1963-02-04

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday I sent to the Prime Minister my resignation as minister of national defence.
I believe it is the duty of a minister of national defence to ensure the security of Canada to the greatest extent that he believes to be possible, on the basis of the information and advice he receives. I have always believed, in pursuit of this duty as minister, that we should have nuclear weapons.
In all defence negotiations concerning nuclear weapons in which I have had a part, the sovereignty of Canada has been protected fully. We have never lost sight of the dignity or independence of this country.
I believed when I spoke here last Thursday that the position I outlined in a press release issued on Monday, January 28, was the same as that stated by the Prime Minister in his speech of January 25, as found on page 3136 of Hansard. Subsequently it became apparent to me that the Prime Minister's views on nuclear arms and my own are irreconcilable. On reflection, I believe now I made a mistake in agreeing to what would amount to a four month delay in obtaining nuclear warheads for our forces in Europe. I did so agree in the hope of getting the nuclear arms question definitely settled.
I differ from the Prime Minister in this way, that I believe we should have obtained nuclear warheads for our weapons carriers as soon as the latter were ready. I thought throughout that by remaining in the cabinet I could better achieve this purpose than by taking the easier course of resigning.
I resigned on a matter of principle. The point was finally reached when I considered that my honour and integrity required that I take this step. I shall, of course, remain in the Conservative party, and I hope to run in my constituency of Calgary North at the next election. That will be in the hands of my supporters in Calgary North to whom I hope to report shortly.
27507-3-214
I should like to make it clear that I absolutely reject the position on nuclear weapons set forth by the Liberal leader. That anomalous position is that Canada should evade her responsibility by accepting nuclear weapons now and then immediately negotiating out of them.
I bade farewell to my fellow ministers in the cabinet on terms of warm friendship. I thank the house for its kindness in allowing me to make this statement.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with regular custom-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. gentleman rising on motions?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising in view of the statement made and simply in order to table the letter of resignation of the hon. gentleman and my reply which I sent to him today. I will say no more than I say in the letter-


An hon. Member:: Read it out.


John George Diefenbaker: -namely that I regret the resignation and that I find it difficult to understand the decision in view of the statements made by the hon. gentleman on repeated occasions. I table the letters at this time.


An hon. Member:: Read them.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Prime Minister tabled a copy of the letter which he received from the former minister of national defence, and his reply thereto. I wonder if the Prime Minister would be prepared with the consent of the house to make these two letters part of Hansard for today.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no objections, but I do not think that course has been followed in the past.



PUBLIC SERVICE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce several important appointments to

Conference on Biculturalism the public service. Dr. B. G. Ballard, who has been scientific vice president of the national research council, has today been appointed president of the council. Dr. Leo Marion, who is senior director of the council and of the division of pure chemistry, has today been appointed scientific vice president of the council. Both Dr. Ballard and Dr. Marion have had long and distinguished careers with the national research council and I am sure the house will welcome their promotions to the highest offices in the council.
There is a further appointment, that of chairman of the civil service commission. The appointee of the government by order in council is Mr. Robert G. MacNeill, assistant deputy minister of national defence. Prior to his appointment by the civil service commission to the Department of National Defence two years ago, Mr. MacNeill was an officer of the Department of Finance, to which he had been transferred from the defence research board in 1949. I hope and expect that the appointment of this able and experienced civil servant to head the civil service commission will be welcomed by all.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON BICULTURALISM

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the house last week that I would make a statement today concerning the government's plan to convene a conference with the provincial governments to discuss biculturalism and other questions pertaining to the Canadian confederation.
It is well to recall that almost in the last years of Sir John A. Macdonald's life these words were uttered by him:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that, by any mode whatever, there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other. I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible.
That has been the stand of successive Conservative governments since. Today we proudly call ourselves Canadian citizens enjoying every attribute of freedom and sovereignty.
Confederation was achieved by a partnership of English speaking and French speaking men who believed that the destiny of the north half of this continent might be achieved in unity but not in uniformity. But for the fundamental agreements expressed in section 133 of the British North America Act, with its assurance of the rights of language in this

country, and sections 91 and 92 assuring to the provinces their jurisdiction over education and culture, there never would have been a Canada. The recognition of the two cultures and of the English and French languages was the very base and foundation of confederation.
Canada, under confederation, has prospered and grown. There have, however, arisen from time to time-periodically it takes place- questions as to whether Canada, as she approaches the close of the first century of confederation, has achieved the full' measure of the vision of the fathers of confederation. It is with this thought in mind that the government has decided to propose the calling of a federal-provincial conference, and invitations to such a conference will be dispatched to the governments of the ten provinces at once.
The scope of the conference will be of the fullest breadth. It will be asked to study ways and means of repatriating the constitution, the problem of adequate representation in the public service, crown corporations and other government agencies; the recommendations in the Therrien report; the choice of a national flag and other symbols of our national sovereignty. In brief, the conference will be asked to examine biculturalism and bilingualism in a comprehensive manner.
I know it has been suggested in some quarters that a royal commission should be appointed for this purpose. The government believes that the course which it is now announcing is much to be preferred under the circumstances to the appointment of a royal commission. Royal commissions are appointed to find facts. The facts are well known. The responsibilities are shared by two levels of government. Any royal commission must necessarily be appointed by a federal government and any recommendations that such a royal commission might make would necessarily require to be referred to a federal-provincial' conference in due course in any event. It is inconceivable, Mr. Speaker, that action would be taken by any federal government in relation to such matters without having consulted the governments of the provinces in the fullest manner. Indeed, it may well be that the recommendations of any such royal commission would almost certainly involve action by provincial legislatures as much as by parliament. For these clear reasons the government proposes the more definite and more prompt opportunity offered by a federal-provincial conference.
The conference will provide the opportunities to examine areas of disagreement

and the nature of the courses of action required to resolve them. It will be intended to contribute to unity, harmony and restatement of the goals of the Canadian confederation. It will not be its purpose to seek uniformity in a country which has chosen unity in diversity, no unity through uniformity. In correcting any injustices that might be found we shall destroy prejudice and misunderstanding. We are ready to take action to deal firmly and positively with any danger which confronts the basis of the Canadian confederation.
This is a task to which all Canadians can give their willing allegiance. Indeed, I think it is the goal' of every Canadian proud to call himself a Canadian. Our task must be not to separate but to preserve the principles of confederation, and to round out and restate its goals for the second century of our history.
Canadians must continue to offer to the world the example of a nation composed of peoples who, though differing in language, culture and traditions, hold before mankind the beacon lights of mutual understanding and mutual respect. To the original French and English strains in the Canadian population there have now been added many Canadians of other origins. They have come of their own choice to this country and have become members of the Canadian family, bringing with them their traditions and rich heritages of culture. By their contributions they have enriched, deepened and diversified the cultures of this nation.
I see the Canada of tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, stronger, more united in her diversity, drawing her strength from the partnership of the two great original cultures and enriched by the infusion of many other races and cultures. Such a Canada is destined to play an ever greater and beneficent role in the world as an example of cultures and peoples abiding together in unity. If we remain faithful to these principles and the challenges of our time, then indeed it may be said of us in years to come, as it was said of the fathers of confederation 100 years ago, "They builded better than they knew".
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the position of our party on this matter of such vital importance to our national destiny was made clear in the house on December 17 last in a statement which I was privileged to make at that time, and which I had the privilege of repeating, in both English and French speaking parts of Canada, since I gave it in the house.
27507-3-2144
Conference on Biculturalism
In that statement I suggested, and I still think it would be the best course notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has just said, that there should be an immediate inquiry launched by the federal government and the provincial governments to find out what is the best way of getting all the facts which bear on this vitally important problem; because I do feel, notwithstanding what has been said, that there is still room for an inquiry into the facts before the governments concerned, federal and provincial, can take the right kind of action.
I went on to say at that time that the fact that responsibility in this matter was divided in that way did not exempt the federal government from responsibility in respect of matters which come under its own immediate jurisdiction and on which it could act at once.
In the relationships between the two founding races in our confederation-and the Prime Minister has emphasized that in his statement this afternoon-partnership was never more important and separation never more disastrous than in this age of interdependence. For better or for worse we are together, and it is up to us to make it for better, inside confederation. This cannot be done by any attempt to return in any way to the earlier ideas of a centralist or legislative union, held by many fathers of confederation including Sir John A. Macdonald, any more than it can be done by insisting on the strict interpretation of the contract theory of confederation as a binding, legal compact between states. The basis must be partnership that was indeed the concept of confederation, and was the solemn understanding of those in French Canada who supported confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Pearson:: Sir John A. Macdonald once wrote in 1868, and his words appeared in an editorial in the Montreal Gazette the other day;
My own opinion is that the general government or parliament should pay no more regard to the status or position of the local governments than they would to the prospects of the ruling party in the corporation of Quebec or Montreal.
We have come a long way from those days, Mr. Speaker, and now Quebec-indeed all the provinces but Quebec especially-is far more than a local government. It is a constitutional expression of a full and equal partnership of French speaking Canadians as a founding race in confederation. It is the reflection of the duality of our nationalism in language and in culture. In that sense Quebec is more than a province. It is a political expression within the Canadian nation of the pride of

Conference on Biculturalism millions of Canadians in a culture, a tradition, a language and a race, the recognition of which by all Canadians is essential to the unity of our country.
Mr. Speaker, no country fits less into anything approaching the pattern of having a master or a privileged race than Canada; not only because of the duality of our origin as a nation but because so many cultures, traditions and races have been added to those of the two founding races to the great benefit of Canada as a whole. Our country would be much poorer without these additional contributions.
All this does not mean that we must not try to seek and achieve a real and meaningful unity. It does mean that we must not confuse this unity with uniformity. Nor does it mean that Quebec-though more than a province-should withdraw in any respect from her place as a province in a confederation; or, more important, that we should do anything in other parts of Canada to make her wish to withdraw from that place.
French Canada is part of Canada, as Canada is part of North America, which includes the United States of America. As Quebec is not an island unto itself in Canada so, Mr. Speaker, our country is not and cannot be an island unto itself on this continent. But Canada is and Canada must remain as Quebec is and Quebec will remain, an identity and a fact. Quebec will make its own adjustments to changes industrial, cultural and political that are inevitable in a changing continent in a changing world. But Quebec will do it in her own way. As a gifted and experienced student of French Canada, an American, Professor Mason Wade, put it very recently:
While French Canada is becoming more North American it is doing so on its own terms, and it is clear that Quebec will remain French and Catholic and devoted to its traditions in the future as in the past.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I was most happy to hear, a few moments ago, the most eloquent statements of policy made by the two major political leaders of our country and of English Canada.
On behalf not only of the Social Credit group in this house but of all French Canadians throughout Canada, I should now like to express our feelings in that respect.
While we asked for the establishment of a royal commission on biculturalism, we are told that a federal-provincial conference will be called and that the premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada will


examine the extent of bilingualism in our country and French Canadian representation in the civil service. The Prime Minister's statement leaves us with mixed feelings of joy and sadness. In our opinion, by consulting the provincial premiers regarding French Canadian representation in federal departments or crown companies, the government fails to shoulder its own responsibilities. In that field of federal jurisdiction the government should have acted on its own.
On the other hand, we agree with the Prime Minister that when it comes to choosing a national flag, the government should consult the provincial premiers to obtain a crosssection of Canadian opinion.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest, in view of the statement just made to the effect that we shall have a federal-provincial conference, instead of a royal commission, I would urge all newspapers in the country to ask all associations to submit briefs on bilingualism and biculturalism. Be they English speaking groups from the province of Quebec or elsewhere, or those who may have representations to make on the matter, either French speaking groups from the province of Quebec or French speaking groups from other provinces, I would have them send their briefs direct to the Prime Minister's office, in order to let him know, prior to that federal-provincial conference, what they mean by biculturalism and bilingualism in this country. If all our associations of both great races would submit briefs prior to the federal-provincial conference, when the time comes for us to sit around a table we would have something to help us consider the situation, and that would represent some kind of inquiry since we cannot get the inquiry we had requested.
We would like to know when that federal-provincial conference will be held; we would have liked to know who will take part in it.
The other day we inquired about it, and the reply was given that the provincial premiers would be represented, and in that way the four political parties. We would have liked to see representatives from the four political parties in the house. I have no intention to talk on behalf of the other political parties, but we would have liked to see our own representatives, in addition to both Social Credit premiers from Alberta and British Columbia who perhaps do not understand our problems as well as our own Social Credit members.

Those are a few suggestions, Mr. Speaker, that we wanted to make to the Prime Minister on the occasion of his statement. I hope he will take them under consideration and that he will bring some changes to his statement of today, in order that we may have still more satisfaction.
I was pleased to hear statements of policy from those two political leaders, for those statements make it clear that there is today an awareness of the existence of two great races, two great cultures in Canada.
(Text):


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any member of the house will oppose the idea of convening a federal-provincial conference to look into the question of biculturalism and the relationships between the two great races which went to make Canada. However, we in this party feel that the government ought not to dismiss completely the value which could be obtained from appointing a royal commission to look into this matter. Federal-provincial relations and the basic matters of biculturalism and bilingualism have long concerned the people of Canada, ever since confederation.
The last royal commission which was set up to look into federal-provincial relations was known as the Rowell-Sirois commission. It was appointed in response to the economic needs and pressures of the depression days in the 1930's. Because of that fact it, of necessity, placed its major emphasis on fiscal and economic matters. But today the problems are of a different character. Growing industrialization and urbanization have created new problems. French Canadians feel with a good deal of justification that modern events are pressing in upon them and threatening the survival of their language, their culture, and those spiritual values which they cherish so dearly.
We English speaking Canadians have not always been sufficiently sensitive to this situation. While we may deplore separatism, we cannot afford to ignore the sense of grievance and injustice of which separatism is a symptom. It matters not whether we agree that there is a sense of grievance. I for one do agree. But whether we agree or not, if there is felt to be a sense of grievance then that of itself is a problem and one to which we must apply ourselves.
That is why on February 20, 1962, I issued a statement as leader of our party in conjunction with the president of the New Democratic
Conference on Biculturalism party provisional council for the province of Quebec, and I want to read only an excerpt or two from that statement, if I may, Mr. Speaker. I said:
Canadians must face the fact that, almost a hundred years after confederation, our federal-provincial and French-English relations continue to be seriously unsettled and unsatisfactory. The New Democratic party believes that we must not permit this situation to drift until it gets out of hand. We believe that there is urgent need for a thorough study of our experience of Canadian federalism and for a careful rethinking of the relations between the two nations which together make up the basic partnership in confederation.
To this end, the federal and Quebec executives of the New Democratic party propose that a federal-provincial commission on Canadian federalism and biculturalism be immediately constituted. Such a commission should bring together and draw upon the experience and knowledge of outstanding Canadians from all parts of the country. It should hold public hearings throughout the country and invite representatives of every section of the Canadian community to present their point of view and make recommendations for appropriate action.
Then later on I said:
The New Democratic party believes that a new approach is necessary on the important problem of Canada's unity. We believe that the program adopted at our founding convention, with its pioneering conception of co-operative federalism, presents such a new approach. True Canadian unity depends on equal recognition and respect for both the main cultures of our country and this is the basis on which the New Democratic proposals are formulated.
However, the task we face as a country must be understood by all our people and this requires much more intensive thought and study.
Then I proceeded to suggest the kind of outstanding people who should be appointed -university figures, men in responsible positions in the press, business, industry, labour, agriculture. I wound up by saying:
Canadians of this stature-and one could name many others-would make a lasting contribution to the constitutional and cultural future of Canada. The New Democratic party urges that the commission should be appointed now, without delay, so that Canada may celebrate the hundredth anniversary of confederation as a united country, with clear guide lines for the future.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is much to be said in favour of having a royal commission to enable persons who have devoted a lifetime to a study of this problem to give us the benefit of their advice and experience. The personnel on such a commission would be important. But most important of all is that it would provide an opportunity for various points of view right across Canada to be heard so that any recommendations to this parliament and to the legislatures of Canada would be made only after having studied the representations of all those interested in

Conference on Biculturalism presenting their views. That would cover not only the representatives of the two basic races who made up confederation, but also of the ethnic groups who have now brought to Canada the richness of their culture and their heritage.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister's proposal of today to convene a federal-provincial conference is not really an alternative proposal. It seems to me that such a conference would have more merit if it had before it the carefully thought out recommendations of a group of outstanding French speaking and English speaking Canadians as well as representatives of other ethnic groups.
Like the Prime Minister and some other members of this house, I have had the privilege of attending a number of federal-provincial conferences. I do not think anyone could expect that a group of men, who are as busy as the heads of ten provincial governments and the government of Canada, can possibly give the kind of time which is necessary to really find a solution to this very complicated problem. I think all experience in the past has shown that a federal-provincial conference has limited value unless it has been preceded by careful preparation and has before it specific recommendations and proposals upon which it may base its discussion.
I think there are various recommendations we could get from many parts of the country. One of the things to which I think the government of Canada ought to give consideration is the idea of setting up two bilingual colleges for senior civil servants, so that senior civil servants might go to either one of two colleges, where they would have an intensive course in the language other than their mother language and a better understanding and appreciation of the culture other than the one in which they were raised. Colleges of this nature would help to develop a properly constituted bicultural and bilingual civil service. That is the kind of thing which cannot be done merely by having regulations under the civil service commission.
In conclusion may I say that in Canada we have reached an important milestone in the history of relationships between English speaking and French speaking groups in this country. A lack of understanding at this stage could have serious consequences for the future. I believe it is possible to work out a modus vivendi. I am equally convinced that with patience, understanding and good will it is possible to chart a course of action which will strengthen and extend the point

of unity in this country. I suggest to the government that, in conjunction with a federal-provincial conference, they again give some thought to the proposal that we have a royal commission on biculturalism so that the various groups in Canada can make their suggestions, and so that the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces would have before them concrete recommendations based on study and on representation from all parts of the country.



CIVIL LIBERTIES


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-lll, to provide for review of administrative powers and to relieve from their misapplication (administrative review).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Ross Matheson: The purpose of this bill is to provide a forum to review and to correct, whenever necessary, decisions by administrative authorities which may tend to offend civil liberties or natural rights.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Matheson: 1.	Since the conclusion of the hearings conducted by the joint committee on capital and corporal punishment of the twenty second parliament, has the federal government contributed to the income of any public executioner and, if so, for what years?
2.	Has any hanging since 1956 been performed by an executioner without prior experience?
3.	Does the Department of Justice receive or have access to, any medical or other post-execution reports tending to indicate (a) whether death was caused by fracture of the neck or strangulation or decapitation (b) the number of minutes that elapsed between the time when the trap was sprung and death occurred (c) the quality of the hanging operation, that is to say, whether any untoward event or mishap occurred?
4.	Has this government received any communications from persons who have witnessed public executions in the years 1957-1962 critical of the hangings and, if so, from whom and on what dates?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: 1. No.
2.	Not known.
3.	No.
4.	No.


VOCATIONAL TRAINING OP PENITENTIARY INMATES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many inmates of federal penitentiaries are now receiving training which is recognized by provincial and federal apprenticeship boards?
2.	How many vacancies are there at present for vocational training instructors and school teachers in the various penitentiaries, and in what institutions do these vacancies exist?
3.	How many hours does an inmate actually spend in vocational training shop per day, exclusive of taking counts and movement to and from place of training?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1. Full time formal organized training, 334; part time formal organized training, 254; total 588.
This is exclusive of those working under qualified supervision in designated and non-designated trades, whose work experience may be evaluated by provincial authorities in terms of equivalent training at a later date.
2.	14 vocational training instructors; 4
school teachers; 9 educational instructors.
Vacancies by institutions shown in table below:
	Vocational		Educa-
	Training		tional
Instruc-	School	Instruc-Institution	tors Teachers	torsDorchester	1	St. Vincent de Paul 3	1	1Federal Training	Centre	3	1Leclerc	1	1Kingston	1	1Collin's Bay	4	1	1Joyceville	1Manitoba	1	1Saskatchewan	1	1British Columbia William Head	1	13.	Between 6 and 7 hours daily depending on local conditions and circumstances.
(Translation):


*DORVAL
Mr. Rock: 1.	Was the Department of Transport at one time the owner of the property which now belongs to Hilton Dorval Ltd. and on which a hotel is presently being constructed in the vicinity of Dorval airport?
2.	Was the land transferred or sold and, if so, (a) on what date (b) to whom was the land transferred or sold (c) what were the conditions of the transfer or sale (d) what was the price per square foot of land (e) what was the total consideration and (f) how many square feet of land were involved?


