that we were going to follow the policy of the previous government; but he did not point out that we had only four days in which to act after taking office in order to avoid the lapse of the whole price support policy of the previous government. He complains that in four days we were not able to work out a complete new dairy policy and a new policy on other matters of agriculture. We will do that, but it will take a little longer than four days.
The Address-Mr. Pearson
The Leader of the Opposition also indicated that we should do something now about reversing a decision regarding the abandonment of a branch line out west, a decision made as a result of hearings of the board of transport commissioners that took place last November when the right hon. gentleman was still in office.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that this parliament has been called together at the first possible date after the election. That in itself is a startling innovation as against the procedure after the last two elections. It would have been tempting to have postponed the meeting of parliament for a week or two so that we would have met after the NATO council meeting, which in some ways will interfere with the convenience of certain hon. members of the house. It would have been tempting to postpone the opening of parliament for a few weeks so that all hon. members who had gone through the rigours of an election campaign could have had some time to rest and refresh themselves, but we called parliament together on May 16 and this was done because the government, though technically in a minority in the house, as it is, is determined to do its utmost to move the business of this country forward at once, and that can only be done through parliament.
To the members of other parties in the house I say, Mr. Speaker, that in order to move forward the business of the country and the business of the house with the greatest possible expedition and effectiveness, which I am sure is the desire of all hon. members, the government will not be looking to any members of any party or group to give up any rights, or to act in any way against individual conscience or party principle. This government is not inviting any special arrangements and will not indulge in any special manoeuvres in order to remain in office. We do not believe that that is necessary or desirable.
We have put forward in the speech from the throne, and we will be adding to the proposals in that speech, a program which we believe to be constructive and which embodies projects for legislative action that will be to the advantage of the nation. It is my belief that this program, if parliament sees fit to put it into effect, will be for the good of Canada. I believe the program we have put forward and are now submitting to the House of Commons will enable this parliament to do a constructive job for our country and, of course, that program may be amended as a result of the decisions of the house from time to time.
I am hopeful that all of us as members
of the house will be able to look back with
some pride to the twenty sixth parliament

The Address-Mr. Pearson of Canada, and I hope the time when we do that looking back will be some years from now. In this connection I cannot forbear to point out, as a great deal of mild amusement has been created in the minds of the Leader of the Opposition and others about our 60 days of action, that in the first 60 days after the election of 1957, when the Conservative party took over, there was no opportunity for parliamentary action, nor in the 60 days after the June election of 1962.
The Leader of the Opposition singled out for special attention not only the proposal in the speech from the throne but other ideas of his own to improve the processes and the effectiveness of parliament, and to improve the process for electing Canadians to the House of Commons. I am glad he did so.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side hope-and indeed we are confident-that the committee which will be set up under your leadership and which, of course, will be a committee representing all parties in the house, will make recommendations not only to improve our day to day operations and strengthen parliament by making parliament a more efficient mechanism, but perhaps Your Honour will see fit to look into the whole structure of parliamentary government to see how that structure can be strengthened. This is necessary because there is no way of making parliament-which is so essential to the free countries today, and against which so many attacks are being made-stronger in the minds of democratic people than by increasing the effectiveness of that institution and bringing it into harmony with modern conditions. When we were in opposition last session we put forward certain proposals with regard to measures we thought would be of immediate value in speeding up the business of parliament. Now we are in office we still consider those proposals to be good, and perhaps proposals of that kind could be proceeded with fairly rapidly.
The same considerations with regard to strengthening parliament apply to the strengthening of our electoral procedures and electoral machinery. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is becoming very expensive and very exhausting, and perhaps it is not necessary any longer-we have both spoken of this before-to take the length of time that is now required to choose a parliament of Canada. That length of time was laid down in 1867, when communications were not quite as rapid as they are today, when the media of communications by which candidates could get in touch with their people were not as efficient as those we now have, and which perhaps we sometimes think are too efficient. As far as expenditures are concerned, we on this side are on record, and have been on


record for a good many years as part of our party platform, as desiring to do something about this question so that expenditures can be limited and covered by regulations which will have to be carefully laid down by the treasury. I hope in this parliament progress will be made in that regard.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about redistribution, which should have taken place before now, following the last census. In the redistribution we will never perhaps, under this federal system of ours and in this country so diverse in its elements and so vast in its expanse, be able to apply any exact mathematical criteria to our constituency representation; but it is of course important to correct, and correct as soon as possible, some of the anomalies which now exist. This may require, as I understood the Leader of the Opposition to say, some addition to the number of members in this House of Commons. He suggested this might require us to give up our desks and get a little closer together. I do not know whether this means closer together politically, or only closer together physically. However, I gather from his observation that perhaps we could indulge in this kind of, if I may put it this way, legislative bundling where you would have less legislative bungling. In any event it is an idea that I am sure will be pursued by the house and by the committee of which you, Mr. Speaker, will be chairman.
The Leader of the Opposition had something to say about the items in the speech from the throne. He asked me a good many questions, some of which I hope to deal with during my remarks. If they are not dealt with by me, they will be dealt with by my colleagues who will be taking part in this debate if it goes to its appointed day. According to the Leader of the Opposition the speech from the throne was noteworthy for its generalities rather than its specific proposals. I gathered the impression that he felt the speech from the throne contained certain dangerous tendencies toward centralization and toward a bureaucratic control of the economic life of this country. In that respect he was worried because it showed socialist inclinations on the part of hon. members on this side of the chamber. At other times this afternoon he expressed worry because we on this side are now becoming too deeply involved with big business in this country. It is perhaps a tribute to our agility that we are being criticized both for being too socialist and too big business at the same time.
So far as centralization is concerned, there is nothing in any of the proposals in the speech from the throne or in the legislative enactments which I hope will follow the

speech from the throne, which will lead to the wrong kind of centralization in this country. We do not want that in our kind of federal state. We want to give to the provinces all the jurisdiction and all the powers they have under the constitution, and the means to carry out and exercise those powers.
I hope the Leader of the Opposition will remember when he says, as he did this afternoon, that centralization has been the dream of the Liberal party-I have his words here -"ever since the days of Macdonald", that you do not have to go into Canadian history since the days of Macdonald to discuss centralization, because the greatest centralizer of them all-and in the light of the conditions of that time he may have been right-was Sir John A. Macdonald, who favoured a legislative rather than a federal union in the origins of our political society. That dream, if it was ever held by Sir John A. Macdonald-and he certainly expressed it on more than one occasion-would today be very inappropriate indeed.
The Leader of the Opposition went through some of the detailed proposals in the speech from the throne. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that these proposals, or the most important of them, are already on the order paper in the form of resolutions for legislative action. I ask the right hon. gentleman to compare that kind of action with the situation which existed when we confronted him from that side of the chamber, when he was prime minister; I ask him to compare it with the order paper on the first day after the opening of a session.


John George Diefenbaker: We had 31 items on the order paper.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman says they had 21 items on the order paper-


Some hon. Members:: Thirty one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -but look at the 21 items and see if they contained the items for economic advance, economic development and national growth that are on the order paper on the first few days of this new, twenty sixth parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nowlan:: The only ones there are those you borrowed from us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman complained that a lot of things we talked about on this side when we were in opposition, and during the election campaign, do not appear in the speech from the throne. Well, there are limits to what even we can do in 60 days-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
The Address-Mr. Pearson


Lester Bowles Pearson: -to say nothing of the limits that are required by adequate and full parliamentary consideration of all these measures. I think this is a very good first legislative stage. That is what it is, Mr. Speaker. This is the first stage-and this has been pointed out by us so many times-in a four year parliamentary program for development and advance in this country. That is how we put the matter to the people in the election campaign, and that is how we intend to act on it. This is the first 60 days of action, to be followed by continuous action after this 60-day period is over. The right hon. gentleman no doubt read everything we said during the election campaign and he will recall that we put forward our four-year program with what we considered to be appropriate priorities attached to it.
We said during the campaign and subsequently-and indeed, earlier in this house, in more detail, I believe, than any opposition party ever gave before, what we would do and in what order we would do it. Now we are taking steps to do what we said we would do. The intentions of the government as set out this year in the speech from the throne are not vague aspirations to be acted on sometime, maybe never. We have set out simply in the speech the main matters we intend to bring forward during this session. They are headed by the measures for economic expansion which I promised during the campaign to bring forward in the first 60 days of the government's life. These measures will be before the house during the next month and it will be for the house to decide whether they are to be converted into legislative action. When we have completed our program for this year, if we do complete it in accordance with the judgment of the house, we shall go on, if parliament sustains us, as I believe it will, to the further stages of our four-year program.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) spent a good deal of time establishing the foundation for an argument which I am sure we are going to hear from him a great deal in the future. He tried to establish a foundation for the assertion that we on this side have inherited a booming economy.
We shall come to this in due course. The right hon. gentleman sought to show we had inherited all this, with people at work, people happy, enjoying incomes coming in; deficits ended and that kind of thing. So if anything should go wrong in the next four or five years it will be such a contrast with the happy situation which existed in April 1963.