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question No. 1 is yes.
Questions
Here is the answer to question No. 2: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)-The land consists of part of lot 535 Parish of St. Laurent and was conveyed by letters patent dated August 24, 1955, to the Montreal Trust Company as partial settlement for the expropriation of a larger block of this company's land that was required for the Montreal international airport. The area transferred to the company contained 329,611 sq. ft. and its value was based upon 35 cents per sq. ft.
(Text):


ENTRY OF FOREIGN NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS
Mr. Dube: 1.	Are the daily papers and periodicals of all countries admitted freely to Canada and, if not, what dailies and periodicals have been refused entry to Canada?
2.	What department, board or office has jurisdiction in this matter?
3.	Who are the members of such department, board or office?


Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-Carleion):: 1. Daily
papers and periodicals of all countries are admitted freely into Canada under the Customs Tariff.
2.	Department of National Revenue, customs and excise.
3.	Answered by 2.


RESEARCH PROGRAMS ON CHILDREN'S HEARING HANDICAPS
Mr. Martin (Essex East): What research programs connected with determining the causes of hearing handicaps among children are supported under federal health grants?


Mrs. Casselman:: Few purely research
projects dealing with hearing handicaps in children have been submitted by the provinces for assistance under the health grants.
The health centre for children in Vancouver annually receives grants assistance amounting to $9,000 for a study of auditory disorders in children of pre-school age in British Columbia. St. Michael's hospital in Toronto annually receives grants assistance amounting to about $35,900 for a study of perceptive and conductive deafness.
In addition, information on the causes of hearing handicaps in children does emerge as a byproduct of the work of diagnostic and treatment centres for auditory disorders in almost all provinces, which receive substantial support under the health grants.
(Translation):


CARAQUET-SHIPPEGAN    REPLACEMENT OF LIGHT BUOYS
Mr. Robichaud: Since September 1, 1961, has the Minister of Transport or his officials received representations concerning the condition of light buoys and channel markings in the Caraquet-Shippegan area, Gloucester county, N.B., and, if so (a) has proper

Questions
action been taken to provide satisfactory conditions with navigation aids in the area (b) have more powerful lights been installed to replace defective ones (c) has consideration been given to the changes requested by chambers of commerce and other organizations?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from the Caraquet chamber of commerce concerning the light buoys in the Caraquet-Shippegan area of Gloucester county, New Brunswick.
(a)	A meeting is being proposed near the end of February 1963 to discuss, with the chamber of commerce and the fishermen, the proper action to be taken to provide satisfactory conditions.
(b)	Adequate lights will be installed to replace defective ones, on the opening of navigation.
(c)	Consideration is being given to the changes requested by the chamber of commerce.
(Text):


EXCISE TAXES ON AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS
Mr. Eihier: What excise taxes, if any, are now applied to agricultural implements?


Hugh John Flemming: Excise taxes do not apply to agricultural implements; however, any agricultural implement not exempted under the provisions of schedule III of the Excise Tax Act, would be subject to sales tax.


FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES, FRASER RIVER, B.C.
Mr. Laing: 1.	Is the government supplied with precipitation and water content reports on the region of the Fraser river basin by the water rights branch of the province of British Columbia and, if so, what is the latest comparative figure in 1963 with each of the preceding three years?
2.	Since January 1, 1962, have any submissions been made by the province of British Columbia for a comprehensive flood control program for the Fraser river?
3.	Does the federal government continue to make contributions to the work of the Fraser river basin board in its studies on flood control?


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1. Yes. However, the first measurements of snow depth and equivalent water content are taken about February 1 of each year and the first data for 1963 will accordingly not be available until mid-February.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. The federal government and the British Columbia government share equally in the cost of surveys, studies and reports.


EDMUNDSTON, N.B.  DEMOLITION OF BUILDING
Mr. Dube: Did the Department of Public Works call for tenders for the demolition of a building situated on land recently acquired by the department for

the purpose of constructing a federal building in Edmundston, N.B. and, if so (a) what are the names of the bidders (b) what are the amounts of the tenders and (c) to whom has the contract been awarded?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Crown Assets Disposal Corporation advertised and sold for removal from the site three (3) houses bearing civic numbers 20-22 Emerson avenue, No. 39 Court street and No. 6 Costegan street located on the new public building site in Edmundston, N.B. Offers received were as follows:-
1.	Prime Rossignol, R.R. No. 1, Edmundston, N.B., $100.
2.	Guay Construction Co., Ltd., 14 St. George st., Edmundston, N.B., $3. The structures were sold to the high bidder, Mr. Prime Rossignol for $100.


CONSTRUCTION OF AIR STRIP, CATALINA, NFLD.
Mr. Tucker: Has the government given consideration to the construction of an air strip in the area of Catalina, Newfoundland, and, if so, what has been the result?


Mr. McBain:: Yes. As a result of a request from the authorities in Catalina, a preliminary survey of a possible site was carried out by the department last year and general information regarding the cost sharing policy of the department in regard to projects of this sort conveyed to the area. The preliminary survey indicated that the project would probably be a costly one. No word has been received from the area concerned, but if local or provincial authorities should wish to proceed on a cost sharing basis, the department would undertake a more detailed study.
(Translation):


WORKS CARRIED OUT ALONG GRAND CASCAPEDIA RIVER
Mr. Bechard: Since 1957, has any work been done by the Department of Public Works along the Grand Cascapedia river, and, if so, (a) what kind of work was carried out (b) what was the cost of such work (c) during what periods was the work done, and (d) what persons or companies carried out such work?


Mr. McCleave:: Yes.
(a) Dredging, (b) $10,024.75, (c) Nov. 11th to 26th, 1960, (d) By contract awarded to Bert Dimock, New Richmond.
(a) Dredging, (b) $754.05, (c) August 16th to Sept. 14th 1962 (d) By day labour: Bert Dimock, New Richmond, Albert McWinter, Grand Cascapedia, and Everett Harrison, New Richmond.


BONAVENTURE-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RUNWAY
Mr. Bechard: Has the government of Canada contributed any money towards the building of the runway at

Bonaventure and, if so, what amount, on what date or dates, and under what agreements?


James Alexander McBain: No.
(Text):


COURTENAY, B.C.-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICE FIGURES
Mr. Barnett: 1.	In each of the last three years how many (a) applications for unemployment insurance (b) applications for employment and (c) placements in employment were made through the office of the unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service at Courtenay, B.C.?
2.	During each of these years how many of the above originated in the Campbell river area (from Oyster river north)?


Mr. Hales:: 1. (a) Applications for unemployment insurance made at the Courtenay office in each of the last three years are as follows:
Year	Initial	Renewal	Total1960	3,935	3,093	7,0281961	3,684	2,727	6,4111962	3,348	2,254	5,602(b) Applications for employment (including revivals of earlier applications made by the same persons) were as follows: 1960, 9,247; 1961, 9,557; 1962, 9,486. (c) Placements made were as follows:	1960, 1,780; 1961,
1,998; 1962, 2,393.
2. Data are not available.


FEDERAL AID TO UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the total in dollars of federal aid to universities in Canada?
2.	What is the total in dollars of such aid to universities in British Columbia?


Mr. Grafftey:: 1 and 2. This information is printed in the public accounts under Department of Finance-university grants.


COMMITTEE TO REVIEW ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,379
Mr. McNulty:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the committee recently selected to review aspects of the St. Lawrence seaway, which committee was referred to by Dr. Pierre Camu, vice president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, on January 21, 1963?
2.	By whom were the members of the committee selected?
3.	What are the qualifications of each member of the committee?
4.	What are the terms of reference of the committee?
5.	When is a report expected from the committee?


James Alexander McBain: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1. The authority has not appointed a committee, but is proceeding with a review of the tariff of tolls for the St. Lawrence section of the seaway in accordance with the requirements of the agreement between the
Questions
government of Canada and the government of the United States of America, effective April 1, 1959.
2.	N.A.
3.	N.A.
4.	N.A.
5.	N.A.


* TRI-SERVICE ORDER RESPECTING VOTING RULES
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Are any further amendments contemplated to the tri-service order issued before the general election of 1962 pursuant to rule 29 of the Canadian forces voting rules for application to any subsequent election?
2.	Will steps be taken to assure that the triservice order and any amendments thereto are drawn to the attention of all candidates in any subsequent general election?


Mr. Sevigny:: 1. No.
2.	Any officially nominated candidate or his accredited representative who makes application to a commanding officer for the provision of the facilities described in rule 29 of the Canadian forces voting rules will be informed that he may have a copy of the list of Canadian forces electors in the unit upon written application.


*MANOUAN AND OBEDJIWAN INDIAN RESERVES
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Who has the contract for the transportation of mail to the Indian reserves of Manouan and Obedji-wan?
2.	What is the annual cost of this transport service and how many times a week is the mail delivered?


Mrs. Fairclough:: 1. Manouane, Laviolette air service, Sanmaur, P.Q. Obedjiwan is a non-post office point and there is no mail contract at the present time.
2. Manouane, (a) Estimated annual cost $2,246.40 (b) One round trip per week.


FISHERY PRODUCTS IMPORTED
Mr. Mather: What was the value of fishery products imported into Canada in 1962 and from what countries were such fishery products imported?


Mr. Nesbitt:: Import statistics for the calendar year 1962 are not yet available. Values of fish and fishery products imported into Canada, by countries, during the period January 1
to September 30, 1962, are:
Country	Value
United Kingdom	$ 296,702
United States	5,094,951
Belgium and Luxembourg	515
Denmark	231,443
Finland	2,374
France	30,901
Germany West	125,596
Questions

Country	Value
Greece	15,290
Italy	9,471
Netherlands	192,182
Norway	916,234
Portugal	337,907
Spain	21,925
Sweden	38,848
Poland	4,046
U.S.S.R.	4,054
Yugoslavia	683
Republic of South Africa	14,071
Morocco	10,295
Hong Kong	393,694
India	66,798
Malaya	7,123
Pakistan	13,067
Japan	3,197,666
Korea	13,879
Australia	45,883
Fiji	800
New Zealand	3,647
British Guiana	77,292
Brazil	10,276
Chile	4,673
Colombia	16,104
Ecuador	8,227
Peru	529,753
Surinam	18,003
Venezuela	14,136
Bahamas	627
Cuba	56,407
El Salvador	38,365
Guatemala	39,561
Mexico	884,009
Nicaragua	8,395
Panama	20,810
Total	$ 12,816,683


TESTING OF ACCREDITED AND LISTED HERDS
Mr. Lamoureux: Does the government intend to resume, through the health of animals division of the Department of Agriculture, the conducting of tests under the tuberculosis-free accredited herd and brucellosis-free listed herd programs and, if not, are any alternative arrangements being made by the Department of Agriculture to ensure the continuance of accredited and listed herds?


Mr. Pigeon:: It is not intended that testing under the tuberculosis accredited and brucellosis-free listed herd programs, will be resumed except in the case of brucellosis-free listed herds in areas where the brucellosis area test has not yet commenced. In these areas, the annual brucellosis herd test will be conducted by the Department of Agriculture.
Where livestock owners in tested areas wish to maintain their herds under these policies, they may continue to do so by engaging private veterinarians, accredited by the Department of Agriculture to do these 
tests. The department will provide all administrative services including the maintenance of records, publication of official registries, and the issuance of certificates. In cases where infection is uncovered, the department will continue to provide compensation to owners where animals are ordered slaughtered.
The area testing programs sponsored by the Department of Agriculture for the eradication of tuberculosis and brucellosis will be continued as in the past at no cost to livestock owners.
Before introducing this change, officials in the department closely examined the effect this would have on the Canadian cattle industry. It is considered that the health standards of Canadian herds will not be reduced, nor will the change jeopardize export markets.
The tuberculosis accredited herd plan and the brucellosis-free listed herd plan were initially designed to provide a source of disease free animals for the livestock industry. They are individual herd plans and have been largely supplemented by area eradication programs covering all herds of cattle, which is a much more efficient method of eradicating disease, rather than dealing with individual herds spotted throughout the country.
(Translation):


* STATUTORY TAX EXEMPTION ON CHARITABLE DONATIONS
Mr. Marcoux: Does the government intend to grant an automatic ten per cent tax exemption on charitable donations?


William Heward Grafftey: Income tax exemptions are a matter for decision in connection with the presentation of the budget.
(Text):


DEATH SENTENCES FOR MURDER
Mr. Scott: 1.	In each province in Canada, how many persons at the present time are under sentence to be hanged for the commission of the crime of murder?
2.	In each case, what is the date which has been set for their execution?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1 and 2.
No. of persons
sentenced to be Dates set for Province	executed	executionQuebec	6	Feb.	22,	1963April	19,	1963April	19,	1963May	10,	1963May	31,	1963June	21,	1963Ontario	1	Feb.	26,	1963Alberta	2	June	1,	1963June	1,	1963British Columbia	1	March	5,	1963
No person is under sentence of death in the provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.


CUSTOMS DUTIES ON AMATEUR RADIO APPARATUS
Mr. Marcoux: Is there any competition between Canadian and American manufacturers engaged in production of amateur radio apparatus and, if not, is the government considering the reduction of customs duties on such apparatus?


William Heward Grafftey: The term "amateur radio apparatus" includes many parts and components, some of which are manufactured in Canada. The tariff item covering such apparatus is included in a reference to the tariff board, reference No. 123. The tariff board investigation will make available complete information on the nature and degree of competition between Canadian and foreign manufacturers. When the tariff board makes its report to the government on this reference, the government will, of course, give consideration to the recommendations of the board, if any, concerning the rate of customs duty on such apparatus.


ACQUISITION OF MANOR HOUSE, WILLIAMSTOWN, ONT.
Mr. Eihier: Has the government given consideration to the acquisition, as an historic site, of the Sir John Johnson manor house in Williamstown. Ontario?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The closest and most sympathetic consideration has been given to the preservation of this fine building, which is one of the oldest in Ontario. The historic sites and monuments board of Canada have studied it, and on their recommendation the Sir John Johnson house has been declared to be of national historic importance. It was the board's view also that ways should be found to ensure its preservation, and to this end there have been discussions with Ontario provincial authorities about sharing capital costs between the two governments. An announcement will be made when a decision is reached.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S OFFICE
Mr. Mather: What amount, In dollars, was provided for each of the fiscal years 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962 for (a) the administrative expenses in respect to the office of the Governor General and (b) the
Questions
expenses in regard to the upkeep of the Governor General's residence and properties?


Mr. Halpenny:: This information is contained in the public accounts of the years in question.


FEDERAL AID TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
Mr. Mather: Is the government giving consideration to working out a program, in partnership with the provinces, to financially assist high school students whose academic standing merits advancement but whose family circumstances are inadequate to send such students to university?


William Heward Grafftey: Matters relating to government policy are announced at the appropriate time.



* WEST GERMANY


Mr. Herridge: Has the Canadian government received notice from the West German government that it has set a final date for the disposition of all claims that the victims of Nazi persecution might have against it and, if so, have Canadian citizens with unsatisfied claims for Nazi persecution been notified of this decision?


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, we are not aware of any final date having been set by the West German government along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I understand that legislation on this subject may be introduced in the German parliament later this year. My officials, of course, do not know the scope or provisions of the legislation which is contemplated by the German authorities or whether any Canadians may be affected, but we will certainly do our best to assist Canadian citizens who might have a claim under such legislation.



PROFITS AND TAXES OF CHARTERED BANKS

Mr. Malher: 1.	What was the net profit of each of the chartered banks after published provision for dominion and provincial taxes in each of the years 1960, 1961, and 1962?
2.	What was the amount of dominion and provincial taxes of each of the banks for these years?
3.	What was the total of transfers made to contingent reserve fund from the earnings of each of the chartered banks in these years?


William Heward Grafftey: 1. The published net profit of each of the chartered banks after transfers to inner reserves and provision for income taxes for fiscal years was as follows, in thousands of dollars:
Questions

1960	1961	1962Bank of Montreal	$14,227	$14,579	$16,013The Bank of Nova Scotia	6,925	7,873	8,466The Toronto-Dominion Bank	6,652	7,561	8,245La Banque Provinciale du Canada	1,450	1,540	1,951Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce	16.734(a) 17,700	19,190The Royal Bank of Canada	19,504	20,760	21,492Banque Canadienne Nationale	3,069	3,242	3,484The Mercantile Bank of Canada	1	1	1(a) Combined figures of the Canadian Bank of before amalgamation.	Commerce	and Imperial	Bank of Canada
of additions to and amounts retransferred 2. Provisions for income taxes reported by from inner reserves and foreign income taxes the banks include those on taxable portion and are as follows, in thousands of dollars:
Bank of Montreal The Bank of Nova Scotia The Toronto-Dominion Bank La Banque Provinciale du Canada Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce The Royal Bank of Canada Banque Canadienne Nationale The Mercantile Bank of Canada
(a) Combined figures of the Canadian Bank before amalgamation.
3. The transfers by each of the chartered banks to inner reserves from taxable income are limited in amount by rules of the Minister of Finance issued under subsection (1) of section 68 of the Bank Act. The maximum reserve that a bank may so create in any fiscal year is calculated as a percentage of certain risk assets. For the past three years these were: 1960-4.752 per cent, 1961-4.008 per cent, 1962-3.624 per cent. The amounts of the transfers and of the reserves are available to the minister for income tax purposes but are not public information.



BANK RESERVES TO MEET BAD DEBTS, DEPRECIATION, ETC.

Mr. Berger: 1.	During each of the years from 1955 to 1962 Inclusive, what was the amount set aside or reserved by each of the chartered banks of Canada out of income, either by way of write down of the value of assets or appropriation to any contingency reserve or contingent account for the purposes of meeting losses on loans, bad or doubtful debts, depreciation in the value of assets other than bank premises or other contingencies?
2.	Were the amounts set aside or reserved out of income for the aforementioned purposes subject to income tax?
3.	Did the Minister of Finance in any of the years in question, decide that the amounts set aside or reserved out of income by any bank or banks for the aforementioned purposes were in excess of the reasonable requirements of the bank, having regard to all the circumstances, and notify

1960	1961	1962$17,352	$18,044	$18,3537,825	8,975	9,5007,070	8,300	9,1101,605	2,050	2,09125.280(a)	29,211	20,17228,560	30,750	20,8753,035	4,355	4,575nil	nil	nil
of Commerce and Imperial Bank of Canada
the Minister of National Revenue accordingly, pursuant to section 68, subsection I, of the Bank Act?


William Heward Grafftey: 1. (a) The amount set aside by a bank and transferred to inner reserves out of taxable income are limited by rules of the Minister of Finance issued under subsection (1) of section 68 of the Bank Act. The amounts of the transfers and of the reserves are available to the minister for income tax purposes but are not public information, (b) The amounts set aside and transferred to inner reserves after payment of income taxes thereon are available to and assessed by the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue and are not public information.
2.	See answer to 1.
3.	No.



* SHIPMENTS OF FLOUR TO RED CHINA

Mr. Benidickson: To date, having regard to ministerial announcements during the 1960-61 parliamentary session, that its trade agreement with the communist China government included sale of flour, how much flour has been shipped to China from Canada in accord with the announcements?


Mr. Jorgenson:: At the time of the first sales contract concluded with mainland China provision was made for a limited quantity of Canadian flour (1.5 million bushels wheat

equivalent) subject to the negotiation of mutually satisfactory prices between Canadian flour mills and the Chinese purchasing agency. Negotiations were entered into but, as a result of the availability from other sources of lower grade flour, no satisfactory agreement on prices could be reached. No Canadian flour has been shipped to date.



* ARDA PILOT PROJECT, NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Robichaud: Has the Minister of Agriculture received representations from the government of the province of New Brunswick requesting that a certain section of northeastern New Brunswick be regarded as a pilot project for rural development purposes under the ARDA program and, if so, (a) what specific area is covered in the application (b) is the minister prepared to give favourable consideration to such representations and (c) is the minister in a position to give assurance that the studies and investigations required for this development will be undertaken during the spring and summer of this year?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Yes, representations have been received from the government of New Brunswick requesting certain sections of northeastern New Brunswick be regarded as a pilot project for rural development under the agricultural rehabilitation and development administration.
(a)	The area covered by the application is all of Gloucester county, the largest part of Restigouche county and part of Northumberland county.
(b)	Full consideration will be given to the representations.
(c)	If approved jointly by the governments of Canada and New Brunswick as a rural development area, studies and investigations will proceed as rapidly as the necessary joint arrangements can be made.



EXPORT PERMIT, DE HAVILLAND COMPANY

Mr. Caron: Did the de Havilland Company apply for an export permit during 1962 in connection with a $10,000,000 contract for the government of Indonesia and, if so, was the permit granted and, if not, for what reason was it refused?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As stated in the permit application form, all details of export permit applications are confidential and disclosure of such information with respect to applications is not in the public interest.



HORNE LAKE, VANCOUVER ISLAND    ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
Has the Department of Fisheries acquired any property around the shores of Horne lake on
Orders for Returns
Vancouver island in connection with the installation now under construction there and, if not, have any agreements been concluded with the riparian land owners?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Yes, the department has acquired property from a number of land owners and has concluded agreements with the others.
Supplementary information: Property has been purchased from one private owner, Mr. Phillips, and two companies, Northern Development and Olympic Logging Company. (Translation):
*	REMUNERATION OF VICE PRESIDENT OF WORLD



EXHIBITION CORPORATION

Mr. Lessard (St. Henry): 1.	What is the salary or remuneration of the president and vice president of the Montreal world exhibition corporation?
2.	What will be the salary or remuneration of the twelve commissioners?
3.	What is the term of office of the president, vice president, and commissioners of that exhibition?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: 1. The commissioner general and the deputy commissioner general of the world exhibition will receive no salary.
2.	The same applies to the directors.
3.	The president, the vice president and the directors of the exhibition are appointed by the government for a term left to the discretion of the federal authorities.
(Text):



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
*	LEGISLATION RESPECTING PORTABLE PENSIONS

Mr. Davis: What amount of money was spent during the latest year of record on overseas air transportation by government personnel (a) travelling on Canadian based carriers and (b) travelling on foreign air lines?


WHEAT AND FLOUR EXPORTS
Mr. Malheson: 1. What percentage of the total world exports in wheat and flour was supplied by Canada each year commencing 1950?

Orders for Returns
2.	What volume of wheat and flour was purchased by Japan in each of these years, and what proportion of Canada's total sales to all countries did these purchases represent?
3.	By what value did Canada's sales to Japan exceed her imports from Japan in each of these years?
4.	By years, how many items imported by Canadians were subjected to voluntary export control by the Japanese in an attempt to co-operate with this government?
5.	What steps has this government taken, with dates, the effect of which has been to curtail or limit or restrict Japanese sales to Canada?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.
unemployment assistance payments to


Mr. Deschatelets: From January 1962 to date, what have been the various amounts which the federal government has paid per month to the province of Quebec under the federal-provincial agreement on unemployment assistance?


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Return tabled.
sale of cl-44 planes to Pakistan and


GERMANY
Mr. Howard: 1.	What plans, in detail, exist or are contemplated, to give assistance for the sale of CL-44's to (a) Pakistan and (b) Lufthansa?
2.	What steps is the government taking to obtain work for Canadair and thus halt the trend toward workers being laid off?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question covers a full page. Do you want me to read it or shall I table it?


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the length and complexity of the answer the minister might ask that it be made an order for return tabled herewith.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Order for return tabled herewith.


CANADA-U.K. IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	In each of the fiscal years since April 1, 1958, have exports from Canada to the United Kingdom exceeded imports and, if so, by what amounts in each year?
2.	Have any legislative, administrative or fiscal measures been adopted by Canada since June 21, 1957, which have the effect of limiting, restricting or taxing imports from the United Kingdom and, if so, what are these measures, what is their scope, and on what date was each put into effect?


DR. A. R. MOLOZZI
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has Dr. A. R. Molozzi a position with defence research board and, if so, what are his duties and salary?
2.	Was Dr. Molozzi speaking as a scientist of defence research board or as an ordinary citizen at
[Mr. Matheson.l
Kitchener last week when he was quoted as say-, ing, "I never have been able to understand a politician."?
3.	If the former, what was the context of his remarks?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Return tabled.


AUTOMOBILES MANUFACTURED AND IMPORTED
Mr. Mather: 1.	How many automobiles were manufactured in Canada in 1962, and what was the value of same?
2.	How many automobiles were imported into Canada in 1962?
3.	From what countries were they imported, and what was the value of the cars imported from each such country?
4.	How much was collected in customs duties on the cars so imported?
5.	How much in taxes was collected on the cars manufactured in Canada in 1962?


YVON GUIMOND, R.C.A.F. STATION, ST. JEAN, QUE.
Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Does Mr. Yvon Guimond, stationary engineer first class, at the R.C.A.F. station, St. Jean, Quebec, hold a third class engineer's certificate for the province of Quebec and, if so, when did he acquire such certificate?
2.	Is Mr. Guimond employed by the federal civil service?
3.	Did he obtain the post he now occupies through civil service examination and, if so, when did the test take place, and what was his ranking?
4.	If Mr. Guimond did not qualify by examination, how did he obtain his present position?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Return tabled.


REDUCTIONS IN CIVIL DEFENCE ESTIMATES
Mr. Haidasz: Were any reductions made in the estimates relating to civil defence for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963 and, if so, what projects were eliminated by these reductions?


COMPLAINTS RESPECTING PESTICIDES
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Has the government received any complaints from the Canadian consumer association concerning the abuse of pesticides?
2.	Is the government intending to prosecute offenders in the field of pesticides and, if so, against whom will these prosecutions be made?


THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister who is Acting Minister of National Defence?


John George Diefenbaker: The associate minister.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a question of the Acting Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement he made

on Thursday last to the effect that there was no difference of opinion between himself, as associate minister, and the Minister of National Defence, may I ask the hon. gentleman when we may expect his resignation?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a rhetorical question. (Translation):


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether the resignation of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) can be interpreted as an anti-nuclear policy on the part of the government?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Could he tell the house whether the joint standing council on defence will hold a meeting this week in San Francisco? If so, could the minister indicate what matters will be discussed there?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Laurier, I must say that the announcement concerning that meeting will be made in due course and I think that his curiosity will be satisfied.
(Text):


BOMARC BASES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Defence. May I ask the minister whether in view of the fact that the United States defence secretary, Mr. McNamara, has told a congressional committee the Bomarc B has only limited usefulness, even against manned bombers, can the minister assure us that under any new dispensation of national defence the government will dismantle the Bomarc bases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. First of all the hon. member is in actual fact inviting comment or a controversial answer from a minister about something said by someone outside the house.


Thomas Rodney Berger: On a point of order and with great respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the question was a proper question and was in order. The house has a new minister in charge of this department. The new minister, and in fact the former minister, have at no
Inquiries of the Ministry time commented upon the revelations that, came from defence secretary McNamara. They commented on the revelations that emanated from the state department, but in view of these later vitally important revelations I suggest with great respect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is still the same thing.


ARMING OF CANADIAN TROOPS WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Minister of National Defence whether Canadian troops stationed with NATO will be armed with nuclear weapons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a matter of policy.
(Translation):


REPORTED RANSACKING OF FILES OF PRESS GALLERY MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell us whether the R.C.M.P. will make an investigation on the ransacking and pilfering of documents and files of French language parliamentary correspondents when their quarters were broken into during the night from Saturday to Sunday last?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will admit that his question should be placed on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the beginning of the session, similiar questions have been put concerning investigations, and they were always allowed. Now, a vandalistic act is committed in a parliament building and I am told this question should be placed on the order paper. I simply ask-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the house is familiar with certain events, but I am nevertheless of the opinion that the question should be placed on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put differently the question I asked a short while ago. Has the Minister of Justice authorized an investigation with regard to the destruction of documents belonging to French Canadian newspapermen in the house?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any information on that matter, but I will be very happy to make an investigation.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Gregoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplemen- been stood over, would the Secretary of State tary question. Am I to understand that the be hind enough to arrange that there might newspapermen's office was ransacked and that be early replies to these two questions? the Minister of Justice is not aware of it? Hon- G< E>
Halpenny (Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker: I do not want to speak Mr. Speaker, these are matters for the depart-for the minister, but it seems to me that ment to consider. As soon as we get the this is a matter for the Sergeant-at-Arms or answers in our department we will have the the Chair.	questions answered.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Waller L. Gordon (Davenport):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister inform the house when the estimates for the fiscal year beginning next April 1 will be tabled?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: In the very near future, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the estimates for the fiscal year beginning April 1 have not yet been tabled, does the minister still believe it will be possible for him to introduce an early budget?


George Clyde Nowlan: It will be possible to bring in an early budget.



REQUEST FOR SETTING UP OF DEFENCE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Horace A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the division in the cabinet in respect to matters of national defence, is he now prepared to give consideration to setting up a parliamentary defence committee to consist of representatives of all parties in this house so we can clear up this confusion?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the first portion of the question is concerned, there is no confusion. As to the latter part, when the government wishes to make an announcement in this regard, and is in a position to do so, that will be done.



REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs is always involved in negotiations of this kind.']
John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that questions No. 1,265 relating to the Bomarc and No. 1,266 relating to the Honest John have three times
tMr. Fleming (Eglinton).]



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister say whether, as a result of the meeting with the prairie premiers, it has now been agreed to have an independent inquiry, separate from the board of transport commissioners, into the whole question of rail branch line abandonment?


Léon Balcer: met last week with the three premiers to the prairie provinces and three or four of my colleagues. These premiers made representations concerning legislation arising from the MacPherson report. It was a very constructive meeting, and they made all their representations. The officials of the provinces and our officials met informally to discuss various matters that needed clarification, and I think the whole meeting was extremely constructive and will produce great results.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that part of my question wherein I asked whether or not there would be an independent inquiry, outside of the board of transport commissioners, as was requested.


Léon Balcer: This legislation arising from the MacPherson report will be presented to the house in due course and the curiosity of my hon. friend will be satisfied then.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sure I will not agree with your policy.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, and ask whether in the quiet moments over the week end he came to a decision about referring the recommendations of the international north Pacific commission regarding halibut and herring stocks to the marine and fisheries committee.


John Angus MacLean: No, Mr. Speaker.


REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER RESPECTING NORTH PACIFIC TREATY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. According to a report appearing in a Toronto Japanese language newspaper the minister is reported as having promised the Japanese minister of agriculture in Tokyo, Mr. Shige-masa, that he will do his utmost in seeking a review of the Japanese-Canadian-U.S. north Pacific fishery treaty with Mr. Stewart Udall, U. S. secretary of the interior. Could I ask the minister if this includes the recommendation to amend the annex to the treaty proposed by the north Pacific fisheries commission?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, the report if correctly quoted is garbled and does not reflect at all correctly any discussions between myself and Mr. Shigemasa.


Colin Cameron: May I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister tell us what he did say in Tokyo?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a subject for this time of the day.
(Translation):


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Cook (Monlmagny-LTslel):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Finance and has to do with a matter about which Canadians everywhere are wondering. Could the minister tell us if he has set a date for the tabling of his new budget?


Mr. Speaker:: That question was asked this afternoon, a few minutes ago.


WORLD FAIR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Acting and Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny)? Could he possibly tell us whether the site of the world exhibition will be selected by the board of directors of the exhibition corporation or by the federal, provincial and municipal committee?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, the site of the exhibition will be selected eventually after consultation between the board of directors of the world exhibition corporation and members appointed to the committee until now.


Lionel Chevrier: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could give us the names of the directors of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: In a few days.
(Text):


ALLEGED DROP IN EXPORT SALES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent release by the dominion bureau of statistics indicating a drastic drop in export sales of wheat, has the minister any plans or negotiations under way that will make up for this drop during the balance of the current crop year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon.
member will recognize that he expressed certain opinions in the first part of his question. If hon. members would trim their questions of such remarks they would be much more acceptable. Subject to that, if the minister wishes to reply-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, these are official documents from the dominion bureau of statistics, which show there is no question about a drop.


Mr. Speaker:: There may be a drop, but it is a point that some hon. members might consider it a drastic drop and others might not.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not in order to ask the Minister of Agriculture to explain this tremendous drop in export sales of wheat, and whether anything is being done about it.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no difficulty about the question, but I caution hon. members about using terms which are indicative of opinion on their part. In so far as the rest of the question is concerned, if the minister wishes to answer it that is quite all right.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who originally asked the question is unaware of the fact that the D.B.S. figures are usually considerably behind the actual

Inquiries of the Ministry facts. This is the way it should be. I would point out to the hon. member, strictly on a statistical basis, that the same type of question has been asked before figures were released for the end of the year, and I can assure the house that the figures at the end of this year will be figures amounting to a near record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: As a supplementary question, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture is telling us he thinks the sales can be increased above the 300 million bushel figure he used in Regina on November 8.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are getting into a little debate on this.


COLUMBIA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, reminding him of the fact that we have another international treaty that should be given consideration. Could the Prime Minister inform the house of the progress of the negotiations that may be taking place that will result in the draft Columbia river treaty being ratified?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this has become a regular daily question by the hon. gentleman. I do not want to deprive him of the pleasure of asking this type of question, but as has been said before the answer has been given over and over again.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister consider setting up a royal commission to investigate the baffling questions that seem to be facing the government on this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize his question is not in order.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman's questions are very baffling.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I have a supplementary question which I would like to address to the Minister of Public Works. In view of his statement to the inland empire waterways association meeting in Spokane in October, 1961 that the Columbia river treaty would be signed not later than March, 1962, *does he think in view of the lapse of time he should give us another date when we can *expect the signing of the treaty?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to find that my statement of a year and a half ago is still regarded as urgent.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the United States Senate has set up a committee to study Canadian-American relations, has he been asked for or volunteered representation or witnesses to present the Canadian point of view?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite wrong in his understanding of what this Senate committee of the United States is doing. It is merely investigating one question over which there was controversy last week, and of course Canada is not represented before such committees.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex Easl: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can say whether it is a fact, as reported, that the negotiations between Canada and the United States on the matter of nuclear arms are being conducted by officials of the Department of External Affairs?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this question was asked the other day and one of the hon. members was told then that these are secret negotiations. They are still under way.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: May I ask a
supplementary question. It is appreciated these negotiations are secret, but we are not asking the nature of the negotiations. My question was, are the negotiations being carried on by officials of the Department of External Affairs?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs is always involved in negotiations of this kind.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In case anything

should happen to this parliament, will the government consider bringing in legislation at an early date to raise the old age pension to $75 a month?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the meaning of those words "in case anything happens to this parliament". We will have a debate today, I presume, on the question of confidence; and as to whether anything happens, the hon. gentleman will make his own contribution.


George Clyde Nowlan: that the house go into committee of supply.



ALLEGED LACK OF LEADERSHIP, CONFUSION AND INDECISION

Lester Bowles Pearson: This motion, Mr. Speaker, once again gives the house an opportunity to move any motion that it desires to move to express its views on the government of the day. In this regard we are once again discharging our historic and traditional duty in the opposition of refusing to grant supply before there is redress. This is the second supply motion to be moved since this parliament met on September 27 last, and in accordance with our rules four more supply motions must be moved.
A few moments ago one hon. member asked a question on the assumption that something may happen to this parliament. Well, we will have a chance to decide tomorrow evening, unless something else happens before then, Mr. Speaker, what should happen to this parliament at this time. But whatever may happen to this parliament, there is no doubt what has happened to this government. It has lost the confidence of this house, and it has lost the confidence of this country. There is no doubt, from statements made by representatives of all opposition parties-no doubt in the world-that this government no longer has the confidence of the majority of the members of this house. All that is now required is for those members and those parties which have expressed their lack of confidence in this government to show that lack of confidence in the decision we will be taking on this motion.
The motion that I propose to move, Mr. Speaker, at the end of my remarks will certainly be a motion of non-confidence, and of non-confidence not merely in respect of any one particular issue but of the way in which this government has conducted the
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership affairs of the country and the affairs of this parliament since we met last September.


John George Diefenbaker: Running away.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If ever a government has lost the confidence of the people, Mr. Speaker, it is this one-and I am glad to see the Prime Minister taking that down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: No; I was simply pointing out that you are running away from the issue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No amount of manoeuvring, no sleight of hand, no tricks can obscure this obvious loss of confidence of the house and of the country. No amount of this kind of thing can save the government or divert public opinion, indeed, from the weaknesses of this government. Perhaps the high point-or, if you like, the low point-in this regard was reached last Friday in the somewhat juvenile performances that went on, the theatrical appearances and disappearances, the collection of crowds which then gradually disappeared and re-collected on the basis of contrived and circulated rumours, all to give the impression that this parliament was on the very verge of dissolution.


Mr. Churchill:: Your nervousness was very marked.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly whatever may have then been the position of this parliament, whatever brink we may have been on last Friday, there is no doubt that over the weekend the government has been over the brink in so far as dissolution is concerned. I suggest that the situation which faces us in this country, nationally and internationally, is too serious for the kind of party posturing such as we had last Friday. But I suppose we must continue to expect it from the government as a substitute for the kind of action we should be getting. Indeed, it all conforms to the practice of this government, its ingrained and now inevitable tendency to avoid a decision on anything at almost any price, to keep throwing up smokescreens in order to obscure reality, the reality and seriousness of our problems; smokescreens, Mr. Speaker, that will help the government to avoid doing anything today that can be put off for postponement tomorrow. In looking around for particular matters to illustrate and support this charge of indecision, delay and ineffectiveness as a government, one has no trouble finding an abundance of ammunition. I propose to deal, though briefly with some of these matters as I go along.
There is the lack of any long range economic proposals, which I will come to later.
3396	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership There is the refusal to allow parliament to even discuss $200 million of taxation imposed by order in council of doubtful legality. There is the incredible confusion and delay over the Columbia treaty. But there is one subject, Mr. Speaker, that remains at the moment uppermost in our minds as an illustration of what I have been saying in respect of government policy, or lack of policy. That subject is defence, which is the best example at the moment of government bungling and indecision, of contradictions and confusions made all the more obvious by the resignation of the minister of national defence who only a very short time ago made a gallant effort to clarify inside and outside this house the ambiguous statements of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Hellyer:: To clarify the unclariflable.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now that minister who
was engaged in clarification-and I think he should be given all the credit that we on this side would like to give him for his efforts to help his Prime Minister at that time-says in his letter of resignation:
For over two years you have been aware that I believed nuclear warheads should be supplied to the four weapons system we have acquired which are adapted to their use. Throughout this period.
the minister went on,
I believed that they would be authorized at the appropriate time.
As long as that time had not arrived, and perhaps it would not arrive until they were actually delivered into the hands of those who would be asked to use them if the awful emergency occurred which required their use, then it was possible for the minister of defence to argue that the decision could be postponed. But the appropriate time in the minister's mind had come; yet the government refused to take the action to which it had committed this country when the appropriate time came, and which action we claim they should take. Therefore the minister had no alternative as an honourable man but to take the action which he did, resignation. This underlines what we have been saying all along on this side of the house, namely that there was conflict, confusion and division inside the government on a matter of such vital importance and which surely, Mr. Speaker, made it all the more necessary to bring this question of national defence before parliament so that these confusions and indecisions could be cleared up if possible. There has never been a time in the history of our parliament, Mr. Speaker, when the record of discussion of matters of such vital importance as national defence has been so sterile and so negative. It is a long time since we have had anything approaching a statement by
[Mr. Pearson.l

the government, oral or written, about the problems of national defence which face this country. All we have been told is that there is no disagreement in the cabinet; that the responsibilities undertaken by the cabinet will be carried out. The Minister of National Defence said last week that whatever our commitments were we would discharge them; that the Prime Minister and he were agreed on that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but he cannot go on a scattergun journey. He can only speak on a vote of non-confidence on a matter in respect of which he intends to move such a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I have observed that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) started out on two or three angles and then he came back to defence. Whatever it is, I have no objection to his having all the time he wants to; but he cannot go on one of these expeditions where he just draws a general shot at everything.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Perhaps I could give the house the citation I was looking for while I was listening. It is to be found on page 201 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 238(2). I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) is familiar with that citation. It goes on to say at one point:
The debate in such a case must be strictly relevant to the item, and when it has been disposed of, no reference can again be made to it-
-and so on. Mr. Speaker Beaudoin is reported in the first column of page 3790, volume 4 of the debates of 1955 as follows:
What I am concerned about is that we should not deviate from what has been the practice with respect to the raising of grievances. It must be a specific grievance.
I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is going to come to one specific point. I recall his opening words, that he had considered a number of subjects, and I was hoping he would eventually launch on to one in due course.