George Clyde Nowlan: That's the truth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: However, the Leader of the
Opposition was careful to leave himself an

The Address-Mr. Pearson escape hatch. He talked more than once about the problems we face and, indeed, we do face problems. He went as far as to say that the Liberal government which went out of office in 1957 had also inherited-these were his words-a buoyant economy, and that we had handed over to the Conservative government which succeeded it a stagnating and a depressed economy.


Some hon. Members:: Right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the Leader of the Opposition himself has said, these interruptions are sometimes very helpful. The former minister of national health and welfare (Mr. Monteith) says "Right". In fact, we inherited the economy of 1935 which could hardly be considered a buoyant economy. The right hon. gentleman boasts, however, that his government left the country in fine shape with its economy booming. In fact, in the last month of the life of the old government there were 549,000 people out of work in this country.
1	do not intend to waste much time either in this debate or in subsequent debates on stale arguments about the past. But I do intend to put on record once and for all the truth about the economic situation of this country when it was under the leadership of hon. gentlemen opposite, because the Leader of the Opposition placed on the record some selective figures to establish his own position.
The right hon. gentleman boasted about the big increase in the gross national product last year. There was a big increase. I recall that in the last budget debate we had, in April, 1962, I believe-it was not really a budget debate because the minister of finance of that day ensured there would be no budget debate, but I had an opportunity to speak on the motion for interim supply-I pointed out that 1962 was going to be a good year and that the minister of finance of that day was too pessimistic in his calculation of the likely increase in the gross national product. I went on to say that although there would be a substantial increase in the gross national product it would not take care of some of the dangers of the economic situation which would persist in spite of this increase. Well, that is exactly what has happened. There was a big increase last year compared with what had happened in the five previous years. The right hon. gentleman says the increase, in constant dollars, was the largest in any country in the western world. No doubt, in the course of this debate we shall have to put on record the figures bearing on that statement. But it was an increase, in constant dollars, of 6.2 per cent, which was very good indeed compared with 1 per cent in 1957 and 1958, 3.5 per cent in 1959,
2	per cent in 1960 and 2.6 per cent in 1961. Those were the real increases in our gross

national product over that whole period after allowing for price changes. Those were the increases during the period of Conservative government since 1957 over the whole six years-an increase which, over those six years, amounted to 18 per cent. What was it in the previous six years of Liberal administration? It was 36 per cent.
Now the right hon. gentleman says the economy is in fine shape though over the past six years it was advanced at only half the pace at which it was advancing before they came to office. That is the record of our national production. But what do these figures mean for the people of this country? After all, production is for people. These are not merely statistics in a table. The former government never seemed to understand that ours is a growing country-that our population is increasing, though I may say it is not increasing as it should be increasing or as it would be increasing if we could keep our people inside our borders. As a commentary on the right hon. gentleman's satisfaction with the situation in this country at the present time I would remind him that in the last year for which we have figures the net immigration into this country was practically zero; almost as many people left Canada as came in, and the people who left this country were, for the most part, educated people-technicians, scientists and teachers. Had they remained, our unemployment problem would perhaps have been worse but we suffered a considerable net loss in that particular exchange. Nevertheless, our population which stayed at home is growing. If our total production does not increase steadily and adequately, then the production available to each Canadian in this growing family gets smaller, and this does not represent progress in terms of people. This is what happened most of the time under the previous government and we do not intend it to happen during the lifetime of this government if we can do anything by governmental or legislative action to avoid it.
Last year the increase in production was only enough to put the country a little ahead of the six years of Conservative government. Our real production, as I have just said, was last year 3 per cent higher than it had been in 1956. There was a 3 per cent improvement in six years over the previous six years, when national production per head was not 3 per cent but 16 per cent. In face of these figures, the right hon. gentleman professes to be proud of the record of his government. It is not a record, Mr. Speaker, which we consider a cause for any satisfaction, and it is a record on which we are determined to improve. The government needs higher standards than that in assessing the development

and position of this country. The people of Canada are entitled to higher standards than they have received over the past six years.
I saw no signs from the statement of the right hon. gentleman today, any more than I did in the previous statements when he was on this side of the house, that he understands that we are living in a twentieth century economy; that this is a scientific age, an age in which industry if it is given the freedom to which it is entitled in our society today, and if it is given the co-operative assistance which must come from government even when that means government intervention, can ensure that this country will go ahead in a way which will be adequate to take care of our work force. We are an advanced country in these matters. We are a growing country. Our production is increasing. But the questions to be answered are, how fast is it increasing, how far is it increasing, and is the increase sufficient to put people to work?
The basic truth about our economy today is that we must run very fast in production or else we will slip behind in employment. The number of jobs is going up, and the Leader of the Opposition has given us a figure today. But the number of jobs will not go up as fast as the number of people to fill them. That is the nature of the problem which we face, and that is what has been happening, Mr. Speaker, in the last six years. Over all that period, from the month of July 1957 to March 1963 inclusive, there were on the average 413,000 Canadians without work. That was the average figure. The number of jobs went up and we were all glad to see it go up; then it went down and we were sorry to see it go down. But all the time unemployment remained too high, at an average of 413,000 men and women without work. During the post-war years from 1946 to 1957 the average was 171,000.
Now, I admit at once that conditions were not the same in the earlier post-war period as they were from 1957 to 1963. There were difficulties to be faced which any government in this country would have had to face in that six-year period. Any government at that time would have been faced with bringing men home from the war to an unemployment problem which would be catastrophic, and they would be unable to put people to work. We were also told, and we had experience with this, that Europe would not be able to buy our products because Europe would not have the finances to do so. We faced certain advantages in export trade, but certain grave difficulties with controls which countries in Europe had to build up to keep out foreign goods as well as they could. There were difficulties in both periods; but in one period
The Address-Mr. Pearson we had an average of 413,000 people out of work, and in the other an average of 171,000, which is a difference of a quarter of a million. It is that difference which we are determined to do something about.
I say no more than I said when I was on the other side of the house. It was not easy for the previous government, and it will not be easy for us. Perhaps we will make mistakes in our efforts to do something about it, but our policy will be to encourage industrial expansion as fast as possible. That is where the jobs must be found. We will take up the opportunities and make good the delays, the indecision and the mistakes which have been made. The policies of this government will do all the government can do to set and to keep our country on the road to that kind of economic expansion for which we have the resources of both men and material, so as to achieve the kind of economic expansion which is absolutely necessary in this day and age if people are to work. That may require a steady increase in gross national production beyond that which we have had even in our good days, and it will certainly require a much greater increase in expansion than we have had on the average over the last six years. That is our policy. That is our program which we expect on this side to put into effect stage by stage. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this house will understand the importance of this program, and I believe this house will co-operate with the government constructively, and critically when necessary, in putting this program into effect.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was dealing with some of the economic proposals in the speech from the throne and certain comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on those proposals and on the economic condition of the country as he saw it, the inheritance, the booming inheritance, as he put it, that he had bequeathed to us. I endeavoured to indicate that if this situation of so-called boom over six years were repeated during the next six years, if we had a six-year prolongation of that, we would be in serious trouble indeed in this country.

The Address-Mr. Pearson
It is interesting to note that while the Leader of the Opposition referred to this period of boom in such terms and tones of glowing satisfaction, that satisfaction does not seem to have been shared by the people of Canada. Otherwise the Leader of the Opposition would not have lost 15 of his cabinet colleagues and 110 or 112 of his members in the course of 12 months.
The Leader of the Opposition also made some observations on the reference to farm policy in the speech from the throne, its inadequacy and its generally unsatisfactory character. He was inclined to sneer at the appointment of a second minister of agriculture so that the problems of agriculture and the problems of the farmers could be given more careful and detailed consideration. The party opposite has done a good job, and I freely and frankly admit it-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -in selling its agricultural policies and in selling the successful policies of the Canadian wheat board to the farmers; but the facts themselves, the hard, cold, facts, show what it has in fact done for the farmers in terms of income over the period when it was in power. The latest official figures, those that were given to parliament last December by the then government and which can be found on page 2577 of Hansard, show that in 1956 before the government of that day took office realized net income from farming in Canada was $1,238 million and five years later in 1961, after adjustment for the increased cost of the things farmers buy, realized net income was $1,192 million. In other words, realized farm income was down during that period by 4 per cent.
That is the farm problem, Mr. Speaker. It is a serious and difficult problem. Hon. gentlemen opposite have talked a lot about it but they have not solved it.