Thomas Rodney Berger: He has not made up his mind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has graciously indicated that if I will move my motion I will be given all the time I want. That happens to be in the rules so I do not need his assistance on that.


John George Diefenbaker: I simply want the hon. gentleman to stay within the rules and let us have none of the old scattergun.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate these interruptions from the Prime Minister; I wish they would all get on Hansard, that is all.


John George Diefenbaker: So there will be no doubt about it, I want it to be on Hansard that this kind of scattergun nonsense cannot go on. The hon. gentleman must specifically restrict himself to the subject on which he intends to move non-confidence.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order which has been raised by the Prime Minister. In so doing I wish to draw to Your Honour's attention the citation which you used in support of the tentative ruling you were about to make. The citation you referred to has to do with a discussion in committee of supply on an item of the estimates. It seems to me the matter is very well established. As a matter of fact there is a citation in Beauchesne that establishes such a wide limit of debate on this kind of motion that it is possible for an hon. member to make a speech for 30 minutes or 35 minutes on one subject and to move a motion on an entirely different subject. That is established within the limits of Beauchesne and there is a citation to that effect.


Thomas Miller Bell: What citation is that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Miller Bell: What citation is that?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to make this point to Your Honour. It was obvious to any hon. member who was listening to the Leader of the Opposition and was not nervously apprehensive about the next day or so that he was making a charge against the government of indecision and lack of leadership. That was his main charge and that is likely to be the charge mentioned in the motion. Surely it is open to the Leader of the Opposition in supporting that charge to refer to any subject matter within the confines of the federal government which will establish lack of decision and lack of leadership.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I may speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the reference which I think should be drawn to the attention of the house in Beauchesne's fourth edition is on page 199, citation 234(2). It reads as follows:
(2) It often happens, on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply, that members air grievances without moving amendments. A member may speak on railway rates, another on naturalization, and so on. Five or six different matters may then be brought to the government's attention. Once debate is concluded on one matter and another matter intervenes, members cannot again discuss the former. No member is allowed to speak more than once on the motion. He cannot discuss all the matters which may then come up, and when he has spoken
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership on one of them he has exhausted his right to speak to the motion before the house, namely, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair".
The point of that citation is that the person speaking on this motion must be specific; either he deals with a subject without moving an amendment or he moves an amendment which discloses his subject and then speaks to the subject. However, he cannot range over the whole field of the business of the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should continue with the citation to which I referred earlier. Then I shall be glad to hear the hon. member for Ottawa West. This is a ruling of Mr. Speaker Beaudoin. I will quote a little more fully from page 3790 of the debates of 1955, volume IV:
What I am concerned about is that we should not deviate from what has been the practice with respect to the raising of grievances. It must be a specific grievance. According to the remarks the hon. member for Prince Albert has just made in explanation of what he intends to bring forward, he wants to deal with markets generally and the loss of markets for farm products and then, although he has already dealt with wheat, he wants to deal with the South Saskatchewan dam. He has just indicated he wants to deal with that point because that is the point to which the editorial in the Regina Leader-Post has reference. Furthermore, he wants to deal with the low incomes with which the farmers are now being faced. Maybe the hon. member is going to conclude his remarks with an amendment to the motion to go into supply. That would certainly specify the grievance he has in mind.
If he is not going to terminate his remarks with such an amendment, then I am afraid I must say he can always deal with these various other subjects when other motions to go into supply are presented. At this moment, however, it would not be proper to initiate another budget debate, and it is certainly contrary to our practice not to have a specific grievance raised at this point.
The reason I use the citation is that it refers to a ruling with respect to the then hon. member for Prince Albert, now the Prime Minister. I think that ruling is amply supported by the reference made by the house leader. If there are any other contributions hon. members wish to make, I shall be glad to hear them.


Lionel Chevrier: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. The citation which has just been referred to by the house leader is one which applies to grievances and which normally follows the vote on the amendment to the motion to go into supply. If one looks at the citation, which is 234 (2), one can come to no other conclusion but that.
The Prime Minister raised a point of order and in doing so referred to the "nonsense" which has been brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. With respect, I submit to you that the Leader of the Opposition was not dealing with nonsense but rather with the confusion, indecision and lack of
3398	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership leadership on the part of the government. That was only one subject and one subject alone which up until this time he had dealt with. I submit that up until now he is perfectly in order in the manner in which he has proceeded.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to say just one word. What we want the opposition to do is to show their decision and not to engage in indecision-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Observe the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: -on that which they intend to ask non-confidence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the Prime Minister and the government have made a gallant attempt to limit me in the evidence that I wish to bring forward in order to show that this government is indecisive, confused, bungling and lacking in leadership.


John George Diefenbaker: You are proving it by your own testimony.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister would try to contain himself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am rising again to a point of order. The hon. gentleman must let us know upon what particular specific matter he is going to ask for a vote of non-confidence. I have mentioned this matter more than once and I want a ruling on it, Your Honour. I wish to find out which minister is supposed to be here and is going to answer it. A great deal has been said about what is going to be done. A great deal has been said outside the house about what is going to be done, and what kind of motion is going to be moved. Let us know what it is and let us get down to something specific.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this, and I do so with great respect. I think Your Honour should ask the Prime Minister to observe the rules of this house. Ever since the Leader of the Opposition rose to make his amendment, the Prime Minister has consistently interrupted-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: -first by cross fire from his side of the house and from his seat-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: -and next by raising points of order which are not points of order at all. He has called on Your Honour to make a ruling, notwithstanding the fact that Your Honour had made quite clear what the position was and had allowed the Leader of the Opposition to go on with his remarks. None the less, the Prime Minister is allowed to make these statements and interruptions

although on an earlier occasion he complained very bitterly in this house that he was not given an opportunity to speak. Now he wants to give the same treatment to the Leader of the Opposition. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the light of the decisions that have been submitted by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, Your Honour should rule so that we may have the debate and may learn all about the hesitations, indecisions and contradictions of the government.


Mr. Aiken:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. On March 20, 1961, at page 4137 of Hansard, a definite ruling was given to the effect that the opposition, in a motion of this type, cannot cover the whole field; that on a supply motion the opposition is limited to one particular point not previously decided or considered. I sent for the references and they have just arrived. The decision is clear on this particular point.


An hon. Member:: Take your time; there is no hurry.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: While I am looking up the reference, may I say that this particular decision was made with regard to a completely similar scattergun introduction that was made, and at that time the objection was taken that one subject must be covered and the ruling was made. If I could take the time to find the reference, I could give it, because it was made on that date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a brief word on the point of order. It seems to me that we have had a good deal of confusion in the past few minutes. We have also had something which I think is quite uncalled for, namely a statement by the Prime Minister as to what the Leader of the Opposition must do in his speech.


An hon. Member:: If he is going to follow the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before hon. members make interjections about the rules they might read the rules. At this point, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with something which is referred to as a motion that keeps alive the ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances can be considered. The Leader of the Opposition was given and has the floor. He is under no compulsion to move any amendment at all if he does not want to. He has said he is going to and I confess I should like it if he would point out fairly soon what it is he is going to tell us. But that is his decision. He has the floor by the rules, not by the grace of the Prime Minister. His time is unlimited and, as I say, if he wishes to use

all of his time and move no amendment he is at liberty to refrain from making any such amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But not to speak on six or seven different subjects.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He certainly may. There is nothing in the rules that says he cannot be scattergunned any more than there is anything in the rules that says that in this house people cannot be scatterbrained. Citation 234, to which partial references have already been made, says in subparagraph 1:
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply-
And so on.
-it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance.
I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly in order in dealing with any grievance he likes if he wishes to do so. When Mr. Speaker Beaudoin was giving his lecture to the then member for Prince Albert, to which Your Honour has referred, he was not telling him he could not introduce all of these various subjects in his speech, but he was telling him that if he did he would not be able to come back to them afterwards.
Paragraph 2, to which I believe the Minister of Veterans Affairs has referred, says that once a subject has been brought up the member must stay on that subject and must not try to go back to it after another subject has been introduced. This paragraph describes the situation either now or after 8.15 tomorrow night when the subject has been identified. Once the Leader of the Opposition has finished and has pinpointed a subject or has moved an amendment, we have then got to stick with that, just the same as will be the case tomorrow night after the vote at 8.15. If a member gets the floor then and opens up a subject, that must be the subject until it is disposed of.
But at this point I submit that the Leader of the Opposition is exercising his right as the first speaker in this debate to raise any grievance he wishes to raise, to make his own decision whether or not he moves an amendment and to make his own decision as to what that amendment is. As far as I can ascertain from his speech thus far, it strikes me that he plans to make a motion suggesting that the government is indecisive, incapable, and that sort of thing. If so, surely it is plain, ordinary logic that he has the right to illustrate either in advance or after he has made the motion, the point he is trying to make.
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership
I submit that there has been a fair amount of confusion about this rule in the comments that have been made and that there has been too much of an attempt to dictate to a member of this house, who happens to be the Leader of the Opposition, what he shall put in his speech.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I now refer to the citation I mentioned-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I wish to refer to page 3134 of Hansard for March 20, 1961. In that instance we had reached approximately the same position that we now have in that there were broad, introductory remarks by the Leader of the Opposition and objection was taken. At that time the then Speaker said:
I cannot very well instruct the Leader of the Opposition how to make his speech but I can and I think I should say this. The hon. member's speech thus far has been, I think, too broadly discursive having regard to the previous discussions. If he is laying a foundation for a specific subject I feel he ought to come to it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in my earlier remarks I attempted to support my statement that such great latitude was permitted on an amendment of this kind that it was possible for an hon. member to make a speech on transportation, let us say, and then move an amendment on national defence.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In support of this statement I wish to refer Your Honour to page 202 of Beauchesne, citation 241, paragraph 2.
On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply-
That is the motion we are dealing with today.
-a member, before any amendment has been moved, may speak on a certain subject and spend the last minutes or seconds of his time limit in moving an amendment dealing with another subject, but then he cannot take part in the debate on his own amendment.
What I am saying is simply this, that this citation supports the view that when the amendment is moved it then becomes the subject matter before the house and the rule of relevancy is established at that point, but up until the amendment is moved the debate is wide ranging, so wide, indeed, and the limits so broad that one may make a speech on one subject and move an amendment on another.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to repeat all of the citations that have been referred to, but certainly in my opinion
3400	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership citation 234, both the first and second paragraphs and, as the hon. member has just mentioned, citation 241, convince me that the Leader of the Opposition has complete freedom to range over as wide an area as he likes until he reaches the point where he moves an amendment. Following that he should confine his remarks to what is contained in the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, these are most extraordinary propositions which are now being advanced to you from the other side of the house, and in my respectful submission they are entirely against the course of decisions from the Chair in this house. This is not the first time this point has been raised in just such circumstances, when the Leader of the Opposition has started out in the opening speech in a debate on a supply motion and has approached the matter by a discussion of many subjects. This is not a repetition of a debate in reply to the speech from the throne. This is not a budget debate. This is a debate under strict rules.
I wish to come directly to the point raised by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, for I think he has quite misled himself in his reading of citation of 241 in Beauschesne. The principle is well established, Mr. Speaker, and in my submission it is a principle that is designed to accord fair play and equal treatment to all members of the house. Broadly it is that on such a motion the house deals with and debates one grievance at a time.
You can find many citations on this point in the old days before debate on such motions was limited to two days. We had many cases then where the Chair firmly enforced the rule that no member could introduce a new subject until the debate on the subject immediately under discussion had been concluded. The basis of that rule is that the house deals with one grievance at a time, and the Chair affords to all members of the house the right to speak on that grievance before any hon. member may introduce a different or new grievance.
This point has been raised before, Mr. Speaker. I had occasion to raise it in the last parliament on several occasions with the Leader of the Opposition because he was developing the habit in leading off on supply motions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -of making these shotgun approaches where he talks about a number of subjects and then finally comes to rest on a particular amendment dealing with some subject. Then everybody else from that point on is limited to a discussion of that


particular subject until that amendment is disposed of or until the amendment to the amendment is disposed of.
Now, Mr. Speaker, far from justifying the interpretation put upon it by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, citation 241 reads in the diametrically opposite way. The second clause of that citation reads:
On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply, a member, before any amendment has been moved, may speak on a certain subject-
Not a whole lot of subjects, not cover the waterfront, but he may speak on a certain subject. It is not just any subject: it is a certain subject.


George James McIlraith: Read the rest of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is one that is clearly defined, and it is not a situation in which he can rake up all the grievances of which he can think.
Then, the balance of the citation reads, that he may introduce an amendment in the last moments accorded to him dealing with another subject. But, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing there that says he can depart, until he reaches the introduction of the amendment, one iota from that certain subject upon which he commenced to speak. The rule, Mr. Speaker, is crystal clear.
I was the one who took objection in the last parliament on March 31, 1961, when the Speaker made a ruling to which reference was made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Parry Sound. It was on this very point and Mr. Speaker Michener found it necessary on that occasion to tell the Leader of the Opposition that it was not proper to go on discussing a lot of grievances and then come down in the end on some particular one in the amendment. He must speak about a particular grievance. Surely after half an hour of speaking the Leader of the Opposition should have completed his introduction, even affording him most generous latitude in so far as introductory matters are concerned. Surely, the point has been reached where he must now be confined to a certain subject in accordance with the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have recognized that there are many opportunities given to this house for unlimited scope in terms of the subject matter of debate. There is the throne speech debate and the budget debate, as well as other occasions. The citations given in Beauchesne are dicta that I might follow, in certain circumstances. I think my case for ruling that the subject matter must be fairly narrowly defined is based on Mr. Speaker Beaudoin's precedent which I cited to the house earlier. This is the ground upon which

I feel that the Leader of the Opposition, particularly in the light of the fact he declared early in his remarks he intended to move an amendment, is almost binding himself to a fairly narrow subject. This is the basis of my ruling, and I so rule.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is I think, notwithstanding what my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has said, the eleventh or twelfth amendment I have moved to motions to go into supply. This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that a ruling such as you have made has been applied.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know the kind of statements I made; I know what I said and I said what I intended to say. The Speaker permitted me to do so. This is also the first time when the government has held me up for 35 minutes in this procedure, which is no doubt the purpose of the operation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has offended the rules of the house by imputing motives. He is suggesting, in effect, that a point of order has been taken for some other reason than the legitimate reason of asking for a ruling of the Chair. He is suggesting that many of those who have spoken from this side of the house have done so because they wished to delay him. I say that under the rules of the house, he has no right to impute motives of that kind.
In the light of what he has just now said, Mr. Speaker, may I refer you to Hansard for April 24, 1961, page 3935, where Mr. Speaker Michener, when just such a point was raised, concluded some very pertinent remarks with this observation:
Therefore, the proper course to follow in raising a grievance in going into supply is for the hon. member, when he starts, to state the grievance at least in terms sufficient to delimit the area of discussion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, whatever may have been the purpose, I did not mention my hon. friend by name. I do not know why he should have felt so guilty that he had to jump to his feet. I did not mention anybody by name. I said, "The purpose of the operation". Surely, it is possible to impute motives to a government if it is not to an individual member of this house. The Minister of Justice might have saved himself that five minute intervention. But whatever the purpose, there is no doubt about the effect.
If I were moving a motion on a specific subject, such as setting up a specific committee, and if that were made clear at the beginning of my statement, then of course I would be expected to speak to that and to 27507-3-215
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership produce evidence that bore on the point. There is no doubt about that. The Minister of Justice and others seemed to have confused the moving of an amendment on the motion to go into supply with a grievance which can be raised after that amendment is voted upon. Then the speaker has to base his remarks on a particular point, and that is the only point that can be debated while grievances are being debated. However, I am moving an amendment to the motion, a motion of no confidence in the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this motion will be based on the lack of leadership, confusion and indecision of the government in dealing with our problems. Am I to be told by the government that I can only produce one piece of evidence to support that? I propose to stick very strictly to the motion that this government should be condemned because it is indecisive, because it has not shown leadership, because it is confused and undecided. This is my motion, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to produce the kind of evidence which will support that kind of motion.
One can do this in two ways, if one likes. The Prime Minister talked about scattergun tactics. I cannot understand why he is worried about a scattergun. It can be done by a bullet, one bullet that goes to the target, I hope. It can be done by a shell which has a lot of pellets, and my shell has more than one pellet. They are all aimed at the target, and it is a big target and easy to hit.
One bit of evidence, Mr. Speaker, to support this general motion of no confidence in the leadership and direction of the government, is the way the government has been handling national defence policy. I bring that forward to support the motion which will be made at the end of my statement, a motion which will condemn the government because it has not shown leadership; it is confused and undecided, not only in respect of national defence but in respect of a lot of other matters. I begin with national defence because it is very much in our minds and because it provides the most graphic and dramatic evidence of confusion, bumbling and indecision we have had in a long time.
There is one way in the field of national defence in which this leadership might have been shown, in which some of this confusion may have been removed, when a decision might have been taken on the basis of the consensus of the House of Commons; that is by setting up a committee of this house on national defence policy. That is one way which a government that was concerned with giving leadership, which was concerned with getting the House of Commons behind it on
3402	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership this vital matter of life, death and survival, could have given leadership, but what happened?
Over the years when we on this side of the house, supported by the other opposition groups, tried to persuade the government to set up that kind of committee and give that kind of leadership, we were repeatedly turned down. We tried and we have failed. We had hoped that if the government had accepted our proposal on this matter it might have produced, and I think would have produced, non-partisan consideration of such a vital matter. But since February 20, 1959, when I made the first proposal to the house for such a committee, until the other day when the Prime Minister finally turned down my proposal for a national defence committee, we have been balked in our efforts to bring this matter before the House of Commons through a committee.


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, of course.


Howard Charles Green: Why was it when your party formed the government of the country it declined, year after year, to set up a committee on national defence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a perfectly proper question and I expected it. The answer to that is twofold. In the first place it is quite true that the opposition of that time, including my hon. friend and including the Prime Minister, did their very best to get a defence policy committee set up, and they produced various impressive arguments for such a committee, even at that time when we were not in the confused mess we are now in about national defence. The government of that day, of which I was a member, although it produced a great deal more information before the house than this government has ever produced on national defence, although it encouraged the widest and deepest discussion on the estimates for the Department of National Defence, and although it produced blue books explaining what our national defence policy was, decided that was enough and that a defence committee should not be set up. The hon. gentleman thought that was wrong then. I ask him now, why will he not agree to the very proposition he put forward in those days?


Howard Charles Green: Now perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will answer the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But perhaps my hon. friend will also remember that defence committees have been set up in the past.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They have indeed been set up on defence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not on policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps my hon. friend will remember a few commissions on defence policy set up by Liberal governments. Perhaps my hon. friend will remember that when there was a controversy going on concerning Petawawa the government of the day allowed a commission to investigate that-a royal commission and a committee of the house. Both of these were set up; but now, Mr. Speaker, these hon. gentlemen opposite, who fought so hard for that kind of inquiry in those days, have for five years resisted any attempt to find out anything about national defence policy, through a small committee before which witnesses could be heard and experts called, at a time and in a situation when there is much more confusion and much more difficulty in understanding the policy of the government than there ever was in the days and years before 1957. However there it is; we have not been permitted to investigate this matter in any effective way.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the opposition to do what it can to find out the facts, to find out the truth about national defence policy, and we shall continue to do our best to do that. Indeed it is all the more necessary now because we have another example of lack of leadership and of confusion and indecision. There have been contradictions, and they are now in the open, between the minister of national defence, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There have been contradictions as to what the facts are between the government of Canada and the government of the United States.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it would have been possible, with a government that had any idea or sense of leadership and decision, to have avoided a situation where we have this open dispute, or had, between the United States government and the Canadian government on what were the facts of national defence and joint continental defence policy? This is perhaps the most deplorable and most dangerous illustration we have had of lack of leadership and confusion in the five years in which the government has been in office, a confusion and indecision which has led to this situation, where however, wrong it may have been-and it was wrong-it led to the state department of our ally in continental defence issue a statement taking exception to the facts put forward in this house by the Prime Minister of this country.
A government that was conducting our relations with our neighbour in the right way

would never have got us into that position. And now the Prime Minister says the facts are as he stated they were. There is no confusion so far as he is concerned. Everything is fine; the facts were as stated by him. If the facts were as stated by the Prime Minister on this matter in the house, why was it exception was taken to those facts not only by the state department of the United States but by the minister of national defence in the government, up to the point where the minister felt he had to resign? Could there be a more dramatic example of confusion inside the cabinet, which leads to confusion inside parliament, and which leads to confusion inside the country?
Our concern on this side is to get the facts, to find out the truth in these matters before the efforts of the government to conceal all the facts or obscure all the truth will poison the relations between ourselves and our closest neighbour. The most dangerous and damaging result of the indecision, delay and confusion of the government in this field of defence policy is in the deterioration that it has brought about in our relations with our allies in NATO.
When the Prime Minister talks about the desirability of consultation before action is taken by one member of a coalition which affects the others, especially by the United States, we on this side agree with him. We have been talking like that for years. There is no doubt about that; but if the Prime Minister is so sensitive in these matters he should have been more careful than to get up in this house and disclose confidential negotiations, confidential negotiations which are apparently so secret and so important that we cannot find out from this government, as we tried even today, which department of the Canadian government is carrying them on.
This is just another indication of the kind of leadership we have been getting in this parliament and in this country. But now the Prime Minister says, "Well, we don't have to do anything now, notwithstanding the minister of national defence, notwithstanding this controversy regarding the carrying out of the obligations we have undertaken, because the NATO council is going to meet in May and we will leave it to the NATO council to advise us what should be done and what changes should be made in our defence policy."
This is just another excuse for delay. As the minister of national defence said, the time has now come to make a decision. The Prime Minister says, "No; no, we won't make a decision because the NATO council is going 27507-3-215J
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership to meet here in May, and there was a conference in Nassau in December and they talked about these things; so let us wait for a while until we see what the other members of NATO are going to do."


John George Diefenbaker: Isn't that what the other countries in NATO are saying?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It certainly is not. Every country in NATO, except Canada, have accepted commitments which they are in a position to try to carry out. They have either accepted commitments which require nuclear warheads on their territory and have made political agreements with the United States for that purpose, even though the nuclear warheads may not have arrived, or they let the NATO council know at the beginning that they were not going to have nuclear warheads. That is not the position the Canadian government-


John George Diefenbaker: What about the changes that are taking place in defence, in Turkey and in Italy-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know all about these changes and I know how the Prime Minister is seizing on these changes as an escape hatch for his own lack of policy. I know perfectly well that in Turkey and in Italy NATO nuclear, intermediate missile bases are now to be abandoned in favour of another form of
nuclear tactical deterrent. I know also_and
this was made clear by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the House of Commons the other day-that nothing that happened at Nassau, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister said, affects the obligations of Canada inside the coalition at this time; indeed that is what the secretary of state has himself said and repeated in his apologetic statement the other evening.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) a question? Could he explain to the house why he changed his nuclear policy so suddenly?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At least he had the courage to state a policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I make my statement along the lines of the minister of national defence in the statement put out by him this afternoon. The time had come when somebody had to make a decision-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and, Mr. Speaker, if only the government of this country would make some decisions on these matters, if only the government would accept its responsibility in these matters, then we in this house would be able to decide whether we would support or

Alleged Lack of Government Leadership oppose the government in those decisions. The trouble is that we do not know what to support, because they make no decisions. That is the burden of the letter which the minister of national defence sent to the Prime Minister when he resigned. He said, "The time has come. The 'planes are with the squadrons; the missiles are on the stations. Now is the time to decide whether or not you are going to carry out your obligations". Therefore we have said that the time has come when Canada, committed to these obligations, should honour her word until those obligations are changed-and that is not going to be such an easy job now.
Mr. Speaker, one result of indecision and contradiction in this field of national defence has been to baffle not only our own people but our friends, especially our friends in the United States, with whom this government made these arrangements for the integration of our continental defence; not the previous government.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes, you did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true. I heard the hon. gentleman say that.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes, you did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true. It was this government which made the NORAD arrangement. Let this government either follow through on that arrangement or change it.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? Does he deny that his government had all the arrangements made for NORAD before it went out of office?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I absolutely and categorically deny it, and I defy the hon. gentleman to prove otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Is there any other
question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it perhaps has no immediate relevance to my argument, but I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman, who has interrupted me twice, that this matter of an integrated continental air defence arose before the election of 1957. The records will show this. It was submitted to the defence committee of the previous cabinet before the election, and the prime minister of that day, who was a man of both responsibility and decision, said, "This is far too important a matter, even if we wished to accept these recommendations, to discuss before an election. We will not even consider them until after the election".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Mr. Pearson.l


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister of national
defence made the recommendations. The government did not even consider them. Then after the election-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was no consideration given to this matter. Let not the record be falsified by this kind of intervention. Then, Mr. Speaker, after the election there was a cabinet meeting in July, 1957, when this very important joint arrangement was accepted with a minimum of discussion by the present government and it has been in effect ever since. That is the fact and that is the record. If the government wishes to improve its relations with the United States in these matters, let the government tell our friends across the border what they are going to do and what they are not going to do.
Of course, everybody knows-and this has been repeated by hon. members from all parts of the house-it is the first responsibility of a Canadian government to protect the interests of Canada. That is what they are chosen for. Governments used to be able to protect the interests of Canada without continuously quarrelling with our friends. The present government seems to have a genius for getting into trouble with our friends, our best friends.
Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could ask the government whether they intend to manufacture an issue for an election out of the unfortunate and most regrettable faux pas made in Washington, a move for which the secretary of state of the United States apologized, while he claimed that the facts he stated were right. He has invited the government of Canada, if any of the facts were wrong, to correct the facts. Perhaps we will be told in this debate whether any of the facts have been corrected. The indecision of this government, its refusal to make the decisions required for defence, and then seeking spurious excuses to justify its bungling, are responsible for a lot of the trouble the government gets itself into in its relations with other countries. I beg the government on this occasion not to make a political football out of this particular, unhappy incident, and I beg the Prime Minister to remember his own words of September 7, 1957, at Dartmouth college, Hanover, when he said:
The whole measure of warm friendship which has long existed between the United States and Canada, and the parallel interest of the two countries, enables us to speak to each other with a measure of forthrightness which is permitted to very few countries in the world.
This is the Prime Minister:
The candour with which we can communicate with each other strengthens our understanding of

each other, and helps us to avoid the pitfalls of misunderstanding which have bedevilled relations of so many other countries in the world.


John George Diefenbaker: Not by press notices.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let us do nothing in this parliament to bedevil our relations with our friends or to create pitfalls or misunderstandings. Let us do our best here to fill up pitfalls of misunderstanding. But, Mr. Speaker, defence is only one illustration of the validity of the motion of no confidence in the government that we are moving. There are others. I think I should mention one or two before I resume my seat. They also illustrate the delay, indecision and confusion of government policies in fields where there should be leadership and decision. I think of unemployment, which is still the most important human problem for the people of Canada. Job security-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Again?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Again, yes, because there has been another breach of the rules. Do you understand?


An hon. Member:: Read your rule book.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, after a very lengthy introduction to his remarks the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has for some time now been dealing with a subject, namely defence policy. It is quite evident now that he is turning to an entirely different subject, namely unemployment, and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in doing so he is violating the rules of this house. He has sought to excuse what he is about to do this afternoon by indicating that at the conclusion of his remarks he is going to introduce an amendment of a quite extraordinary nature. It is the kind of amendment that is obviously designed to permit the Leader of the Opposition, if he succeeds, to reverse the rules of the house and to discuss a number of subjects. It was said by him earlier in his remarks, perhaps when you yourself were not in the chair, Mr. Speaker, that he was seeking to make a grievance of what he said was indecision on the part of the government. So he is proposing, as he says, in dealing with that subject to range over a number of subjects looking, as he says, for examples.
Mr. Speaker, in my submission, if this is the type of amendment he is going to introduce it is not a proper amendment on such a motion, and it cannot be made a cover under any circumstances for a plain violation of the rules of this house, which require that an hon. member-and this applies
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership also to the hon. member who leads off first on the motion-must speak on a certain subject. That is the language of citation 241 (2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition; it says "a certain subject". It is plain to be seen that if it is possible to introduce motions of this kind, and then under cover of such motion to talk about any subject, then the Leader of the Opposition does not need to confine himself to two, or three, or four, or five; there is literally no limit to the number of subjects which he can discuss. He will be able to say: "Well, they are additional evidence of a general charge which I am undertaking to prove".
Mr. Speaker, this is a palpable attempt to destroy the rules and to ride rough shod over the rules. I would remind you of the language used by the former speaker in this house on April 24, 1961, at page 3935 of Hansard, where the speaker laid down this rule in dealing with just such a situation. He said:
Therefore, the proper course to follow in raising a grievance in going into supply is for the hon. member, when he starts, to state the grievance at least in terms sufficient to delimit the area of discussion.
This is not the only relevant citation; there is another one which will be found on March 31, 1961. There a similar point was raised; the Leader of the Opposition started out to talk about a number of subjects, and then, having claimed a privilege which is accorded no other member of the house, introduced an amendment which then confined debate.
Mr. Speaker, I close with this observation, that if it is competent to the Leader of the Opposition in leading off on such a motion to introduce a number of subjects, it will in my respectful submission be equally competent to any member of this house who follows him in debate to discuss any or all of those subjects. I am prepared to prophesy, Mr. Speaker, that if the Leader of the Opposition brings in his amendment we would afterwards be told that we must confine ourselves specifically to the amendment. But there will then be on the record statements by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to a variety of subjects.
Now, it seems to me in the light of decisions of the past in such situations and the clearly established practice of the house, that that is not the way a. supply debate should be conducted. The whole basis of the supply debate is to deal with one subject at a time, and we exhaust that subject before we proceed to another. In my respectful submission, if the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to discuss defence, and he has been at it now, I think, for about three quarters of an hour, then that is the subject he has chosen. He should bring in his amendment and it is not

340S
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership then open to him to turn to another subject and open up an entirely new book of debate in the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) rises on a point of order which is similar to this, and unfortunately for the Minister of Justice he has not stated to the house the facts. I would challenge the Minister of Justice to state that the Leader of the Opposition has dealt with a number of subjects. He has not dealt with a number of subjects; he has dealt with one subject and one subject alone, and that is the indecision and the hesitation of this government. Basing the argument on that assumption, which I submit is the only assumption that is before Your Honour at this time, then no matter how you view either citation 241 or citation 234 it is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition is in order. Because citation 241(2) refers to the amendment which may be moved or has been moved, and says in effect that the speaker may refer to a certain subject. Citation 234(1) says:
When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance-
So with respect I say to you that the Leader of the Opposition all along, from the beginning of his introduction of the amendment with which he proposed to deal, indicated quite clearly that he was going to deal with the indecision of the government; and the Minister of Justice has no right in the remarks which he has made to anticipate what the Leader of the Opposition is going to say later on in his speech or in the remarks that he will make before he moves his amendment. Therefore I submit to you with deference, although you, sir, were not in the chair at the time, that thus far the only subject which the Leader of the Opposition has dealt with is the hesitation, the contradiction and the lack of leadership of the government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a point of order which I think is similar to one raised a few minutes ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Unfortunately you were not in the chair to hear the arguments on that particular point of order. I hope that I can help you in reaching a decision. Citation 234 of Beauchesne says:
The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada-
This is the only premise for this supply motion. There are other citations. Paragraph

(2) of citation 234 does in a broad general way indicate that many different subjects can be brought up. Citation 241(2) says:
On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply, a member, before any amendment has been moved, may speak on a certain subject and spend the last minutes or seconds of his time in moving an amendment dealing with another subjectand then it goes on to say that debate would be confined to that subject after the amendment has been moved. Mr. Speaker, up to this time the amendment has not been moved, but by and large I think we can take it from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that he is going to move a motion based on confusion, delay and postponement. Up to this time I think it is fair to say that he has only been giving evidence to support his contention that there is confusion, delay, and so forth.
From my limited experience of these supply motions, I believe it has not been the practice to limit the debate to one specific subject and to have that specific subject named at the outset of the speech prior to the moving of the amendment. If there is a subamendment moved then after that subamendment has been moved it is the obligation of the members who wish to speak on it to stick to the subject matter of both amendments; but not prior to their having been moved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In this question I have examined the various citations which have been given by hon. members. Some have some strength, others have somewhat less strength. But I would say this, that the choice of the subject for an amendment is that of the mover. However, there must be some reason, and there must be some order to debate in this house. If an hon. member, before proposing his amendment, ranges over the whole spectrum and then at the last moment brings in his amendment he thereby, if we are to follow the reasoning suggested, prevents anyone else from discussing all those matters which he may have raised. In deciding as to the rights and obligations of various members this procedure seems to me to be somewhat unfair. In addition to that consideration, it strikes me that the suggested reasoning is contrary to the general practices of this house because he is to be followed by some other hon. member from some other group who may wish to put forward a subamendment and he does not even get a chance to see the amendment until he is almost on his feet. This procedure puts the member following at a serious disadvantage. One must consider the fairness of debate.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has not yet worded his amendment. However, if he has indicated that the burden of his

amendment is going to be a certain field such as that which I think has been indicated, and he gives brief illustrations of it, then I believe we may have an idea of where he is going. But we must not then expect that after he has moved his amendment, anyone will stand up then and say, "Oh, you cannot discuss anything the Leader of the Opposition said, but what is in the amendment." If he said something in debate in leading up to his amendment, then it is as much a subject of discussion afterwards as it was previously. We know that in orderly debate there must be some reasonable control in this regard. With those words from me I think the Leader of the Opposition will govern himself accordingly. This is not the subject for any applause or anything of that kind. I am looking for orderly debate in this house, so let us proceed on that basis and get on with our business.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We all hope there will be orderly debate in this house, Mr. Speaker. However, if the position taken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming)-and I thank him for his intervention, as it gave me a breathing space-were to be considered a valid one, it would mean that in moving a vote of no confidence against the government because we think it is a bad, indecisive and bungling government, we would be able to produce only one illustration in order to support that charge and nobody following us from the other opposition groups would be able to deal with any other illustration than the one I produced. The Minister of Justice said this will prevent the opposition from answering. But they can deal, as you have just said, with every point I bring forward in an attempt to prove that this government is indecisive, confused and not giving leadership. Surely no limitation will be put on their contribution to this debate. Certainly we on this side of the house would not raise the points of order which have been raised on the other side if they do that.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we may leave the point of order and get on with the business.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When I discussed defence, I did not discuss it as an analysis of defence policy. I discussed defence as an illustration of our thesis that this government is confused, fumbling and indecisive. I brought in the subject of defence as an example to show that, as it is one which is very close to us at this time. However, there are others which could be mentioned. I mentioned one other one, namely unemployment.
In 1962 during the election campaign the Prime Minister told us that the unemployment problem would be licked by the middle
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership of 1962. He said it was all over. He said, "Keep the government in office and it will be found that this summer we would have full employment." But we all know what happened; and this bears on the policy and the actions of the government, although it is not, of course, entirely responsible for these matters and we have never made that assertion. But since that statement made by the Prime Minister that unemployment would be licked by the middle of the summer, unemployment has stood at a level of 6 per cent on an annual basis. It is unfortunately rising now. The current issue of the Financial Times predicts that unemployment at the winter peak this February or March may total 600,000 or about 9 per cent of the labour force. We on this side of the house assert that the government has not taken quick and effective action that would really do something about this matter.
It was the Prime Minister himself and the government that said, "We are going to put into effect long range economic programs which will put this country on the way to growth and progress again". That is another illustration, and perhaps in some ways it is the most important one we have, to support the charge we make against this government for the way in which it has conducted the affairs of this country since the last election. Where is this long range economic program? Where is the new budget? Why have we not even managed to pass the estimates of the old budget? Why have we not been permitted to discuss the $200 million of taxation which was imposed by order in council? All these things bear on my main thesis that this government has lost the capacity to govern. Surely I am entitled to speak about them.
In order to obscure their own defects and their own defaults, they are now throwing up a smokescreen about obstruction on this side. We are told that this is the reason we cannot have the estimates. Let us just look at the situation with regard to the estimates which we are now discussing on this motion to go into supply. Only two days were allocated to the estimates prior to the election last spring.


John George Diefenbaker: How many days were spent on supplementary estimates?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister intervenes again in order to remind me that we were obliged to spend a good deal of time on supplementary estimates because there was no other opportunity of discussing the expenditure of the people's money. Indeed, not one dollar of the main estimates has been discussed and decided in this house, I believe, since September, 1961. That is an example,
3408	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership if you like, of how not to conduct the nation's business. However, only two days were allocated to the main estimates prior to the election. With that situation facing the government it must have known, if it knew anything, the kind of financial box it was going to get into. With that situation facing it, it decided to let the new members cool off and to call parliament on September 27. That was done. Those weeks were lost.


Lionel Chevrier: More than three months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Last autumn when we met, we had only one supply day. Only one department was called and that department was withdrawn after two or three days debate during which the Minister of Agriculture took up a good deal of time, and nobody complained about that matter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I never spoke once.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With the estimates in that situation and with interim supply developing to the point where the government was not going to be able to carry on for lack of money, the government then decided they would not come back until January 21. And since we have come back, this is the first supply day we have had. What a record that is, Mr. Speaker, of what I might call autoobstruction.
There are, of course, other indications of inaction and lack of efficient conduct of the nation's business. We were told that certain things were going to be done. Legislation was forecast, some of it even introduced but not acted on, all of it important. I was going to mention that the Columbia river treaty is a shining example, though that is not the right expression, for indecision and confusion. Then there are redistribution, senate reform, contributory old age pensions, the unemployment insurance fund, abolition of closure and the O'Leary report. None of these things have been brought before us.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the national development board? Why don't you mention that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There have been some very useful pieces of legislation passed-the national development board, the Atlantic development board-


John George Diefenbaker: You held it up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course when we debate these matters like the national development board we are then told by the Prime Minister that we are holding them up.


John George Diefenbaker: You are.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Just killing time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -all this means-


An hon. Member:: A guilty conscience.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that the present government has broken down. It has lost the capacity to manage not only the nation's business but parliamentary business, and in order to get itself out of the difficulty in which it finds itself financially, and it will certainly be in difficulty-


Mr. Starr:: You are going to make sure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, interim supply ran out on the first or second of February and we have not been approached by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) for the eleventh twelfth which will now be required for the next month. This government has so badly managed the affairs of this house, apart from the affairs of the country, that it has broken down, and it conceals its default by shouting "obstruction". There is one way of getting out of this situation and that is to bring this parliament to an end.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has just been speaking about supply-


George James McIlraith: He is speaking about indecision.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and he is now
proposing that parliament should be dissolved. How would be propose to meet the problem of interim supply for the next six months if there were an election?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend is now Minister of Justice and he used to be minister of finance. He should know something about these matters. Surely he knows that if this parliament is brought to an end by dissolution the government can pay its bills by Governor General's warrants, and the minister is an expert in doing that because he has done it before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I take it, then, that that is the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is a very patient person and if he will wait for a very few moments he will hear the motion I am going to move. I say the record is such-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are very evasive.


An hon. Member:: Indecisive.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While an hon. member may seek to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition in order to ask a question, I think that beyond that we will get along better with fewer interruptions. This applies to both sides of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure it does apply to both sides, but the application has only been noticeable on one side this afternoon. Especially after the events of last week, Mr. Speaker, it is surely our duty on this side to do what we can to bring to an end the most inefficient, confused and indecisive government in our history. I am glad the Prime Minister is taking that down too.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, I have heard that story for a long time. The hon. gentleman flatters himself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a government which has had no idea of where it was going; and if it had it would have had no idea how to get there; and if it had it would never have been able to make a decision to start moving there. It is a government which has been unable to deal with problems because it has not been able to understand most of them, and where it did understand a problem it was not able to make up its mind what to do about it. It has so mismanaged its affairs that it is now even running out of money. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this government is ending. It is ending unwept, unhonoured and unsung.