John George Diefenbaker: Was that not a crop failure year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They have not enabled the farmers of this country to increase their real income. The best way to prosperity for farmers throughout the country is through the expansion of markets at home and abroad. We will have expanding markets abroad only as we improve our trade policies, and I will have something to say later about the right hon. gentleman's observations on the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) and his enunciation of trade policy in London. We will have expanding markets at home only as the consumers of Canada again make rapid progress in prosperity and in income.
Therefore the first priority in the programs of this government for agriculture and for

every other element of the economy is economic expansion. That is to the interest of the farmer just as much as it is to the interest of the people who live in towns and cities. As we restore and maintain economic expansion, this government will also have programs, practical, forward-moving programs, to help the farmer take advantage of improving opportunities. That, Mr. Speaker, is our pledge and that is the effective way of doing things rather than merely talking about them.
The right hon. gentleman asked me this afternoon if we were going to change our policy with regard to export credits for agricultural products now that we were in office. I would remind him if he needs reminding, because he must have known the facts, that export credits for agricultural products, including export credits for sales to countries behind the iron curtain, were a policy which was initiated by the previous Liberal government just as the policy embodied in ARDA for better land use was initiated by the previous Liberal government in its land use committee in the Senate. You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal government now in office will build on and expand those policies which it initiated in the early 50's.
I should like to say a word or two now about a matter mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon which is very much in our minds and which embodies serious problems and great opportunities. I refer to the problem of the direction which should be given to confederation at this time, the problem of biculturalism and the proposal of the government to set up a royal commission to go into this problem, the terms of reference of which as submitted to the heads of government in the various provinces were tabled this afternoon.
I cannot imagine anything at this time more serious to the progress, indeed, to the survival of our country as a confederation than a successful solution to this problem. The determination of this government is that the partnership of English and French speaking people in this country shall become truly equal. I say that directly and very earnestly, and I am sure there is no single member of the House of Commons, to whatever party he may belong, who will take exception to that resolve. I emphasize as an English speaking Canadian to the English speaking parts of the country that this must be done. The partnership must be a true one and, equally important, it must be felt by all concerned in the country to be a true one.
For that purpose our confederation must be given new direction or the strains within it, of which we are all conscious particularly at

this time, might well become, though there is no reason why they should become, tragically destructive.
But I want to say something else, Mr. Speaker, and with equal seriousness to my fellow Canadians in other parts of Canada who speak French, though I am sure not all of them need this advice. Perhaps not many of them need this advice just as perhaps not many of the English speaking Canadians need the kind of reference I just made a moment ago to the necessity for co-operation and resolution on their part to make our partnership equal. When we assert the need for equality in our partnership, we must not neglect also to assert the purpose of this partnership. English speaking and French speaking people worked together, Mr. Speaker, to found, to build and to develop a country, a country with diversity as well as with cooperation and unity, a country different from other countries in this hemisphere and many other countries in the world, particularly in its diversity and in its biculturalism.
But you cannot have a bicultural country without having a country. So Quebec, to be Quebec, must be Quebec in Canada. Our purpose, therefore, in working together now must be for all of us to maintain and develop our Canadian identity, the Canadian fact. That is the nature, surely, and that must be the purpose of our partnership.
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition said our Canadian identity is not easy to preserve. It has not been easy to preserve in the past and it certainly will not be easy to preserve in the future. The influences that could submerge it are pervasive and powerful and very much in all our minds. The facts of geography, the facts of history have always meant that the establishment of a Canadian identity required positive leadership and action by the government of Canada. The facts of modern science and modern industry reinforce the need, especially in the economic field. Quebec, which is a province different from other provinces because it is a motherland to people who live in other provinces as well as being a province of Canada, needs the means to remain Quebec. The government of Quebec must have the resources to meet the needs of today as well as to fulfil the aspirations of centuries.
By the same token, Mr. Speaker, Canada needs the means to be Canada. The government of Canada must have the resources to act for Canada in the domestic and in the international fields, especially in the most important search for peace and security in the world in which Canada has played, and can continue to play, an important and constructive part, but only if it is a Canada strong and united. Canada will not be strong 28902-5-5
The Address-Mr. Pearson unless it is united. There is no conflict here, Mr. Speaker. There is merely the need for partnership. The aspirations of Quebec, the cultural identity Quebec wishes to sustain and develop, mastery in our own home, these things which the people of Quebec are asserting would not be possible within a weak country. They would not be achieved by restricting the actions of a federal government that are necessary to meet the needs that are common to us all and that are within the federal jurisdiction.
So we must be very clear about this. The government I have the honour to lead will strive for biculturalism and equal partnership. It will equally strive to be an effective government, able to do what today is necessary for the effective good government of a country. I hope and believe, Mr. Speaker, that the royal commission which it is hoped and expected will soon be set up will help us to achieve this objective of biculturalism with diversity. There is no reason why we should not achieve it.
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition asked my views, and the views of the government, on certain international matters. I propose to deal with them, but not at length, because there will be an opportunity later in the debate for my colleagues, especially the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), to go into more detail on some of these matters. The right hon. gentleman asked what our attitude was towards the United Nations. Our attitude towards the United Nations, the attitude of this government, will be the same as it was from the founding conference at San Francisco to 1957 when the Liberal government left office. During that period, Mr. Speaker, I think it was established that the policy of the Canadian government towards the United Nations was one of the firmest possible support, the most constructive support. I believe our reputation and prestige at the United Nations during those years stood high, as I believe it stands high today. We on this side will do our best to play a full part in all the activities of the United Nations, especially in the search for international peace and security through disarmament, beginning with nuclear disarmament, and in nuclear disarmament beginning with the abolition of tests.
If we take that stand with regard to the activities of the United Nations, we will have to take a positive stand with regard to the contributions we must make to keep the United Nations going at a time when there are pressures and forces which would weaken, if not destroy it, if only from a lack of that financial support which is so miniscule in reference to the amount we spend on other
62	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. Pearson things devoted to the destruction of men rather than to the creative activity of men living together.
We are all very conscious of a fact the right hon. gentleman mentioned this afternoon, that the NATO council is meeting in Ottawa during this week. NATO has been the foundation of the foreign policy of Canadian governments ever since it was formed in 1949, and it will continue to be so. This week we have the honour of acting as host to the foreign and defence ministers of NATO countries who will be coming to Ottawa for the annual spring ministerial meeting of the council. The last time that Ottawa was privileged to receive the NATO council was in 1951, when some important decisions were taken. I think we can all derive satisfaction from the military effectiveness of the organization as it has developed during these years, an effectiveness in defence which has expressed itself in deterrent form with very good results; in that since NATO was formed, and it was formed at a time when it looked as if the red army might be moving right across western Europe, it had just entered Czechoslovakia; in that since that time of tension and danger in Europe after world war II, no single piece of western European territory has fallen as a result of communist or totalitarian expansion.
I think the North Atlantic Treaty Organization can take some credit for that good result. I think also, Mr. Speaker, we can take some satisfaction in the fact that since NATO met here last NATO has developed into one of the main forums for the co-ordination of the external policies of the Atlantic countries. Although, in the field of non-military co-operation it has not got nearly so far as all of us hoped it would go when article 2 was put into the treaty. Even in the field of foreign policy consultation as opposed to the mere exchange of information NATO has not got so far as some of us hoped it would go. But in so far as economic co-operation is concerned there have been other institutions growing up in these intervening years which have been more effective than NATO in bringing about economic co-operation on a somewhat wider basis than NATO itself. In so far as political consultation is concerned I think NATO is considerably more effective than it was in 1951.
The three day meeting of the council is to take place in the west block. The opening ceremony will be held on Wednesday morning in this chamber and will be addressed by the current president of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Britain, Lord Home; by the secretary general of NATO, a distinguished civil servant of the Netherlands, Mr. Dirk Stikker and by myself. Canada will be


represented at this meeting by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer).
Normally the spring meeting of NATO is an occasion for foreign ministers to take account of the international situation. The foreign ministers and the defence ministers who are accompanying them to this meeting have been asked to make a review of discussions which have been taking place in the permanent council concerning certain proposals regarding the organization of the defensive forces of the alliance. So, in addition to the general review of foreign affairs which customarily takes place there will be a review of discussions that have been going on as to how to increase the defensive strength of the alliance.
Some information on matters to be discussed at the forthcoming meeting is, of course, already in the public domain. Hon. members, however, I am sure will appreciate that NATO ministerial meetings are held in restrictive private session and it would not be appropriate for me to make public, in advance of the meeting, the position the Canadian delegation will take on the various subjects that will be under discussion. But, I am not transgressing any rule of NATO when I say Canada will support those proposals which will be under discussion, and which we believe, after hearing the discussions, are likely to strengthen the defensive capacity and the cohesion of the Atlantic states. We remain, as a government, prepared to make a contribution from this country to that end.
It is an open secret, in fact I do not think it is a secret at all, that among the measures that will be proposed to strengthen the defensive strength of the NATO alliance will be the question of an inter-allied nuclear force, and what is called a multilateral nuclear force, which is a new idea and which provides for multinational manning of certain submarines, and perhaps surface vessels, with nuclear arms and nuclear capability.
It is sometimes forgotten, but it must not be forgotten, that NATO as an organization accepted nuclear arms for defence and deterrence as far back as December, 1957 at a meeting of the council of that time. The Canadian government at that time supported the acceptance of such nuclear arms for NATO, for defence and deterrence. Indeed paragraphs 20 and 21 of the communique issued by the NATO council issued on December 19, 1957, a communique which was accepted by the Canadian delegation and the Canadian government through that delegation, read as follows:
To this end, NATO has decided to establish stocks of nuclear warheads, which will be readily

available for the defence of the alliance in case of need. In view of the present soviet policies in the field of new weapons, the council has also decided that intermediate range ballistic missiles will have to be put at the disposal of the supreme allied commander Europe.
The deployment of these stocks and missiles and arrangements for their use will accordingly be decided in conformity with NATO defence plans and in agreement with the states directly concerned. The NATO military authorities have been requested to submit to the council at an early date their recommendations on the introduction of these weapons in the common defence-
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, ever since the acceptance of that resolution the Canadian government has accepted the proposition that NATO itself, with NATO control, should develop a nuclear capacity and deterrence for protection.
The Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon that the statement I made yesterday in the house-and I repeated it this evening, that a final decision by the Canadian delegation will be given to the NATO council meeting, which meeting undoubtedly will be held in private-that that decision not to make public our position at this time vindicates the attitude taken by the right hon. gentleman in saying we should do nothing about the nuclear commitment which had been undertaken, nothing about implementing that nuclear commitment, until the NATO council actually met in Ottawa. But, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the nature of this meeting that there will be no discussion, let alone any recommendation, about the actual role undertaken by any member of the alliance.
No question therefore will arise at this council meeting, and this must be well known by members of the previous government, of a change of policy for Canada unless the government represented at this NATO meeting reverses at once the decisions made years earlier by the government of Canada, and Canada abandons at once the role undertaken for the Royal Canadian Air Force to implement that decision, and I can assure the house we do not intend at this council meeting to abandon that role. We intend to take steps, as we are presently taking steps, to implement that role until that role is changed.
It may well be that at the NATO council meeting there may be a recommendation that the defence policy of the coalition should be re-examined. I would hope that could be done, just as Canada's defence policy will be re-examined in this house and by a special committee of this house. But until that reexamination results in an alteration of our policy we propose to discharge the commitments of that policy, so there is no relationship between the forthcoming council meeting and that decision at all.
28902-5-5J
The Address-Mr. Pearson
A decision that may or may not be taken at the council meeting, I do not know if there will be such a decision, will be in relation to the re-organization of the nuclear forces of NATO; the forces in NATO which now have a nuclear capacity. The only question that will arise here is whether those forces will be under a separate NATO nuclear command; whether the R.C.A.F., if it discharges the nuclear role accepted for it, should continue its present position in the NATO command or whether it should be under a separate NATO nuclear command organization. That is the question before the north Atlantic council and that question itself does not affect the role already undertaken for Canada by the previous government.
The right hon. gentleman opposite confirmed this afternoon what has previously been said by him, I believe, and certainly by some others-certainly by my hon. friends of the New Democratic party-that we should state in this house now, before the NATO council meets and before any decision is taken, what we are proposing to do, so that the house will know in advance and will have a chance to vote on our policy in that regard. The answer to that proposition was very clearly and very well given by the right hon. gentleman when he was prime minister of the day, on September 20, 1961 in this house, as reported at 8596 of Hansard. He said this, and I am referring to the right hon. gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition:
The announcement of decisions of government policy on this important issue-
That is the issue of nuclear weapons:
-will be made in the house. I might also say this; that the government, when placing such decisions before the house, will, naturally, at all times afford an opportunity for discussion. However, and I emphasize this, in each of the instruments that we have, the Bomarc and the Voodoos, nuclear weapons could be used. The defensive requirements of Canada and the need for the preservation of security will be the overriding consideration in the mind of this government.
Then he went on:
No decision has been made. When a decision is made the house will be clearly made aware thereof, as I emphasized a moment ago. Speculation which has been going on in the last few weeks is based on nothing more than the views of those who, desiring one final stand to be taken, are not taking into full regard the international situation nor in the event that it should worsen, the welfare, the future and the safety of Canadians.
Then there is this sentence:
The responsibility is one which the government must take having regard first and foremost to the welfare of the Canadian people. I must add, of course, that in any stand it takes the government must ask for the support of the house. That does not mean, however, that the decision would first be tentatively placed before the house. That would

The Address-Mr. Pearson be a denial of responsible government and a denial of the principles which the hon. gentleman himself has so long advocated.
The hon. gentleman was myself, Mr. Speaker, and I still advocate those principles so clearly put forward by my right hon. friend opposite.
The right hon. gentleman had something to say this afternoon about Canada's integrity as a nation. Although I do not have his exact words, I understood him to infer that this integrity had been prejudiced by United States intervention in the recent Canadian election. He went on to add that he and his party were determined that Canadian policies should be made without dictation from any outside source. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is one of those straw men which the right hon. gentleman loves to create, set up and clothe in raiment of various colours and with various statistics, and then knock down in order to protect our country from something which he seems to think threatens it because of the policy of our party.
I would point out to him that there is surely no difference of opinion in this House of Commons that Canada determines its policies by Canadian action, without dictation from outside, in so far as any country in the world today can determine its own policies. As an indication that perhaps we were not very solid or strong in this determination to protect Canada from these threats to its integrity, especially those from across the border, the right hon. gentleman referred to the current discussions regarding the Columbia river treaty. He pointed out that I had said we had to clear this matter with Washington before we could proceed with the amendments that may be required to this treaty. Of course, I was then stating the most obvious fact in the world, because this particular treaty is one made with the United States which was signed, sealed and delivered by the right hon. gentleman to Canada after it had been signed by the United States.
We can do one of three things, I suppose, about this treaty. We can let it lapse; that is, not bring it before parliament for approval at all and refuse to ratify it. We can denounce it, or we can go to Washington-[DOT] because Washington is the other signatory to this treaty-as we would expect Washington to come to us in reverse circumstances, and say, "This treaty as it was bequeathed to us by the previous Canadian government is not satisfactory. It is not a good deal for Canada. We want some changes made to it. Are you agreeable to discussing those changes?"
We have done that, Mr. Speaker, and we have secured an expression of opinion from the other signatory to the treaty that she

would be willing to discuss this and to consider amendments, clarifications and modifications to the treaty. Having received this indication of United States willingness to have another look at this treaty to see if it can be made more satisfactory, we have gone to the government of British Columbia to initiate discussions with that government, so that when we approach Washington this time with a view to these modifications we will have-[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -the views of the government of British Columbia also to this signed treaty; sealed and delivered.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister allow a question and say what changes he has asked to be made in the treaty, or is he going to obscure the issue by the words that he just uttered, which are of no meaning?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would not be a very astute negotiator with the United States if I gave details to the house in public at this time, before we have even begun to discuss the matter with the province of British Columbia, let alone Washington, except in terms of general principle that we should reopen the treaty. If I said what we were demanding to have done to the treaty to make it acceptable to us in its final form, I would be a far worse negotiator than I used to be.


John George Diefenbaker: Alibi.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the Leader of the Opposition talks about the iniquity of having suggested that we have to go to Washington before we go anywhere else in order to obtain Washington's approval to changes that Washington is being asked to make, I would remind the right hon. gentleman that this afternoon he warned us to be very careful of establishing a 12-mile limit, because Washington might not like it. I think I appreciate the importance of that warning because, as he pointed out, 80 per cent of our fish exports go to the United States, but I feel confident that we can establish our own jurisdictional zone of 12 miles, as I believe 50 other countries in the world, including the United Kingdom, have done, without getting into the kind of trouble with the United States that my hon. friend had a particular genius for getting into when he was prime minister.


John George Diefenbaker: You can always get agreement by surrender.