John George Diefenbaker: But returned whenever it goes to the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister says it will be returned whenever it goes to the country. There is a new definition of an optimist. This government is ending both with a bang and a whimper. The country now has a chance to choose a better government and we hope soon. It should be given a chance to choose a better government. So, Mr. Speaker, surely it is the duty of all members of the opposition in this house to give the people a chance to return what they would consider to be a better government. We can only do that by getting rid of this one, and that can only be done by taking a united stand.
No government has any right to go on sitting on the benches opposite and failing so lamentably, so miserably, to govern. I say to the opposition parties that all of us, I think, have had enough of this manoeuvring, this talk, this dramatic trickery of last Friday while the country's business is in disarray-


Michael Starr: Listen to who is talking.
27507-3-216
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership


Lester Bowles Pearson: -while the nation cries out for action and all we get is confusion and evasion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And obstruction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I remember-


Michael Starr: Mostly obstruction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -in the House of Commons at Westminster a very dramatic occasion-


John George Diefenbaker: We used that against you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -in 1940-


John George Diefenbaker: We used that against you in 1955.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have said this before, Mr. Speaker, but it is more apposite to this house and government than ever before, and I do not mind repeating it. In 1940 there was a government in office in Great Britain during the darkest days of the war which did not have those qualities of action and decision necessary to face the emergency at that time. We face emergencies and problems in this country at this time. We need a government that will make decisions, face up to these problems and do something about them. I refer to a supporter of the government at Westminster in 1940 who remained a friend of the members of that government and who gave them credit for good will and good intentions. He must have felt very sad in making the kind of speech he had to make, but at that time he said, quoting the immortal words of Cromwell when he went into the Long Parliament:
You have sat here too long for the little good that you have been doing.


An hon. Member:: That is why the people kicked you out in 1957.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very apposite observation, but I can assure hon. members that the hon. gentlemen opposite will never be faced with 22 years of decision.
Then, Mr. Amory went on to quote Cromwell:
Depart, I say, and let's have done with you. In God's name, go.
In going, Mr. Speaker, they will at least perform one decisive service to the Canadian people. They will give the people a chance to choose a better parliament and a better government. So, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this government, because of lack of leadership, the breakdown of unity in the cabinet, and confusion and indecision in dealing with national and international problems, does not have the confidence of the Canadian people."

Alleged Lack of Government Leadership


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we of the Social Credit party have taken the position since the June 18 election that parliament must serve the best interests of Canada and the Canadian people. We announced at the beginning of this session that it was the duty of all members of this parliament from all parties to proceed with this responsibility. This is the reason we were elected to this house. I reject the proposition that the only and prime duty of opposition parties in this house is simply to overthrow the government. To assume this attitude is nothing more or less than irresponsibility.
I am convinced that it is the responsibility of all of us in this house, collectively, and this applies in a particular way in this house of minorities, to give to the government the authority and the money to carry on the necessary administration of the nation's public affairs. We gave it to the government in this parliament, even though they are a minority and this is simply because they are the largest minority. It must, however, be recognized that this policy is, has and was based on the premise that the government would provide clearcut policies and appropriate follow-up of legislation which had been previously passed or would be passed by this parliament. The result has been, in the intervening months, that this parliament, this twenty fifth parliament, has failed in its responsibilities to the people of Canada. You will note that I said "this parliament" because it applies collectively to all of us.
At this point, we are particularly concerned by the events of the past few days, and with the reasons these events have come to pass in the way that they have. The statement of the United States state department, and now the resignation of the minister of national defence are two striking examples, and they result not from the determination of the opposition to overthrow the government but from the confusion, indecision and postponement of policy on the part of the government. They must face up to this responsibility to the Canadian people and to us in this house.
While I am not too experienced in the operations of government, one thing that has been impressed upon me has been the fact that there has been nothing but confusion in the arrangements and in the procedures for carrying out the policies which this government has, if any, and also the indecision and postponement of legislative action.
An election in Canada precipitated at this time by the events of the last three days and carrying an anti-American overtone would be a tragedy to Canada. The United States is our closest neighbour, yes and our closest friend. Only damage could result from an election campaign on this basis. I think that

the issue of today's Toronto Globe and Mail expresses this situation extremely well in its front page editorial. I quote:
Events in Ottawa make it apparent that Prime Minister John Diefenbaker is giving serious consideration to dissolving parliament and going to the country in a new election. In the opinion of this newspaper an election at this time would be a disaster. This parliament would leave behind it such a record as would disgrace Canada in the history of parliaments, a record blank of any achievement:
You can read this, and you can hear the same sentiments expressed in every corner of the country. We see that this is not just the idea of a few men and women who sit on the opposition side of this house. I continue:
An entire year for which none of the estimates covering the nation's business has been approved.
Two sessions without a budget.
Worst of all, no program arising out of that budget to stimulate and stabilize the nation's economic growth, to give us the productivity and competitiveness we must have to survive in changing world markets.
Canada could only suffer serious damage from an immediate election. We have other urgent needs that must take precedence.
The first of these is a clear, comprehensible statement by the government on defence policy, including nuclear arms.
It seems to me that a depressing cloud hangs over this chamber this afternoon as a result of the resignation of the Minister of National Defence. I speak in regard to this with a certain amount of feeling because this hon. member who represents the constituency of Calgary North is practically a hometown boy in my community. In earlier days his farm was only an hour's walk from my family's homestead, and I know he is held in much respect on the basis of the conviction with which he has carried out his responsibilities, except perhaps for his rather infamous talk last Thursday night. Actually I did not expect him so quickly to take the advice I gave him last Thursday evening, but he has found it necessary to resign. Such a decision is not an easy one to take. Certainly it must have been made only in the face of very deep differences of opinion.
As has been stated already this afternoon, our nation needs and expects from us who are members of the house a greater degree of unity and a greater spirit of unitedness in our diversities. I doubt that neither a royal commission nor a federal provincial conference would be much good in trying to work out the problem we have here. It might help if we had a parliamentary committee to study this thing, and it may be that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) would make a good chairman for it. The thing I am concerned with is simply that we are not facing, in an intelligent and responsible way, the responsibilities we have to the people who elected us here.

Coming back to the editorial in the Globe and Mail I read a little further down:
Canada's second need-
That is second to a clear statement on what is the defence policy of the government-
-equally urgent, if not more so-is for a budget that will give some definition to economic policy for at least the next three to five years. Within that time reports from the royal commission on banking and finance and the royal commission on taxation should be available as a basis for more far reaching reforms and long term planning.
These are Canada's needs, and that they be satisfied is essential to the health, possibly the survival of the nation.
Then in conclusion this editorial states:
The government should make an honest statement on defence policy, from which we could move into reasonable negotiations with the United States. The government should press onward with all haste to a budget that will make it possible for us to begin restoring our economic health. To such honesty a loyal opposition might be expected to respond with co-operation.
We ask the Prime Minister to forget politics and an election, and give us leadership.
This is where we stand in the House of Commons at the present time.
Dealing with the confusion and indecision- the rationalizing indecision which I believe it is-it is not good enough that we try to explain something by reason of something that happened in the past. This is a crisis government. We go from crisis to crisis. What we ought to be doing is anticipating what the problem will be ahead and then, before we reach that problem, make a decision as to whether we will go through it, around it or over it, or decide how it is going to be solved.
The former minister of national defence says he favours nuclear arms for Canada's defensive forces both in NATO and NORAD. Does he mean by this that the Prime Minister is against nuclear arms for these Canadian forces? One would assume so, otherwise he would not have quit; but then I would ask the Prime Minister, does the minister of national defence make these commitments, which we are just now finding out, all by himself, or does he make them in agreement with his Prime Minister?
Let us face the facts in this situation. If the government did not know these commitments were being made, then the minister of national defence was away out of order. But he could not have made them without the government knowing them and being in agreement with these decisions. Therefore it is not wrong to assume today, although we have yet to be told by the government, that we are committed to the acquisition of nuclear arms for Canada. It is this kind of bumbling and indecisiveness that produces the confusion that has overtaken the nation.
27507-3-216i
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership
I think I have a fairly good idea what the people of Canada, at the grassroots level, are talking about and I am convinced that all of the confusion, uneasiness and unrest that has been developing in regard to this particular problem is not just the result of a press that is supposed to be prejudiced against the government, or opposition parties that are trying to undermine the very foundations of confidence of our Canadian people in government.
Our people want to know, and have a right to know, what the policies of the government are. Actually we have a pretty good assumption what these defence policies are because any reasonable persons would not be installing carriers for nuclear warheads if they did not agree, intend and plan to put nuclear warheads on top of them.
This comes to the crux of the difficulty facing us at the present time. The Prime Minister has said there is no confusion; yet we have been told by the government of a foreign power that our defence policies are not clear, and by the very words used in that statement they prove to us we have not been informed of what is actually going on. That is why I say to the government this afternoon that it has failed in its responsibilities to the country and to this house, a house of minorities, which is a peculiar situation. It is a situation with which we are not familiar in Canada, but one which we are perhaps going to have to live with for quite a long time.
We all become confused if we follow what we are told is government policy. The other day a friend of mine said there is not any confusion about the government's policy. He said that if you turn back to a certain page of Hansard and find the statement on the Nassau meeting, if you turn over then to the speech of the Prime Minister and put them together, with the speech of the minister of national defence, you will find out what the policy is. Another man said "That is not my responsibility. That is the responsibility of the government or the Prime Minister or the minister concerned, to put it in terms so that we all can understand it." That is why I believe the people of Canada want action at this time, positive action, action based upon clearcut policies with which we do not necessarily have to agree, but at least we should know about. We have appealed-and I think we have been very reasonable in our appeal-to the government to tell us what are their policies. When they tell us they have a program of positive legislation, we want them to lay it out in orderly fashion so that we can get on with it. It is not good enough to bring in a certain piece of legislation which in principle may be right and with which in principle all parties will agree, and for us then

Alleged Lack of Government Leadership to find in the first debate, shall we say in the resolution stage, that there is some disagreement and then suddenly it is pulled back from out of our grasp, to come back a week, ten days or two weeks later when we have to go over the whole thing again. This is just wasted time and confuses the issue.
It is not good enough, either, to say that the opposition parties have refused to cooperate and have insisted on blocking these procedures, because perhaps the procedure of harmonious and aggressive programming in such a house of minorities is a little different than it was when there were 208 members on the government side of the house. It is in this situation that I think the government have failed completely to recognize their responsibility and opportunity. Again I come back to the question of the minority situation in this house. The position of Canada today, as far as our party structure is concerned, is not that of a two-party system. It is a multiparty system and we are going to have to face it and understand it for quite a long time to come, simply because the two old line parties, no matter on what side of the house they sit, have played politics too long with the operations of our government. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to rise and speak on defence or any other topic and spend 95 per cent of his time tirading against the Leader of the Opposition. We need something positive and aggressive. Likewise, it is not the responsibility of the leader of the official opposition to rise and think he is accomplishing and fulfilling his purpose by simply returning that tirade to the Prime Minister. This is the very thing that is destroying the confidence of the Canadian people in a traditional two-party system. Let us just remember that the basis upon which we have operated for so long and so smugly does not necessarily reflect the over-all opinion of Canadians. It is here where we in this house, again, have failed to meet our responsibilities.
Now let us look objectively for a few moments at the situation in which we are placed. The easiest way out of this problem would be to have an election. As I see day after day what is happening here I almost reach the conclusion inside myself that this is the only way in which we can get out of the present situation. But then I study the situation, look at it and ask myself, would an election solve anything?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not believe the people of Canada are today ready to make up their minds with sufficient unanimity to give us a majority government. I believe we would find ourselves just prolonging the dilemma

we are in and, while doing so, would again threaten the very foundations of our present economy and its orderly functioning. If we could only know what foreigners outside Canada are today saying about Canada as a result of the bungling over our defence problem, as a result of the lack of progress we have made in this house, perhaps some of us would be a little more determined to get on with the job that is before us instead of just thinking we can change things by having an election. My mother used to say to me when I was a boy, "You cannot get away from the devil just by running away from him".


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Leader of the Opposition tries.


Robert Norman Thompson: Therefore I think we must face up to the situation we are in and try to come up with a decision.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Safe, again, for a week.


Robert Norman Thompson: We must try to come up with a decision that will prove to the people that we do have some sense of responsibility left.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You cannot get rid of the devil by holding on to his hand either.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to make remarks in this house and think we are pretty smart in making them; it is another thing to convince the people that we have any smartness left in us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: Therefore as we consider the position we are in, in light of what an election at this time might bring about, we find we have two alternatives. We can either say to the government, "You have a chance to go ahead and do something. You have not taken that chance before", or else we can say to the government, "You have had sufficient opportunity, and because you have failed to fulfil your responsibility in that opportunity the only result can be an election at this time". In considering all that has happened during these last few tense days, we in this party continue to stand on our previous policy, which we stated clearly last Wednesday. That is, to go along with a reasonable discussion and debate on the supply motions that are yet to come and on the estimates which are yet to be brought forward, for the simple reason that this money has been spent, for the simple reason that we had nothing to do with the budget in the first place. Yes, and for the basic reason

that we can get on with something that is definite, something that concerns the future of the country instead of the past.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned at six o'clock I had stated why we believe that an election at this time is not really a good thing. I will not repeat the reasons for that belief, but I would say this. We have waited for a long time for the government really to get moving in providing the necessary legislative action to meet the needs of our country at this time. We have had a number of resolutions which have not been acted upon. We have much legislation from previous parliaments that we have heard talked about in the speech from the throne, and on different occasions, but we see no program that is actually going to bring this in at the present time. We have all realized, I think, that our parliament is completely out of tune with the fiscal year of the government's administration. Again, this is why we find ourselves in a position without even an interim supply to meet the needs of the government, and we find ourselves crowding in with much haste the estimates from last year and with supply motions for money which has practically all been spent.
For these and other reasons we have reached the point, that we almost reluctantly, shall we say, believe it would be worse for the country in not going to the people to ascertain their will than it would be to prolong the life of this government which is not fulfilling its responsibilities as it should.
We in our party have done all we can towards assisting the bringing in of this legislation. In fact, we have gone the second and the third mile. Last week we made it very clear both in the press and in private discussion that if we could have assurance that the estimates for the new year could be brought down in two weeks and that the budget could be brought down within a reas-sonable time, we would support the estimates for last year and also the supply motions. To prove this point, when we heard this morning of the resignation of the defence minister we met in caucus, and at one o'clock or a few minutes prior to one o'clock we issued another statement, and if the government had wanted, they could certainly have met the simple things for which we asked. We
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership believe our request was a reasonable request. I believe that we were elected to parliament to see that Canada gets good government. We are trying to carry out our responsibilities, and this was simply a request along that line. At this moment I should like to read what this statement said:
Social Credit has taken the position since the June 18 election that parliament must serve the interests of Canada.
The Social Credit party announced at the beginning of this session that it was the duty of all members of parliament from all parties to proceed with their responsibilities.
Those responsibilities are to provide the government with authority and money to carry on the public affairs of the nation, giving the largest minority the opportunity to govern. We have continuously followed this policy until this time. It must, however, be recognized that this policy is, and was, based on the premise that the government would provide clearcut statement of policy and an appropriate follow up on legislation which has been passed by this parliament and past parliaments.
We are deeply concerned about the events of the past few days and the reasons that give rise to these events. The statement of the United States state department and the resignation of the minister of national defence are two striking examples resulting from the confusion, indecision and postponement of government policy. This confusion, indecision and postponement are not confined to matters of national defence alone. An election in Canada precipitated by the events of the last three days, with an anti-American overtone, would be a tragedy. The United States is our nearest neighbour and closest friend and only damage could result from an election campaign on this basis.
In considering all that has happened during these last tense days, we would continue to stand on our previous policy which would permit the passage of the necessary supply motions and last year's estimates in order that the new estimates and the current budget could be brought down, if the government would:
1. Provide a clearcut statement of defence policy.
This afternoon we heard the resignation of the minister of national defence, but no explanation whatsoever from the Prime Minister of what the policy of the government was, now that the minister of defence had resigned for the reasons he so clearly stated. We also asked that the government agree to bring in the new estimates within two weeks. That is a reasonable request. Third, we also asked that the new budget be brought down within four weeks and that there would be an opportunity for a full budget debate assured. We asked, in the fourth instance, that the government outline a positive program of follow-up action respecting many things for which parliament has already given authority.
We did not intend to issue an ultimatum. We merely stated these points believing that they were reasonable, and were things that the government was expected to deal with not only by this house but also by the people of Canada. In spite of that last minute appeal
3414	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership asking, begging, pleading that the government fulfil the vacuum that has been created because they have not done these things previously, we had no action. We have therefore come to the conclusion that if this is the best the government can give us at this time, then it is time that we go to the people about the matter.
I have no confidence whatsoever that the Liberal party has any alternative that would deal with anything in any better way. Taking into consideration the post-war years alone, they had 12 years when there should have been the greatest prosperity in Canada in all our history.


An hon. Member:: There was.


Robert Norman Thompson: In spite of the fact that this was the environment in which they were administering the affairs of this country, they bungled the affairs of the administration of the country so much that the people of Canada were compelled to turn them out.
The reason why we have come to this conclusion at the present time is simply that I believe the people of Canada expect and deserve something better than what we are giving to them in this house at the present time. Therefore, in amendment to the amendment which has been moved by the leader of the official opposition, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) I move as follows:
That all the words after "government" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"has failed up to this time to give a clear statement of policy respecting Canada's national defence, and has failed to organize the business of the house so that the 1963-64 estimates and budget could be introduced, and has failed to outline a positive program of follow-up action respecting many things for which this parliament and previous parliaments have already given authority, and does not have the confidence of the Canadian people.
The amendment would then read as follows:
This government has failed up to this time to give a clear statement of policy respecting Canada's national defence, and has failed to organize the business of the house so that the 1963-64 estimates and budget could be introduced, and has failed to outline a positive program of follow-up action respecting many things for which this parliament and previous parliaments have already given authority, and does not have the confidence of the Canadian people.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to prolong this debate on our part except to say that we sincerely regret that we have not been able to give leadership to the administration of the public affairs of this country in a better way. It is not sufficient that we just try to build each other up by knocking each other down. What we must have is a positive, constructive approach to our problems. Let us remember that a wrong decision is probably not as bad as no decision at all.
CMr. Thompson.!

What we shall be accused of in this house of minorities in this twenty fifth parliament, as I believe history will record it, is that we were unable to come to decisions that would transform policies into action. Therefore we have failed the electorate who put us here.
I believe that the only way in which we can possibly correct this situation is to go back to the people and ask them for a new mandate, trusting that they will have seen the folly in both of the old parties. The awakening realization that Canada in these changing times needs to reaffirm her stand on the basic elements of democracy, needs to come to grips with the application of those principles on which I believe we in this house all agree. It means to adapt our methods so that they will fit the conditions so that that which we are able to produce, whether it be goods or services, in whatever realm or whatever kind we think of, is available to the Canadian people according to their willingness to work, their enterprise and their pioneering spirit.
While I say I am disappointed with this house of minorities in this twenty fifth parliament, I have much conviction, hope, and assurance with regard to the Canadian people. I believe that Canada is a great nation and that, without exception, Canada has one of the greatest peoples in the world. We have heard words this afternoon about the great heritages that have been carried into confederation and passed on to us today through the mother races which came together in confederation. On top of that there has been added the cultural heritage and the pioneering spirit and the determination of millions of new Canadians to live as free men. I think we can set an example to the world if only we had a government that gave leadership that would lead us forward during the next four years and prove to the world that people can live together and move forward in the development not only of its human but its material resources. It was this confidence and this assurance that gave me the spirit and the will to go forward to try to make some contribution to the public affairs of our nation and of this world. If the experiment which is Canada should fail, what hope is there for peace and the peaceful development of the world? I maintain that there is none. Therefore as we stand at this critical threshold in the history of our nation and in our responsibilities to this parliament, I believe that each one of us must look upon these things mighty carefully and realize our responsibility as leaders. We are leaders in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret interrupting the hon. member but I must inform him that the clock has imposed sanctions.


Robert Norman Thompson: If I may, I will just finish this sentence.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Robert Norman Thompson: The very fact that thousands of people elected us, sent each one of us here, indicates to me that we are leaders. Therefore we must go out and prove to Canada that we are leaders worthy of the confidence they have placed in us, that we might carry out our part in the ever increasing and important role of public administration as it relates to the over-all picture. We have therefore come to this decision which I have now made clear, namely that our only alternative is to go back to the people for an expression of their will.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I felt that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) said some things with which I cannot help but agree. He said that Canada is a great nation and that we are one of the greatest peoples on earth. Since that, I assume, includes me, I feel flattered by his words and agree with him. It is the kind of peroration which is bound to get unanimous agreement. I might also say, Mr. Speaker, before becoming more serious, that the hon. member does not cease to astound me. When he read almost the whole of the editorial on the front page of the Globe and Mail before dinner it was obvious that he was going to be against an election taking place now. He then went to dinner and whether he ate something that agreed with him or ate something that disagreed with him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: -I am not sure which, Mr. Speaker-he changed his mind, as he has a right to do. I merely mention it as a matter of amusement on this day of debate, which may be one of the last days of debate in this parliament.


An hon. Member:: Be serious.


David Lewis: I will be serious in a moment- not only serious, may I inform my hon. friend, but relevant to the issues that face Canada and the world, instead of the nonsense that we hear from across the way.
On a number of occasions we of the New Democratic party have indicated to the house and to the people that we have no confidence in the government. 1 do not think there is anyone here or elsewhere in any doubt about that. But I ask you, sir, to look at the omnibus amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and, indeed, at the omnibus subamendment moved by the leader of the Social Credit party. I suggest to you
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership that this is further evidence that the Liberals are so hungry for power they are not concerned with dealing with any specific matter that this house ought to be considering and on which this house ought to be asked to declare its mind. I will come to that specific matter in particular a little later. It also proves, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Social Credit party is so concerned with portraying an image to this house and to the country that he was not able, either, to place before the house some specific and concrete issue on which our votes should be cast.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come off it.


David Lewis: Why not a specific point? Why not have some specific policy? Unfortunately it is not possible for me on behalf of the New Democratic party to move an amendment embodying such a specific policy. Why not some specific policy on which we can declare our stand? As the Leader of the Opposition was speaking I could not help but notice with what glee, as well as a broad smile, he stated that his objective is to get this parliament home and this government out, and with what tremendous joy his followers behind him banged their desks, as if to get rid of this or any other particular government is the be-all and end-all of the exercises in this parliament and of the duties of members of parliament.
I have voted against this government and no doubt I shall have the opportunity to do so again. My party will greet any chance to go to the people and present our policies with the same satisfaction that we have always had in the past.


An hon. Member:: Self-satisfaction.


David Lewis: If we have the chance we will put before them what in our conscience we believe Canada and the Canadian people require, and if my hon. friend will wait he will see exactly what we will do with the chance when the time comes.
I suggest it is not enough for the benches opposite the treasury benches to talk in generalities about leadership and to talk in generalities about the indecision of the government. The party that is now the official opposition to the government was in power for 22 years and particularly from 1948 and 1949 to 1957, when the Leader of the Opposition was one of the most prominent members of the government then in power, we had the most do-nothing government in the history of Canada. This was the government which when faced with the needs of the elderly people of Canada, when faced with the duty to do something for those who had offered their lives for this country, felt itself satisfied,
3416	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Alleged Lack, of Government Leadership in a day of such prosperity that they still boast about it, to give them $6 a month. These people, Mr. Speaker, talk to this parliament and to the country about leadership, decisiveness, imagination and boldness; people who have shown throughout the years such adherence to the shibboleths and the blindness of the establishment in the present society; as to have condemned themselves as incapable of leadership before or now or in the future.
What is that leadership about which the Leader of the Opposition talks? Everyone in this house knows that an election is bound to come. It is bound to come within days or within weeks. Everybody in this country knows that, and now that the leader of the Social Credit party has had dinner it may come within days rather than within weeks. Everybody in Canada knows that; everybody in Canada understands that; but what in my experience the people of Canada do not understand is the timid manoeuvring of the government in the last while to avoid defeat at any cost instead of presenting to parliament and to the people a program on which they would be prepared to go down, if go down they must, having made some real attempt to serve this country.
What the people also do not understand is the Liberals' indecent haste to scramble over to the treasury benches, not on any positive program which they present but on the growing disgust of the Canadian people with the inaction and indecision of the government.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why is the hon. gentleman so sure that the Liberal party will win the election?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted a personal remark about a gentleman for whose friendship I have great regard- and I hope it continues-I have learned since being a member of this house that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) would rather make some kind of political remark, relevant or irrelevant, than discuss anything of value or of substance, and the temptation to make political remarks is typical of his questions. Not only am I not sure that the Liberals will win the next election, I am confident the Liberals will not win the next election. The sad fact of the present Canadian political situation is that the people of Canada from coast to coast-
[Ur. Lewis.]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member yield the floor to an hon. lady?


David Lewis: What else can I do in view of your question, Mr. Speaker?


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire of the hon. member if he is sufficiently confident the Liberals will not win the next election to put it to the test tomorrow night by voting against the government and for the amendment.


David Lewis: There is another remark, Mr. Speaker, that so completely proves one of the points I am trying to make, that the hunger of that bench to become this bench overrides every other consideration. It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of nothing more than what I read in 1958 about the way the Leader of the Opposition simply said to the Prime Minister, "Please move over; I want to take your place."
I suggest to this house that there is one issue which has emerged in the last few days which has become the most important one in Canada, indeed the most important one which Canadians will ever face. I suggest to you that above all people the Leader of the Opposition, who made a definite statement on the policy of nuclear weapons the other day -I am referring to the first one, before he retraced and retracted-as a man of great experience and great accomplishment in the field of international relations, should have placed before this house clearly the question of nuclear weapons so that we would tell the government what the majority of us believes in connection with this matter of life and death. He should have placed that before this house, instead of the general gaff about the breakdown of unity in the cabinet and lack of leadership, or the general gaff of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) about a clear policy-


Robert Norman Thompson: Defence policy, say it.


David Lewis: -defence policy being required. I am going to show the hon. gentleman in five minutes, if he will give me a chance, that there is no doubt about the government's policy on nuclear weapons. If he followed the speeches in this house, if he bothered to read the letter of the minister who resigned this morning and the reply of the Prime Minister, he would know that, too.


Robert Norman Thompson: Somebody else interpreting policy.


David Lewis: I am not interpreting policy, I am just reading the policy given out and I commend to the hon. member for Red Deer to do the same. It would help him, to read some of these things.

Alleged Lack of Government Leadership
We, oi the New Democratic party, do not for one moment hide our anxiety, our concern, our deep-seated worry about the question of nuclear weapons in the world. We believe that is the most important issue facing Canada today.


Gilles Grégoire: After unemployment.


David Lewis: Not after unemployment, I say to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), because there will be no chance for employment or unemployment if some people in this world get the opportunity to let loose some nuclear missiles. The question for mankind, whether or not questions on international affairs are such as to get votes, is the problem of nuclear weapons. I would have preferred and my colleagues would have preferred if this house had before it a clear-cut amendment which said, "In our view, we reject the idea of nuclear weapons".
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, one need not be an expert in military affairs to know that nuclear war is not the kind of war about which histories have been written in the past. Nuclear war is annihilation. We are talking about total destruction when we talk about nuclear war. I suggest-and you may call it an emotional issue if you like-this fact about nuclear war meaning total destruction, total annihilation, must be seared into our minds and into our hearts when we discuss international questions today.
I suggest to you also that one need not be an expert in military affairs to know that there is no defence in nuclear war; that there is no defence against nuclear missiles; that there is only the possibility of massive retaliation. There is only the possibility of saying to the other side, to put it in simple, every-day language, "If I go, I will take you with me." This is all the defence there is in the threat of nuclear war.
President Kennedy has said this. Premier Khrushchev has stated it. Our Prime Minister has repeated it. The Leader of the Opposition has said it. I urge this parliament, it is time we based our policies on that fact, that there is no defence against nuclear war. The fearful nightmare of a nuclear deterrent gives us some time-I do not know how long, no one knows-to find a policy that will lead an anxious world to peace. What can Canada's contribution be in that respect? It should be, in our view, a non-nuclear role in the western alliance, staying in NATO and giving our best to those with whom we are allied in this world. It will not do for any member in this house, as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did the other night, to shout across, "You do not believe in NATO", and think that thereby he has switched the
issue from nuclear weapons to NATO. His statement was not true. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), my leader, made that clear the other day in answer to a question from, I think, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn). He said, and I repeat for our party, that we want Canada to remain a part of NATO, to remain a part of the western alliance and to make its best contribution in that alliance, a contribution with conventional forces.
Our reasons for that, Mr. Speaker, were stated by the Prime Minister the other day when he said, as reported on page 3129 of Hansard:
More and more the nuclear deterrent is becoming of such a nature that more nuclear arms will add nothing material to our defences.
The Prime Minister quoted the Leader of the Opposition as having said precisely the same thing on many occasions. I quote from the bottom of page 3133 of Hansard and the top of 3134 where the Prime Minister is referring to the Leader of the Opposition as having been reported in the Ottawa Journal of January 10, 1961 as follows:
Any extension of the possession of nuclear weapons under individual national control will greatly increase the danger of accidental outbreak of nuclear war and also the difficulty of achieving disarmament.
The Leader of the Opposition was reported as having said this and the report continued:
Membership in the nuclear club, therefore, should not be extended beyond the four countries which now possess such weapons ... Canada cannot deny nuclear weapons to other nations and at the same time arm her own forces with them.
Then the report went on to say, according to the Prime Minister as reported on page 3134 of Hansard:
A new Liberal government, therefore, should not acquire, manufacture or use such weapons under separate Canadian control or under joint United States-Canadian control.
I am not quoting that for the same purpose as the Prime Minister; I am not throwing it back at the Leader of the Opposition to show he changed his mind. He had as much right to change his mind as the hon. member for Red Deer had to change his. I am quoting that to ask, Mr. Speaker, what has happened since January, 1961? The only thing that I know has happened since January, 1961, is that every military expert in the United States, including the secretary of state, the secretary of defence and the assistant secretaries of those departments have come to the conclusion that nuclear tactical weapons in NATO, in Europe, are now much more useless and dangerous. Those are the words used by Henry Kissinger. They can serve no useful purpose.
3418	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership
That is all that has happened. What has happened since January 1961, is that the Soviet union has shown a little bit of flexibility with regard to inspection of nuclear disarmament and that the major powers are a step nearer to the possibility of a test ban, and perhaps even disarmament of nuclear weapons.
That is what has happened since January 1961, and it should have led the Liberal party and its leader to continue in the policy that he espoused in 1961. Instead of this he has turned that policy upside down.
What reasons does he give? Does he argue that nuclear weapons in Canada would strengthen the western alliance? Does he suggest they would strengthen our deterrent force? Does he say that their acquisition would make Khrushchev and the Soviet union tremble more? No, all he says is that in his view Canada made a commitment, it should therefore now honour its commitment, and as soon as he becomes prime minister he will negotiate Canada out of the commitment it should now honour.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that in all my life of political discussion and debate, and in all my life of reading the thoughts of other men I have seldom come across anything so irresponsible, indeed if I might use the term, so puerile-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: -as to suggest to take the serious step of increasing the membership of the nuclear club, in order that the day after you have done so, you can reverse the policy and get out. What nonsense on the part of a man who aspires to become the prime minister of Canada, and who was once secretary of state for external affairs.
The reason for our position, Mr. Speaker, was also stated the other day by the secretary of defence in the United States, Mr. McNamara, as reported in the Globe and Mail of January 31. He is reported as having said that tactical nuclear weapons in the hands of NATO allies increase the possibility of a nuclear escalation, once these weapons are used.
These are the reasons why we oppose nuclear weapons in the hands of Canadian forces: it makes no material improvement in our defence position; it makes no material improvement in the defence position of the west. It does not, in effect, strengthen the western deterrent, but it does increase the nuclear club, increases the danger of nuclear war and increases the danger of escalation to total nuclear war if tactical nuclear weapons were used in Europe.
I say that when the state department's statement, which caused such a furore last week,


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who has just preceded me, in an eloquent speech has dealt very boldly with the subject which was uppermost in the minds of the people today. It is rather surprising that this subject was avoided by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when he had his great opportunity in this session to deal with a subject of major interest.


An hon. Member:: He was chicken.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Last week when we were dealing with the business of the house I suggested that the topic he wished to discuss on that occasion might be better dealt with on Monday and Tuesday of this week, when it would be possible to move a motion and reach a conclusion with regard to a very important subject. The Leader of the Opposition on that occasion dodged, as he so frequently does, that issue and although the opportunity came again today, he avoided the issue.


An hon. Member:: He hasn't had his orders yet.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The motion that is put before us on this supply motion is one of those omnibus motions which run contrary to the rules which should be applied-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -on a supply motion, but it has been allowed and consequently we have several subjects before us for discussion. I intend to deal with that portion of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Social Credit party which dealt with the allegation of confusion and indecision; the allegation of the failure to organize the business of the house, the failure to outline a positive program of follow-up action, and things of that nature.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: What about defence policy?
3420	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, what about defence policy? It is in the motion.


An hon. Member:: Be quiet. He will give you defence policy in a moment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Defence policy is a subject on which I would welcome debate with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be a pleasure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He will perhaps recall that in the days when we were in opposition he did not participate in the defence debates of this house-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We had a good government in those days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and I doubt very much if he will participate effectively in any debate on defence policy.


Mr. Woolliams:: I would think the scandal of Hong Kong would still be around his neck.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You don't know what is going to be around your neck.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Leader of the Opposition has accused the government of lack of decision. There is no man in Canada so decisive in indecision as the Leader of the Opposition. I know of no subject which he has debated-and I have listened to him here for 12 years-with regard to which he has not been on both sides of the subject. He tries to give the appearance of boldness. He talks about boldness. It is the boldness of a rabbit. He talks about action, "Let us have action". The action that he shows is action in retreat. That is what happened today; he dodged the issue; he retreated and evaded the topic that he was so keen to discuss the other day. He has suggested that there is confusion and indecision in dealing with the business of the house, and I have been waiting for several sessions to deal with this subject-


Mr. Teillel:: That is normal for you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is the first opportunity I have had to deal with the organization of the business of the house, despite the criticisms session after session about the business of the house, and I would suggest to some hon. members opposite that I will publicly expose them if they are not very careful-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -because if they talk to me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -because if they talk to me about changing the order of business of the house I will indicate to the house the people from the various parties who have come to me and asked me to set aside certain pieces of business because they were going to be away the next day.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have accommodated them on almost every occasion, because that is one of the amenities of parliamentary life.


Mr. Cresiohl:: How very gallant.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested to us by the leader of the Social Credit party that there has been a failure in organizing the business of the house. The words of his amendment are:
-and has failed to organize the business of the house so that the 1963-64 estimates and budget could be introduced.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) has indicated that the estimates for 1963-64 will be introduced very, very soon. He has indicated time and again that the budget for 1963-64 will be brought down earlier than is usual.


John Ross Matheson: What about the estimates for last year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Surely that would satisfy any hon. member in this house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the course of his remarks he said that we need really to get moving to provide the necessary legislation. Well, Mr. Speaker, the question of the legislation of the House of Commons is a matter of considerable importance, and in this cover which I hold in my hand is the legislative program of the house for this session, with two or three more bills to come.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does that include the divorce bills?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The legislative program was outlined in the speech from the throne. The bills following up that program have been introduced in this house, and here they are. They have been waiting for weeks for the house to get on with them.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you get on
with them?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The opposition has not given us the chance that we would like to have.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You may laugh now, but you will not laugh by the time I have finished, because I will demonstrate how you have

consumed and wasted the time of the house. I will demonstrate that you have used obstruction to prevent the business of the house being conducted as it should have been conducted. On the order paper right now, if people would look at it, are 30 items which have already been introduced and are waiting there for debate. The bills accompanying them are already in this cover. They have been printed and distributed, with the exception of those which are introduced by way of resolution; that is to say, the money bills that are preceded by a resolution. The suggestion has been made, with regard to the estimates, that we should be further ahead with them. Well, let me point out this. Each year the estimates for the ensuing fiscal year are tabled, supply motions are moved and passed, the estimates are called forward and the house deals with them as the opportunity arises. Last spring the opposition spent 27 days, which is a record in the history in parliament in Canada, dealing with supplementary estimates for the preceding fiscal year.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They refused to let us get on with the main estimates for the year 1962-63.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They were all new programs.


An hon. Member:: Irresponsibility.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Complete irresponsibility. In the session which started in September, up to the present time we have had available for discussion in the committee six departments; we have had three of those departments up for consideration-agriculture, external affairs and labour-and not one single estimate of any one of those three departments has been passed by this house.


Mr. Ricard:: Not one single item.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, not one single item. The other day at five o'clock after discussing labour estimates for two full days I asked the committee please to continue and pass item number one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On unemployment.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The most important question facing Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was refused. That is the way the estimates have been handled by the opposition: six departments waiting for consideration for over two months and not one single item passed. Just before Christmas, when I wanted to bring the main estimates in front of the house during the last six days before the Christmas vacation, the opposition
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership saw fit to spend those six days discussing interim supply, when they should have been on the main estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Would the hon. gentleman tell us how many estimates were called between July 25 and September 27 when this parliament should have been meeting?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) on occasion makes an effective contribution to debate. Tonight he is certainly not at his best.
Mr. Speaker, it has been customary during recent years to have six supply motions. On the first supply motion, six departments are called, on the next five supply motions three departments are called, and so on. Prior to just a few years ago there was no limitation on the number of supply motions; but the rule has been altered and that is the way it stands at the moment. The house is master of its own rules and those rules can be temporarily altered in order to expedite the business of the house. The house can move very quickly if it wants to. Just prior to the Christmas recess I suggested to the house that if it would give unanimous consent we might deal with five small bills which were in front of us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was suggested by the opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At my prompting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Look at the record.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The house dealt with these five bills in about an hour and a half's time. The house can move very quickly if it desires. If it does not desire it will drag its feet and obstruct.


An hon. Member:: Like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Surely.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Might I ask him why he did not come to the meeting they asked for to organize the business of the house prior to Christmas, when all the leaders of the opposition parties agreed to come, and it was not called for over a week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad you reminded me of the meeting which was held among the leaders before Christmas, because the Leader of the Opposition asked today, why did we not reassemble the house earlier in January?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why didn't you?
3422	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership


Gordon Minto Churchill: For the simple reason that the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties sitting together agreed that the Christmas recess would run until January 21.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was your responsibility. Who is running the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to consider now the question of interim supply. Interim supply has loomed very largely in the mind of the house recently, and I think the Leader of the Opposition threatened us today-did he not?- with regard to the next interim supply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: "Wait till Wednesday", he said, "when interim supply is likely to be called, and then you're for it".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Who said that?


An hon. Member:: The Leader of the Opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The history of interim supply is simply this. In every session which starts, say, in January or February, interim supply is granted for the month of April, for the month of May, for the month of June, and sometimes running into July. It is granted month by month until the main estimates are past the house. There is nothing unusual about that. That is done and has been done year after year since parliament first met. Normally, 99 per cent of the time, interim supply is passed in about 30 minutes because it is just a grant of money to pay wages and salaries to keep things going until the main estimates can be considered. In an election year, it is a little different. In an election year when the house stands adjourned for two months it has been customary to grant interim supply for a much longer period.
If you want to look at the record and understand the operation of interim supply in the course of an election year, it is a very easy thing to do. I can give you the record of interim supply for four years in which elections were held. In the year 1945 the house assembled in the spring. An election was held in June and the house reassembled in the fall. The same was done in 1949 with an election in June. In 1957 there was an election in June and in 1962 there was an election in June. If you look at the way in which the estimates were handled in those four calendar years you will find that parliament passed interim supply for a nine month period in 1945 before the main estimates were dealt with. In 1945 the opposition was a responsible opposition; it was the Conservative party. In December of that year they dealt with; the estimates in co-operation with
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

the government very quickly and passed them in a very short time. In fact, in the last six days of December that year they passed most of the estimates, but they sat long hours late at night past midnight and early in the morning. In 1949 interim supply was granted for eight months. Again there was a responsible opposition, the Conservative party, and that responsible opposition, co-operating with the government of the day, passed the main estimates in the last few days of the session in the fall of that year. They took 15 days to pass the estimates.
I suggest to you that that situation should have prevailed in the year 1962. There was a spring session, then an election in June, and then a fall session. A responsible opposition would have co-operated with the government and passed the main estimates in the fall of 1962.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was only one supply motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But they would not do it. They obstructed and they refused1.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why did you not bring them in?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have just told you that we brought in six departments in the fall, and not one single item of those departments has yet passed this house. Had there been a responsible opposition-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister how often the departments were called?