Some hon. Members:: Be quiet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can also state that regarding the obligation to discharge certain commitments for the common defence undertaken by the previous government, the commitments to carry out certain roles which cannot be carried out effectively, as the right hon. gentleman has so often pointed out, without the use of nuclear ammunition for the warheads and weapons required for the role, in order to discharge these commitments we have entered into negotiations with the United States, taking up where the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues left off some time ago. We have begun these negotiations for a bilateral agreement between our two countries, without which no technical agreement can be made, for the joint control of nuclear warheads. The bilateral political negotiations to this end which were carried on for such a long time by the previous government have been resumed. They will cover defensive nuclear weapons systems for Canada, as well as other matters which have been the subject of previous discussions with the United States including, of course, the role of the air division and the use of the Honest John weapon with our forces attached to NATO in Europe.
The right hon. gentleman asked me this afternoon to declare myself once and for all, finally and irrevocably for or against membership in the organization of American states. The right hon. gentleman having avoided making any such declaration himself for six years has now, with the new freedom given to him by opposition-and I understand and appreciate his position-come out boldly against Canada's entry into the organization of American states. If I understand what he said this afternoon, as far as he and his party are concerned the doubt is resolved. There would be no membership in that organization. We on this side will, in due course, declare the policy of the government in this matter. It has taken hon. members opposite six years; they might give us a few more weeks. I might point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the organization of American states is itself becoming a little worried about the proliferation of membership in that body, due to the emergence of a great many new states in the Caribbean not all of which, apparently, they think are qualified for membership. So perhaps we ought to wait and see what the criteria for membership are before we make up our own minds whether we would accept an invitation to join the organization if one should be forthcoming.
I must say I was not greatly impressed by the argument used this afternoon by the right hon. gentleman against membership- the argument that we were being pressured into this by the President of the United
The Address-Mr. Pearson States. I can assure him that there was no pressure put on me with regard to this or any other matter when I visited the president a week or so ago. To say that the President of the United States, as the right hon. gentleman indicated-I think he was quoting with approval from a newspaper-wants us in this organization so that we shall vote like Bulgaria votes in the communist bloc is not worthy of the O.A.S. or of the president, or of the Leader of the Opposition himself.
The right hon. gentleman then accused us on this side of downgrading the commonwealth of nations. We have not downgraded the commonwealth; we have never done so. Indeed, one of the proudest achievements of the party to which I belong is that it has done so much through its successive leadership and members to convert the old British empire into the commonwealth of nations- a commonwealth which has new and enlarged fields of value and usefulness open to it because of the accession of African and Asian members, though a commonwealth which is very different indeed from the old commonwealth which used to be the toast of every after dinner speaker on this subject. It is not going to be nearly as easy to make this organization into such a constructive and effective international organization as it could be. It will not be as easy to do this as it was perhaps, in earlier days when the form of membership was somewhat different from the form which has recently been brought about by a considerable increase in membership of states which do not have the same economic approach to international affairs and which do not always have the same attitude internationally as the older members were accustomed to have. This situation will create new problems for the commonwealth as well as new opportunities.
The right hon. gentleman said the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) who is at Geneva at the moment wrote off the commonwealth as a trading unit in recent discussions at the commonwealth conference in London. I say there is not a shadow of evidence to support that statement. I have with me a verbatim account of everything which the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in this regard in London, though I do not intend to detain the house by putting it on the record. He adopted a constructive policy in all his statements, not only in those with regard to the desirability of increasing trade in the commonwealth-not by dramatic statements of 15 per cent diversions but by reducing barriers to trade between members of the commonwealth as part of a general process of reducing obstacles to trade throughout the world. He did say, and he is quite right,
66	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. Pearson that to build up a commonwealth as an exclusive trade bloc would be unsatisfactory and unwise. I do not think anyone wants that.
He went from London to Geneva. He will be back tomorrow because of the unfortunate developments in Geneva which have set back the progress we hoped would be achieved there. He went there with instructions to do everything possible on the part of the Canadian government to implement the principles of the Kennedy program which is imaginative, constructive and far reaching, to reduce trade barriers and obstructions. But the Kennedy program in its application of a linear 50 per cent cut to all tariffs would work out unequally in different countries, as was explained and made clear to Governor Herter when he was here.
It is not intended that every country should be subject to the same mathematical terms in the application of the principle. That is obviously impracticable. But it was intended and required that there should be reciprocity of advantage, which means reciprocity of concession; if one member of GATT could not make the 50 per cent concession mathematically it must make a concession in relation to the benefit received. That is the kind of negotiation intended, and that is what the GATT ministerial conference was hoping to do.
When the right hon. gentleman said this afternoon we had scorned this Geneva meeting, and objected to it, he could not be farther from the facts. He was supposed to have initiated this ministerial conference some months ago. I would point out to him that this ministerial GATT meeting now taking place in Geneva originated at a meeting of the ministers of the GATT countries in Geneva from November 27 to November 30, 1961, long before the right hon. gentleman put forward the proposal in London-which he expected to be considered as a new proposal, an alternative to the United Kingdom joining the European common market. We all hope these United States and other proposals designed to reach the same objective at GATT will succeed because, with all its faults, GATT remains the best general international organization for accomplishing this purpose and the Canadian government will do its best to see that that purpose is achieved. If there is any temporary setback because of the inability of the European common market even to discuss this 50 per cent linear cut, we must find another way of achieving the same objective. This temporary setback must be only temporary, as I am sure it will be.
I have not dealt with all the points raised by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon but I can assure him that this will be done during the course of the debate. May I address


myself now to his amendment. It is one which, obviously, we on this side cannot accept. We believe the speech from the throne does embody important constructive projects and proposals which, if accepted by this house, would lead to industrial expansion, the creation of new jobs and the general economic well-being of this country. Therefore, we confidently submit the proposals in this speech from the throne to the consideration of the house. When they appear, as I hope they will shortly, in legislative form, we believe they will commend themselves in that form to the judgment of this house. In that way this government, in the first stage and the first stage only of its program of action, will have made a very good beginning indeed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should first like to take the opportunity to publicly congratulate you on your election to the office -which you now hold. We are confident that you will uphold the responsibility which has been placed upon your shoulders in an efficient and effective way. As we celebrate today as the day which is set aside as the commemorative birthday of our monarch Queen Elizabeth II, I have appreciated the remarks which have been made in regard to the health of her representative in Canada, our Governor General. We in our group wish to extend to him our sincere wishes for a speedy and a complete recovery.
I also wish to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) for her eloquent and pleasing presentation in moving the adoption of the speech from the throne. I am sure that the hon. member will have much to contribute to this house in debates to come. The hon. member was lavish in her praise of her leader. Perhaps her feelings in this regard cover over a basic difference which may exist relating to the philosophy, the programs and the policies of her party. Her statement, as reported on page 23 of Hansard, that:
It is through these institutions of government. .. that we can hope somehow to achieve ... the enlargement of the human spirit, the enlargement of the dignity and the quality of all individualsseems strangely different from the words of her leader, the Prime Minister, when he said in the throne debate last year that, "government cannot do everything, and the feeling that it can and that it should is one of the greatest threats to our freedom today". The switch from being in opposition to being the government may give the Liberal party a dangerous change of opinion in the power and wisdom of the government itself. We who are in the continuing opposition do not share this touching faith in the transforming power of a new party in charge of the government.

I should also take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his party upon their success at the polls, which in spite of the support of practically every major newspaper in the country and a seemingly unlimited supply of campaign funds were able only to elect a minority government. However, I must confess that I have been intrigued by his plan of action for 60 days. I have a feeling that it will become known in written history as Canada's great leap forward. For the good of Canada let us hope it will be more successful than that of the country to which we are now being urged to give diplomatic recognition. It was reassuring to hear the Prime Minister speak of a second four-year plan which will follow. Perhaps this will be known as the second great leap forward.
After having listened to the former prime minister this afternoon, now in opposition, and having listened to the reply from the Prime Minister, it would seem to me that neither one has learned too much from this last election. It is high time we stopped making this House of Commons a political arena. The election is past and there is not one of us who has been elected to this House of Commons who would honestly admit that it is good for the country or good for us to have another election at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have heard that before.


William Heward Grafftey: He is reading the same speech.


Robert Norman Thompson: Just a minute. Certain hon. members just have to have their memories refreshed a little. I would say, as I said at the beginning of the last parliament, that it is high time we recognized that it is our responsibility as 265 elected members to this house, representatives of the Canadian people, to get down and supply some leadership in seeing that we get the legislation this country needs and expects from us. Most people are interested in debates and fights in their proper place. But surely the people of this country have more to expect from us, with the tremendous amount of money and energy expended in the election which put us here, than the use of this house as a personal tilting ground for a couple of their fellow citizens.
Speaking on behalf of my colleagues and myself, we are here to do business, to come to grips with the internal problems of Canada so that she can have a stronger voice in a troubled world. We are not here to waste time on trivialities, Mr. Speaker. What we need is more than just a couple of watchdogs, who apparently are only concerned in fighting between themselves as to whose
The Address-Mr. Thompson responsibility it is to watch over the house while all the time the house burns down. Yes, those are not new words. They have been said before in this house and I have said them; but I think it is even more important that we regard them carefully and with a deep sense of responsibility. That is why I say that the first job of this house is to get down to business.
Mr. Speaker, we again have a minority house, and the party with the largest number of elected members has the responsibility of forming the government, of bringing in this legislative program. We have the responsibility constructively to try to work out the best possible result from that program. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has stated over and over again that the throne speech is a rehash of the policies of his last government. Then he goes on to move a vote of non-confidence in these same policies. The motion says that this house
-regrets that the policies announced fail to provide full opportunity for the people of Canada to continue the social advance and large economic growth of the past year.
This really sounds more like hash than rehash. It is the intention of the Social Credit party that we will not resort to criticism just for criticism's sake.
What is our attitude going to be in this House of Commons? First of all, let us remind ourselves again that in spite of the election we have just come through this is still a house of minorities. Not much has been said about that in these latter weeks after the election, but that is what it is. We could not make the last parliament work. Can we make this one work?


An hon. Member:: Ask Real.


Robert Norman Thompson: This much is for sure. If some of us do not reform our ways we will not do so. May I remind the Prime Minister that during the twenty fifth parliament his only objective was to oppose the government. He said many times that his objective was to cut the life of the minority government as soon as possible. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and other leading members who sit on the front benches of the Liberal party expressed the same opinion. As found on page 1349 of Hansard of last session, the hon. member for Essex East stated that the members of his party were elected to oppose the government. May I ask the Prime Minister how long his government would last if members of the opposition were to adopt the same attitude he did and which he advocated last year?
I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that we would never have had the last election if he had quit playing politics

The Address-Mr. Thompson and carried his responsibilities through to the decisive action that we should have had.


John George Diefenbaker: You changed your mind after the election.


Robert Norman Thompson: If the right hon. gentleman does not have more appreciation and understanding of what took place in the house last February 5, then I can understand why we went into an election. It was said over and over again during the election campaign that the prerequisite of stable government is majority government. That statement may have some worth, but certainly a majority government is no guarantee of an effective stable government. It was not during the years 1958 to 1962. Leaving out the war years, it was not from 1945 to 1957.
A minority government can be a strong government. It can be effective and it can be stable if the members who make up parliament will put their responsibilities ahead of the politics which they are too often prone to play and if the man who is entrusted with the leadership of the government will give the leadership which a minority house requires. We did not have that in 1962. We hope we will have it in 1963. Not only do we in this house hope so but the entire nation hopes so as well. During the election campaign it was said time and again that the Social Credit group in the House of Commons toppled the government and cut short the life of the twenty fifth parliament. Over and over again the former prime minister told the Canadian people that the reason the last minority house fell was the blockage of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Robert Norman Thompson: This is not true. The real cause of the failure of the twenty fifth parliament was indecision and the lack of leadership given to that house of minorities by the government. I am not making these remarks to dig up the past, but what happened ought to be a lesson for the future to the present government. If the former government had laid a positive program before the house, if it had organized the business of the house so that we had a timetable and knew what we were expected to do, if it had arranged the business so that we could have had a budget, if it had simply clarified a defence policy that we could understand, then we would never have had the crisis that led to the failure of the last parliament. I would say that no one, the official opposition or any other minor party, could have ever stopped a positive program if that program had been put on wheels and got rolling.
This is the responsibility of the present government and this is what the people of Canada expect from the present government. The
CMr. Thompson.]
twenty fifth parliament fell simply because it did not live up to the responsibilities it had to the people who elected it, because we in this house did not live up to those responsibilities.


An hon. Member:: You don't know what you are talking about.


Robert Norman Thompson: Yes, that is why the former government lost the last election.


An hon. Member:: How did you do?


Robert Norman Thompson: There is a dividing of political paths taking shape in Canada today. This demands the existence of minor parties and this is why both of them increased their popular support.


An hon. Member:: How did you do?


Robert Norman Thompson: Both of them increased their popular support. It is our duty then, major parties and minor parties if that is the way they are to be described, to put our shoulders to the wheel in this situation. We sincerely hope that this session will not be a continuation of what we had last time. Such conduct is out of line with public feeling. Our duty in this debate is conducting the public affairs of our nation, and it is the duty of each one of us, I think, is to stand firmly on the basis of the principles in which we believe and from this basis examine constructively and critically the program that is put before us by the government.
Several measures in the speech from the throne are good and they will have our unqualified support and approval as they are brought before us in legislative form. I am thinking particularly of the defence committee which during the last week or two of the campaign the leader of the Liberal party, now the Prime Minister, saw fit to include in his program; and I am grateful that he is taking immediate steps to set up such a defence committee. Some of the affairs of our nation are above partisan politics and certainly defence is one of them.
I also wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on what he said tonight with regard to the question of biculturalism. His remarks were objective and if we together can approach the problem, which I am convinced is one of the basic problems before us as Canadians, in the light of those remarks, then there is indeed hope for the future. It was also good to hear him speak of the responsibilities which he believes we have in the Caribbean. For a long time we have advocated that we should be carrying a greater load of responsibility with regard to the relationships of our friends and neighbours in this hemisphere and this does mean ultimate membership within the organization of American states. But right now, with the

changes that are taking place in the Caribbean, I am sure that all of us who know the area will agree that we must carry a greater degree of responsibility and oiler a larger helping hand to those islands which today are going through the throes of finding their own status as independent self-governing areas.
There are other parts of the speech from the throne that I will not take the time to discuss in detail tonight, ideas which, while they were conceived for a good purpose, will not, we believe, achieve their intended purposes without amendment. We wait expectantly to see what will be brought forth with respect to the proposed municipal development fund. In particular, we are concerned about the source and the cost to the taxpayer of the money that is to be made available to the municipalities. We believe that other measures in the speech from the throne are wrongly conceived and require us to oppose them. But our opposition will not be for opposition's sake. It will be based on the merits of any such measures from the standpoint of the principles towards which we believe a democratic government should be moving at this time.
As the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) pointed out, there is need for setting out on a new path. Perhaps the path is not so new, perhaps it is just a shift of policy in the light of the changing time. However, I am quite sure that it will fail in its purpose if it means more government interference with the individual's liberty. Yes, action rightly adopted as a watchword is good, if this is what the plan of the government is.
It is gratifying that action has been taken on the three points that were the issue as parliament fell on February 5. I refer to the setting up of a committee to arrange for the work of this house; the pledge to embark immediately on a program or timetable, with the assurance that we are going to have an early budget. The national development program is something that is necessary. The throne speech does not make concrete proposals on any specific point. The question we wish to raise at this time is whether or not the approach that is going to be used is one that will bring us to a satisfactory conclusion.
The great complexity of our society makes the individual more dependant upon the community of which he is a part. However, that community also grows more dependent upon the individual as he becomes more highly specialized in his ability and training. This is something that should not be forgotten. We have witnessed, with a certain amount of pride, the successful return of the astronaut Cooper within these last few days. As we 28902-5-6
The Address-Mr. Thompson study all the preparations that took place, we realize that behind him there were thousands of people who made up the team which resulted in his 22 successful orbits of the earth. On the other hand, that team could never have worked as it did if it had not been for the individual who had control of the space capsule. We realized this as we heard that the automatic control from the land base failed to operate, and the astronaut had to take over. So it is, I think, in our society. This is as it should be. All economic progress comes from the division of labour, specialization and the exchange of ideas.
I am not pessimistic about Canada's future. Somehow I am confident that free men will work their way out of their present problems so that all men can be free. However, I do agree with the contemporary philosopher who not long ago gave us these words:
Corporate officialdoms are helpless and barren- the parties, bureaus, departments, cabinets, commissions, barren because of the inner cancellation of each other's certitudes. The composite program prudentially polished has every virtue in it but life.
This is what William Ernest Hocking said. It is very true. It is good that we remember this as we look at the problems with which we are faced.
It is well for us to remember that our monetary system has been the key to the organizational development of our society. We have passed through the stages of slavery, feudalism, yes, and compulsion. But what was it that brought us out of feudalism?


An hon. Member:: Debt free money.


Robert Norman Thompson: Some of those who are making remarks would be more correct in displaying their intelligence by keeping quiet.
Money has been the key to the organization of society. Money makes economic democracy possible by making consumer choice the arbiter of economic direction. We can go back, if we so desire, to Great Britain during the 1500's when the renaissance was just developing, when the industrial revolution was beginning to take its embryonic form. Here, again, this development was preceded with a development for the facility of the medium of exchange in the monetary system which ultimately resulted in the present monetary system.
As we look for democracy, for a system of government, let us remember that economic democracy is at the root of democratic democracy. The one is not complete, and the one cannot survive unless it has the other. I am concerned because of the trend towards increased governmental control, increased taxation. This is actually an abandonment of our monetary system, an abridgement or

The Address-Mr. Thompson an attempted abridgement of economic democracy. It does not enlarge the human spirit, but abridges it instead. It does not enlarge human dignity. It subjects individuals to the indignity of government by bureaucracy. If it promotes equality, it is precisely at the expense of that precious individuality that has been the spark kindling the fire of western civilization. As the Austrian writer Heimito von Doderer said, contemplating the difference between east and west, that in the east, "individual life does not rebel. There is too little of it for rebellion. One soul mingles with the other like smoke. But in the west, every life has its own special, if invisible, garden plot. A man stands alone between the tended flower beds and the little porticos of a house from which no one, by law and equity, is entitled to expel him... This is the only way he knows how to be. Only in this way can he be big or little, crooked or straight, good or bad".
So, as we consider this new path let us remember the old fundamentals that are basic to the very way of life we mutually agree is the way we should live. Is the new path we are taking, then, a new path or is it an old one? Is it the collapse of economic democracy which is forcing us to take actions which are contrary to the basic principles under which we live? Perhaps this sounds strong, but look at the socialist governments behind the iron curtain. It is the logical confusion of bigger and bigger governments. Creative ideas have never sprung from groups, they spring from individuals. No committee has ever painted a piece of art. No board of directors has ever written a symphony. No commission has ever invented a scientific machine. In our awe of the power of the organization compared with that of the individual, let us not forget the complementary need of the organization, however complex, for the individual's vision, skill and ability. It is the contact between the aspired mind of the individual and his Creator that enables him to bring to others a glimpse of the infinite and the eternal that lie outside the view of ordinary men. This suppression of creativity carries with it the seeds of decay of every socialist state.
Now, the question that faces us in this parliament is a simple one. Are we to master the mighty economic and social machine that we have created, or is it to master us? Some 40 years ago the founder of the Social Credit movement, which has developed into the political party I have the privilege of leading, pointed out that the answer lies in the difference between yet one more retreat into the dark ages or the emergence into the full light of day of such splendor as we can at present only envisage dimly.

I am convinced that if we are to continue as a private enterprise system we cannot cure this problem by the direction of production as this government, in the speech from the throne, indicates it intends to do. We must see that the consumers have the incomes to create a big enough market to absorb the immense production of which we are now capable. Let us begin at the proper end. Let us begin with people and their needs for better food, clothing, housing and education. If their incomes were sufficient to buy the things they already want to have, and which we are capable of giving them, our problems of unemployment and poverty in the midst of abundance would be solved.
We are still faced with problems which plagued Canada 40 years ago. The reason is that the old line parties have refused, and are still refusing, to solve them by methods that are already more than 40 years old. In the speech from the throne we have a promise that matters of detail will be taken care of, but our basic, underlying economic problems will continue without change.
In spite of what the Leader of the Opposition has said about last year's prosperity, we can no longer tolerate the stagnation of the past six years. Therefore we have two choices. We either make our financial system work- and there are perfectly simple reasons for its not working at the present time-


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure no hon. member would wish to deny the hon. gentleman the opportunity of completing his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman the unanimous consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have only a few more remarks to add. Either we make our financial system work-and there are perfectly simple reasons why it is not working at the present time- so that we can give the poor and needy those things we have in abundance about us, or we abandon the use of money altogether and with it the economic basis of democracy in place of a completely planned economy. Every step that increases our taxes takes away our power of choice, takes us away from the free market and economic democracy which I believe we must have.
In considering the legislation which will be placed before us, instead of trying to badger each other back and forth as political parties, it is far more important that we get down to

the basic fundamentals that will let us work together. Let us remember that in our parliament, complex as it is, the individual member must have preserved those rights that will give him the freedom to use the initiative and the enterprise which his Creator has given him.
Parliament, in my opinion, needs to do these things. We must through the Bank of Canada take charge of the credit supply of our nation. We already control the legal tender within our monetary system. Is it such an absurd thing that we should take charge of our credit as well? I think not. Reference has been made here tonight to debt free money. The fact is that because we have not taken charge of our credit-not as a government but as parliament itself-we have failed to give to our economy the necessary monetary bloodstream it needs.
I was interested to read the April 12 edition of the Winnipeg Tribune in which Professor C. L. Barber of the University of Manitoba was reported as saying:
The Canadian economy has been trying to operate with an insufficient money supply for the past five years and needs creation of $1 billion to function successfully.
Since it costs very little to create additional money, we are very foolish to try to get along with too small a stock of it.
A growing economy needs a growing supply of money . . . the supply is barely keeping pace with the growth of the gross national product. There's nothing being done to make up our $1 billion deficit.
The extra money in the economy would raise stock and bond prices and reduce interest rates, and might stimulate the rate of capital spending. The extra money would more likely be invested in Canadian enterprises than be spent on new cars and other consumer goods.
The result of the money supply shortage has been the highest interest rates since the first world war.
Canadians now expect "a great deal" from government . . .
They (governments) are expected to take an underlying responsibility for the successful functioning of our economy-and properly so.
Yet, I suspect few of us realize how much our standards of expected government performance have risen over the past decade or more.
He went on to explain how this would work. So, these things which far too many members of the house tend to laugh and jeer at, are things which people who are closer to an understanding of the function of our economy are thinking about. Since it costs very little and since the basic reforms that would be involved here are not major, it would not take long before our economy could produce the things that we agree are the desirable objectives.
France, Germany and Japan, during the years since the last war, have steadily increased their money supply and the growth 28902-5-6i
The Address-Mr. Thompson of their gross national product. Their economies have expanded; they do not have unemployment today. Is it immoral to do the same thing here? The answer is not higher debt and higher tax burdens.
The government can be assured, in the light of this approach, of our co-operation in this parliament as we agree that something must be done, but we give notice to the government that we are afraid it is on a fundamentally wrong track in preferring physical control to financial reform in trying to make our economic system bring prosperity to all. I am alarmed at the possible consequences that might result to individual rights and freedom in a private enterprise economy.
This is no blank cheque for support, but it is an earnest appeal to each one of us to work together to make this session a responsible session in the eyes of the people who elected us. We can prove to the people of Canada that we are responsible representatives only by acting like responsible people. Frontbencher or backbencher, cabinet ministers or opposition, it does not matter where we sit. This is the challenge that is before us now. I hope each member will take the now. I hope each member will take the opportunity of participating in this debate as I do not think any one has all the answers to the questions that are involved. However as we participate and share this responsibility we will achieve that which the country expects from us and which it needs in order that it can continue to develop and move forward.
This is now just four years before the centennial of our confederation. These are four very vital years. Whether or not we are able to hold Canada together as a nation remains to be seen. I think we will find the answer before 1967. I do not think there has ever been so important or critical a period in the history of our nation, as it has existed as a nation, as we face standing on the threshold right now. Therefore I trust-and I am confident we will do this-that each one of us will be carefully thinking of our responsibilities in this over-all picture and will be playing our own parts in moving forward to make Canada the nation that I want Canada to be, that all of us want Canada to be, that Canada must be if she is to stand, and a nation such as the world must have.
We in Canada are actually a miniature world. It is true that we are only 19 million people. We came together as two founding nations 200 years ago, and into our midst have come a multitude of other nationals from other parts of the world. We came into being almost in spite of the laws of economics and the reasoning of men that such a nation could survive. In fact it is a miracle that

The Address-Mr. Douglas Canada has survived to this point. But what hope have we of staying together as a peaceful world, of developing the human and material resources of this world, if we in Canada cannot work out our own problems? That is why I think our responsibility goes much further afield than this house or this nation. It reaches across the world. If we cannot do this, what hope have men and women as individuals who deserve the assurance of those things which they need in order to live, and who at the same time desire the freedom which will help them reach their objective in the world.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I offer you my congratulations and felicitations on the high office to which you have been elected by your peers. I notice that the Sergeant-at-Arms has been placed cheek by jowl beside the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and myself. I hope this is not an indication that Your Honour fears trouble from this corner. I can assure you that we will be models of decorum.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are peaceful people.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should also like to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the gracious hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the very able hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). These two hon. members made as fine maiden speeches as I have ever heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure they brought honour to themselves, their constituents and their party. As a matter of fact, when I heard the hon. member for Northumberland extolling the beauty and charm of her constituency I thought that her constituents could argue with equal force about the beauty and charm of their member.
I should also like to extend my congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his colleagues on having earned the right to be invited to form a government. When I look at the cabinet, with some notable exceptions it seems to me like an old timers reunion of the Liberal party. Most of the cabinet is made up of members of the former Liberal administration, along with former civil servants and economic advisers to the St. Laurent government. But I want to compliment them on the efficiency which they have already displayed in the dispatch of business, and to express the hope that they will not have competence without compassion, that we will not see efficiency without vision,

the kind of vision that we need in the situation in which Canada finds itself at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the one fact which is paramount is that the people of Canada want this to be a parliament that gets things done. This country is beset by deep rooted problems and there is little to be gained from arguing as to whose responsibility it is for these problems. There is nothing to be gained by mutual recriminations from both sides of the house. The child is on our doorstep; there is little value in arguing about who has the paternal responsibility. We all have a responsibility at this time to meet the situation which confronts us. The opposition parties, in my view, have a responsibility to refrain from all forms of frivolous obstruction and to give the government a chance to bring down its program for economic recovery.
I submit, on the other hand, that the government has a responsibility to tackle the problems which confront it with dispatch and to refrain from making any major policy decisions without reference to parliament. I think the people of Canada as a whole want a respite from elections; but the onus for that lies on both sides of the house. The members of the New Democratic party in this house are prepared to give the government a chance to carry out its domestic program for economic recovery, but on the other hand we expect the government to consult parliament rather than treating it with contempt. We can have in this country a period of stable government only if there is a degree, a high degree, of co-operation from all parties in this house.
Mr. Speaker, may I now say a word about the speech from the throne. This is a document of lights and shadows. Some of the proposals could prove very beneficial. I refer to the municipal development and loan board, the department of industry and the area development agency which will be created within that department, the Canada development corporation, the economic council and the contributory pension plan, all of which are mentioned in the speech from the throne. The value of these measures will depend on the terms of the legislation and whether these proposals are part of a planned assault upon our economic problems or merely a hit and miss set of proposals attempting to patch up a creaking economy.
We in the New Democratic party do not believe that this government, any more than its predecessor, is prepared to undertake the fundamental changes or adopt the far reaching policies which are necessary to make our economy function satisfactorily. May I just

give two brief illustrations. Mention was made today of the rate of economic growth. The rate of economic growth is not like a hockey score; it is not an end in itself. Increased growth is only meaningful if it contributes to the two vital goals of full employment and a higher standard of living for all Canadians. The year 1962 demonstrated that we can have an increase in the gross national product without a corresponding increase in employment. The increase in that year was largely in the extraction industries which do not have a high employment ratio. Consequently, we had an increase in the gross national product but there was no corresponding decline in unemployment.
May I put forward another illustration-the matter of investment funds with which some of this legislation is concerned? Increased investment funds alone are not a solution. Over the period when investment was declining, business savings in Canada actually increased by 4 per cent. If the problem had been a lack of funds, surely the business community would have dipped into its reserves. Last year, in constant dollars, business investment increased by 4.8 per cent but in the same period gross business savings increased by 7.1 per cent. It is therefore apparent that the business community felt that present plant and machinery were adequate to meet the current demand for goods and services.
The great lack, is not just in terms of economic growth, is not just in terms of funds for investment-though these are important factors in our economy-it is the inability of large sections of our population to buy the goods and services which our economy is capable of producing. It is estimated that there is a gap of some $2.5 billions between what our economy is capable of producing and what the people of this country are able to buy. That is why we in this group have constantly advocated two measures, the first of which is that there must be massive doses of social capital injected into the economy. To my mind this is where the speech from the throne falls down. The municipal development and loan board will be some help in giving social capital to the municipalities, but what we need in addition are large scale public works by both federal and provincial governments. We need home construction on a gigantic scale. The unemployed should not be asked to wait until the effects of long run measures have found jobs for them. There are things which could be done now and things which must be done now if unemployed people are to be put to work.
The second thing we advocate is an increase in social security measures as one of the means of distributing purchasing power. Social security measures are not a luxury to
The Address-Mr. Douglas be enjoyed after economic recovery. They are an integral and indispensable part of economic recovery. During the election campaign the Prime Minister spoke of welfare measures and health measures taking second place to economic recovery. We believe there can be no effective economic recovery or economic stability until purchasing power is restored to those sections of our population which have only a limited capacity to consume. An increased effective demand on the part of the lower and middle income groups is indispensable to economic growth and a full employment economy. If the government continues to retain the idea of getting ever closer to a balanced budget as the pivot of its economic policy it will not be able to do either of these two things. The government is facing a dilemma. If it carries out its preelection talk about a balanced budget it will not be able to provide the social capital or the welfare measures necessary for economic recovery. It will have to make up its mind in the course of this and the other sessions of the present parliament whether it intends to adopt modern economic policies or whether it is going to worship the golden calf of a balanced budget. Today, a balanced budget is not essential. The essential thing is to balance consumption and production.
May I briefly mention some of the omissions from the speech from the throne? I have already noted that there is no reference to a short run program for providing jobs. There are in the neighbourhood of half a million persons unemployed in this country who are looking to this parliament to provide jobs. There is nothing in the speech from the throne which gives immediate hope that these jobs will be forthcoming in the months ahead.
There is no mention in the speech from the throne of a comprehensive health insurance program. I can recall in my own constituency of Burnaby-Coquitlam the Liberal candidate, Mr. Tom Kent, saying that the New Democratic party promised to pay 60 per cent of the cost to any province which would establish a comprehensive medicare program but that a Liberal government would not wait for the provinces to act but would bring in a medicare program of its own. In a television debate in which he and I participated he said this would be done in the first 60 days. It is true there was a slip of the tongue; he said "in the first 60 years" but he quickly corrected himself. Some people suspected that the Freudian slip was more accurate than the correction. However, the people of Canada will want to know during the course of this debate whether or not the government is serious about the medicare program promised in the course of the election campaign.

The Address-Mr. Douglas
There is no mention in the speech of a two price system for wheat guaranteeting the farmers $2 a bushel for the wheat they deliver. Today, when I sought an answer to that question, the Prime Minister said it was a matter of government policy which would be announced in due course. The fact remains that the Prime Minister made this promise definitely to the people of western Canada. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on March 7 carried a full banner headline quoting him as saying that the Liberal party was pledged to a two price system and a $2 guaranteed price. Certainly I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) or the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) will make a statement on the subject during the course of this debate.
There is no mention of the 10,000 scholarships of $1,000 each of which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) spoke in an article which appeared in the Toronto Star on May 1, and there is no statement on the pressing problem of railway line abandonment which is causing so much concern to the people of the prairies. I recall that only a few months ago the Liberal members, when they sat on this side of the house, were screaming for action. But the speech from the throne is as silent as the tomb about what the government intends to do concerning this large scale railway line abandonment being planned by the two major railway companies in Canada which will mean the uprooting of three or four thousand miles of railway line with all that this implies for the people who live in the communities affected and the farms which produce in those areas.
It is my intention to move a subamendment to the speech from the throne but I do not want to start on that before tomorrow, if that
would meet the pleasure of the house. If I have the consent of the house, I should like to move that the debate be adjourned and to call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Under the circumstances, sir, I wonder if Your Honour would see that it was ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if for purposes of identification the house leader would care to get his name on Hansard again and announce the business for tomorrow and the rest of the week?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say, sir, that I deeply appreciate the solicitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for my publicity. I hope he will continue to be my publicity agent, because I know I am going to need one.
To speak seriously, sir, it is the hope of the government that this debate will be continued uninterrupted until it is concluded. After what has been said by the hon. member for Red Deer this evening the government would, of course, be very grateful if we could conclude the debate a day or two earlier than the full length of time allowed by the rules. However, we are not wishing in any way to restrict the right to speak of any hon. member who has something to say.


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


[Stage Direction]
(The following letter was sent to the premiers of all provinces)

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, May 15, 1963
My dear Premier:
In a speech I made in the House of Commons on December 17, 1962, on the problems posed, and the opportunities offered, in Canada by the duality of language and culture established by confederation, I suggested that a broad and comprehensive inquiry should be conducted, in consultation with the provinces, on bilingualism and biculturalism. That proposal received widespread support in parliament and, I believe, in the country.
I am now writing to ask whether your government would favour such an inquiry by a royal commission with terms of reference such as those annexed to this letter.
Any recommendations from the proposed commission would, of course, not be binding on governments; nor would approval by your government of such a commission with these terms of reference imply any commitment to accept any recommendations that it might make.
I would be most grateful for your early consideration of this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Lester B. Pearson.

[Stage Direction]
To inquire into and report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in
Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution; and, in particular,
1.	to report upon the situation and practice of bilingualism within all branches and agencies of the federal administration- including crown corporations-and in their communications with the public and to make recommendations designed to ensure the bilingual and the basically bicultural character of the federal administration;
2.	to report on the role of the public and private cultural organizations, including the mass communications media, in promoting bilingualism, better cultural relations and a more widespread appreciation of the basically bicultural character of our country and of the subsequent contribution made by the other cultures; and to recommend what should be done to improve that role; and
3.	having regard to the fact that constitutional jurisdiction over education is vested in the provinces, to discuss with the provincial governments the opportunities available to Canadians to learn the English and French languages and to recommend what could be done to enable Canadians to become bilingual.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 21, 1963