An hon. Member:: Once.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad the hon. member is interested in this subject. Those six departments were called after the first supply motion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Once.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Department of Agriculture was before us for three days. That discussion took place. I mentioned earlier that the estimates would have been up for consideration again except for the fact that the opposition devoted six whole days to interim supply just prior to Christmas, something which could have been passed in 30 minutes.
There is a responsibility resting on all parties in this house. The leader of the Social Credit party mentioned that matter in his address prior to the supper hour. He said there was a responsibility to get the business done. He said there was a responsibility to the people of Canada not to indulge in political by-play but to deal with the business. That responsibility lies largely with the opposition. All the government can do is this. It indicates

its legislative program in the speech from the throne when that speech is presented. Then it brings forward its bills for discussion by the house and I have indicated the number that are on the order paper. It introduces the estimates. However, the time that is spent on legislation and on the estimates is something that is solely within the hands of the opposition.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask the minister if he would not agree that what Canada needs is a better opposition?


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I say this to the hon. member: You will learn if you stay there, and you will be there for a long time. Perhaps the hon. member and his friends will become a responsible opposition with several more years of training, and we are prepared to give it to them.
I have heard from members of this house and I have read in the newspapers that the government should bring down its legislation and that the government should get on with its business. However, the government cannot do more than put the business before this house. The opposition controls the time spent on it.


An hon. Member:: Obstruction.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You should read the rest of that editorial.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If just prior to Christmas the opposition could pass five bills in one and a half hours, why can they not pass the main estimates for this year in, say, 15 days as was done in 1949?


George James McIlraith: The government has never submitted them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have not brought them in.


George James McIlraith: You refused to call the house when you should have called it.


Leon David Crestohl: Six billion dollars.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to make one point very clear and I hope the public of Canada will realize it and correct some of the erroneous editorials that appear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Like today's?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The government does not control the length of a session of the House of Commons; it is controlled by the opposition. In the session of 1960-61 the opposition spent 60 days in discussing the main estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the session of 1953-54 when we were the official opposition, 30 days sufficed for a discussion of the estimates. That
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership is the difference between a responsible opposition and an irresponsible opposition.


Mr. Robichaud:: In those days there were more responsible estimates.


Leon David Crestohl: You will become a responsible opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The responsibility of the House of Commons may be divided into three main sections. The first is the business that is set by the rules. I refer to the fixed debates, including the debate on the speech from the throne, the budget debate, the debate on supply motions and things of that nature set by the rules. We have no control at all over that business. If ten days are allowed by the rules for the speech from the throne, the opposition will use the ten days, unless it is very responsible and cuts the time short. The same thing is true with respect to the budget debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We did that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The second main division is legislation. We bring forward the bills. They are discussed in the house. The third main division is the passing of the estimates or the voting of supply to Her Majesty. These are the three main divisions. Time is allotted among those three divisions. I suggest that there is no control whatsoever in the hands of the government with regard to the time spent on that business of the House of Commons unless, as was done by the Liberal government in 1956, freedom of speech was denied to the House of Commons by the imposition of closure. No one of the three parties in opposition is free from the need for some selfexamination with regard to obstructing the business of this house. I would suggest to the New Democratic party that they should look a second time at the 500 divorce bills which are sitting on the order paper. Because of obstruction not one single divorce measure was passed in the year 1962. That is not the government's fault. We bring the business before the house; the opposition determines-whether or not it shall be passed.
I suggest that the business of the house has been properly organized. Let me say to-the leader of the Social Credit party that when a bill is introduced into the house in the resolution stage, the resolution is passed, first reading is given and the bill is then distributed. You cannot immediately go ahead to a second reading unless there is unanimous-consent. Then you have second reading stage, followed by consideration in committee of the whole house, and you cannot immediately have third reading of the bill unless the house gives unanimous consent. Consequently you cannot start with a bill and keep going with it until you end it, because of these changes
3424	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership that must take place and the postponement of the measure from one day to another. This is done for a definite and good reason, namely so that everybody has an opportunity to study the legislation and so that it will not be rushed through the house with a lack of careful attention. Hence when the question is asked, "Why don't you start with a bill and keep going with it until it is finished?", my answer is that it just cannot be done. The situation is the same with regard to other matters. You Cannot have estimates on Monday and Tuesday without a motion to go into supply, unless there is unanimous consent to dispense with it. The rules set these things out. They impose a certain restriction on freedom of action in arranging the order of business. That is why the procedure is sometimes a little bit confusing to people who are new to this institution.
I suggest that the leader of the Social Credit party, in introducing his amendment, has failed to recognize the things that have been done in arranging the order of business of this house. When he suggests there has not been a positive program of follow-up action respecting many things passed in this parliament and earlier parliaments, I suggest that he is overlooking the five and a half year record of the best and most comprehensive legislation ever passed by any government in the history of the country. He is brushing to one side the whole agricultural program that has been put on the statute books and made effective over the years, cash advances for farm stored grain and the stabilization of prices of farm products. He is overlooking the Export Credits Insurance Act under which the amount of money available has been doubled and redoubled in size over the years, all done by legislation to stimulate our export trade. He is overlooking the program of winter works which has done more to afford employment in the wintertime than any program ever devised by any government.
He talks about not following up legislation. What about the vocational training program? Technical schools are being built right across the country to provide training facilities for our young people. He talks about not following up our program. What about the National Housing Act, the tremendous amendments made to that act and the enormous number of houses built year after year in this country? The list of valuable legislation placed on the statute books in the last five and a half years would take me a whole hour to recite and it would be so easy to point out how effective has been the positive action followed as a result of these statutes.
Give us a chance with the legislation this year. The Atlantic development board bill was passed just before Christmas after some


debate. The board has been set up. We are waiting to get the national economic development board in operation, but the house has seen fit to spend four days on that bill within the last two weeks. The national economic development board is one of the long range projects for the future. We are prepared to move ahead with it if we are given the opportunity.
So it goes down the line. The legislation that set up the national energy board is another example, and together with the declaration of a national oil policy has brought millions of dollars into this country. The shipping subsidy has stimulated shipyards throughout the country. All of these things are based on legislation. When the leader of the Social Credit party says "why do you not follow up your legislation with positive action" he has forgotten completely the change in the status of living of our old age pensioners, the change for the better with regard to our disability pensioners and those receiving war veterans allowances and the change for the better in our hospitals across the country.
All of these things are founded upon legislation passed by parliament. If parliament will get down to business and pass the legislation we have ready for it there will be further positive action. Last year the War Veterans Allowance Act was amended. There are 50,000 war veterans on farms across this country who are helped by this legislation. The Farm Credit Corporation was set up by legislation just a year or two ago and thousands of farmers are benefiting from it.
I suggest to the hon. member, who takes a very keen interest in the work of parliament, that he examine the legislation that was passed in those other years and the legislation before us now and he will find that positive action has resulted. This government has not been inactive. This government has been active. This government under great leadership has done more for Canada in five and a half years than any preceding government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, for the last 40 minutes the leader of the house has been giving the house the business.


An hon. Member:: Let us get it done.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If he was as good at giving us the business in advance as he is in giving it in arrears we could have our whole year's work done by now and be on our way home. I should like to make two points very clear. First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is the government, not the opposition, which has the responsibility of introducing the work of this House of Commons.


Michael Starr: It is all introduced.

Alleged Lack of Government Leadership


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is the government that decides what business has priority.


Mr. Hees:: There is the book; look at it.


An hon. Member:: Divorce bills.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The second point I should like to make clear is that the government can introduce a budget in the house any time it wants to do so and I hope it will do so before dissolution. It is not necessary to have completed the estimates for the previous year, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has tried to mislead the people of the country into believing.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There will be no excuse for not having introduced a budget if there are things in that proposed budget which would be beneficial to the growth and development of this country.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The greatest growth rate in the world last year.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So far as the business of the house is concerned, if the government had brought in the supply motions in the fall months and had had the house consider estimates, then the time could have been spent in dealing with estimates instead of being spent on interim supply. The minister would now have no complaint whatsoever if he had been master of his own job and had introduced business into this house in a logical way, the way it should have been. If that had been done the government would now be well on with the estimates, would possibly have them passed and would not find itself hoist on its own petard.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote your speech?
Another hon. Member: Twenty seven days on interim supply.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is in many respects an historic day. A minister of the crown has resigned due to the bungling and indecision of the government of which he was a member until today.


Mr. McPhillips:: Why did Ralston resign?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) is an honourable man. I have no doubt that he exerted all the patience and perseverance he possibly could, but then he was tested to the breaking point and put into an intolerable position by his leader, the Prime Minister of this country. Finally, in desperation and knowing that the government is incapable of decision on the most important issues facing the country at this time, he took the time honoured and
honourable course and tendered his resignation. It is really not surprising if one looks back over the history of the bungling in respect of his own department. We were surprised that after the meeting of the NATO council of ministers in December the then minister of national defence made no report to this house. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) made his report and gave us part of the truth so we would have part of the picture-


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -but the then minister of national defence did not report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: Order.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member does not want to be unfair. He must know that the former minister of national defence went on tour to visit the troops in the Gaza strip.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not a point of order at all.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is exactly the next point I was going to make. Since his tour of the bases in Europe he has given us no report on what he found when he was there. I, personally, thought that this was a very strange affair, and particularly last week when we had a defence debate and there was the best possible opportunity for him to report on Canada's commitments to NATO and the way we are fulfilling them at the present time. The minister and the government defaulted in not reporting to the house on the whole situation as they found it in Paris in December. Well, Mr. Speaker, I should like very briefly to help fill the gap by doing some of the reporting. I am sorry that it is left to the opposition to do what the government should have done, to report on the state of Canada's commitments to NATO and how they are, in fact, at the moment not being carried out.


An hon. Member:: What about the Place Pigalle?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: While one parliamentary press reporter was sleeping cozily in his feather bed, some of us spent our time actively engaged in finding out all we possibly could about the military situation. As hon. members know, we had the privilege of visiting our brigade headquarters at Soest, and also one of the wings of our air division. The air officer commanding came to discuss with us the problems of the air division, and we had a very frank and interesting discussion. Following that, we went on to Paris and spent a week there. We were interviewed by the
3426	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership supreme allied commander of allied forces in Europe. We were briefed by Admiral *Smeeton, deputy commander of the Atlantic fleet, by General Calmel deputy chief of staff of supreme allied headquarters. We were given more useful and up to date information on the military situation in NATO, including the Canadian commitment in one week than the Canadian government has given to the people of this country in the last five years. A number of questions have been asked as to what our commitments to NATO are. I realize that this information is presumably classified, but I could never understand why it was, so I am going to take the responsibility tonight of saying what they are.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are committed to supplying one division of the army, with one third of it in Europe. The definition of "division" has never been completely agreed upon between Canada and NATO. The NATO definition is two mechanized infantry brigades and one armoured brigade. Our definition is two brigade groups. This is not really a very great difference of opinion in so far as total men and firepower are concerned, and is not very important.
We have agreed, and have maintained for some time in Europe, one brigade group. We have committed one air division which until recently consisted of 12 squadrons representing four wings, two in France and two in Germany. This is now being reduced to eight squadrons in agreement with the NATO council. We have also committed to NATO a number of naval units in the north Atlantic, an aircraft carrier and destroyer escorts. These are made available to the supreme allied commander in the Atlantic when required.
Each of these units, each of these commitments, is assigned a role, a specific job to do. Our brigade group is part of the British army of the Rhine, right in the front line of the defence of the free world, right up next to the line of demarcation between the communist world and our own. This is a section of the front that is not as well reinforced as it should be. One of the most recent suggestions we heard when we were there I should like to repeat for the benefit of the house. It is this: that in respect of the remainder of our commitment in the army, the remainder of our division which is on reserve in Canada, in order to make it effective the heavy equipment and supplies should be stockpiled in Europe where they are readily available. The supreme allied commander said that in his opinion we could not get our reinforcements there in sufficient time in case of an emergency to be of any real use, particularly in those first few critical days when
[Mr. Hellyer.J

there might be a conventional intervention and when reinforcements would definitely be required.
He has proposed, therefore, and his proposal was adopted at the NATO parliamentary conference, that equipment and supplies for the reserve forces be stockpiled in Europe. I am told by a senior official of the Department of National Defence here that we have been requested to do that. The former minister of national defence said in the house in reply to a question that he had not heard of it. Perhaps this was when the suggestion was coming through official channels. The United States has already undertaken this in respect of its reserves, that is in respect of one division and it proposes to do it for a second.
As an experiment, Mr. Speaker, the United States tried taking one reserve division over to Europe during an exercise last year. They seconded transport aircraft and flew soldiers from the state of Washington and had them on the ground in Frankfurt, Germany in ten and a half hours. This is really a remarkable achievement. It is this type of capacity that the supreme allied commander, now retired, feels is absolutely essential if we are going to have in Europe the strength of forces we really need. This is particularly true in view of the change in strategy in NATO, now referred to as a forward strategy. This means, in effect, that NATO no longer will retire to a prescribed line of defence at the outset of hostilities but will make its best effort to defend every square inch of territory in the free world, including the northern part of Germany, Hamburg and that area.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not really doing all we can to make our non-nuclear commitment to NATO effective. Here is a suggestion which would not cost very much. It is urgently recommended by the supreme allied commander, and has not, in fact, been acted upon by the Canadian government. As a matter of fact, it has never been mentioned by the Canadian government and I am sure that most Canadian people have not even heard of it.
The equipment of our brigade group overseas, by and large, was very good. Some of it is getting old, however, and will soon have to be replaced. This is going to involve the expenditure of a considerable amount of money. There were, however, two serious deficiencies. One is an anti-tank missile, which is now on order and the other, which is a very critical deficiency, is an armoured personnel carrier. This is desperately needed because in the exercises last fall the Canadian brigade group found it was unable to go through the fields to operate efficiently against attacking forces which had a tracked capacity, but

Alleged Lack of Government Leadership
was confined in fact to the roads because of its limitation to wheeled vehicles. These are things which should be receiving the attention of this government, which should be discussed in this House of Commons, and upon which we should have recommendations. We should know whether the government supports these suggestions or whether it does not, and whether it intends to put up the money to make the necessary policy effective.
In so far as our air division is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the situation is much more urgent and more dangerous. The government of this country agreed on behalf of Canada in the summer of 1959 to adopt for Canada, for its air division overseas, a strike reconnaissance role. Those of us who were in the house at the time remember the debate. The Liberal party opposed the idea of adopting that role. We thought there were other things which Canada could do which were more suited to our capacity. Notwithstanding that, the government continued with its commitment. Four years have now passed and when we were over there in November we found that the first squadron of planes in Zwei-brucken was about to be airborne in the following month, December of last year. We were told all eight squadrons of the planes would be there and in place during the calendar year 1963. We were also told that the first squadron was intended to go on target on May 1, 1963 and that in order to go on target a bilateral agreement would have to be signed with the United States by November 1 last because of the length of time, approximately six months, required for the technical details to be worked out for the equipment to be put in place and for the airmen to be trained.
Well, Mr. Speaker, NATO headquarters in Europe puts a very high priority on that particular project. The infrastructure, as it is called, the runway extensions and the ammunition depots to contain these weapons were being built under top NATO priority. It was being considered by the supreme commander and his associates to be an urgent matter because it was recognized that Canada, at the time we were there in November, was in default. Well, if we were in default then we are that much more in default at the present time.
Let me say something about the question of building up conventional forces in NATO as against the necessity for more tactical capacity. A considerable amount has been said about that, particularly by hon. members of the New Democratic party. When the strategy of massive retaliation began to come into question it became obvious to a number of people, including some military men, that the NATO forces in Europe should have a wider
variety of choice, a greater non-nuclear capacity, and so it was espoused in this house and other places that the conventional capacity of those forces should be increased.
General Maxwell Taylor of the United States put this forward in a book called "The Uncertain Trumpet." He is now chairman of the chiefs of staff committee in that country and is one of the closest military advisors to the President in the United States. However, Mr. Speaker, there is no immediate prospect of an adequate non-nuclear force and the necessity for a combined or mixed force remains. This point was made very clear.
Let me review very briefly what the problem is. When NATO was first organized and the Lisbon force goals were set, it was considered we would require something of the order of 90 divisions in Europe equipped with conventional weapons. These goals were never met, for political and economic reasons, and the United States supplemented the existing force by the development of a whole family of nuclear tactical weapons, and during the intervening years these have been the reserve force which has prevented aggression on the continent of Europe. Now a desperate attempt is being made to build up conventional forces to provide a greater choice of response, what they call the doctrine of measured response; but what is important to remember is this, that the 1966 force goals, if they are achieved, will bring into being in Europe a force of something like 30 to 33 divisions, and this is from one third to one half the force necessary to resist all out attack should the enemy decide to move in force across the continent of Europe.
In the meantime it is considered absolutely essential to supplement the conventional forces with tactical nuclear weapons. In this respect the strike reconnaissance role is considered a very important, indeed essential role. It is to seek out fixed and moving targets in enemy territory and to destroy them in the event of hostilities.
The total tactical capacity on the continent of Europe at the present time is less than was planned, and the reason for this is because the people there hoped by now to put into place a number of intermediate range ballistic missiles, but because of lack of agreement among the members of the NATO alliance those are not yet in place. Consequently the demands on the remaining tactical forces are greater than they were ever anticipated to be. Consequently the supreme allied commander is convinced that the contribution that Canada has agreed to make, which is a considerable percentage of the total tactical capacity of the tactical air forces in Europe, must be armed in accordance with the agreement this government made in 1959, advice
3428	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership of which was given by our ambassador to the NATO council in December of that year.
Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to many of us to note that the first time any mention was ever made in this house of the fact that Canada had had its ambassador advise the NATO council of this commitment was when the Prime Minister spoke in the house on Friday last. I think we are entitled to much greater forthrightness and to a much greater body of intelligent and honest fact on the subject of national defence so that we can come to some intelligent conclusion on it. The government has been less than candid with the house and I for one seriously regret that lack of candor. There are many more things I would like to say about our NATO commitment but time is running out.


Mr. Clancy:: Would the hon. member accept a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Would you tell me the year and the month the NATO agreement was signed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would ask the hon. member to read the Prime Minister's speech of last Friday when he advised the house that we had accepted the commitment in the summer of 1959 and that our ambassador to NATO had advised the NATO council of that decision. That was during the year 1959.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, we were all surprised and I think disappointed when the United States state department felt it was necessary for them to make a statement correcting some of the information which had been put forward in the House of Commons on Friday last. It was indeed an unprecedented act but one which must be put into perspective; one which was caused by the indecision of the Canadian government and by no one else. Relations between our two countries had sunk to an all time low and the United States must have despaired of the present government ever coming to any decision, one way or the other, in respect to these urgent defence matters. I am sure that this is the same opinion which the Minister of National Defence must have reached in order to take the step which he did this morning.
In his statement the following day, apologizing for the tone of the press release, Mr. Rusk said that the United States would accept any clear decision on the part of the Canadian government. He did not underline the word "clear" when he was speaking, but the message was very clear without his doing that.


An hon. Member:: You know.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can very well understand the exasperation of the United States government. The Canadian government pressured the United States government into continuing with the Bomarc weapons system at a time when it was under severe attack in this house and in the congress of the United States. It did this in order to save face after the incredibly incompetent manner in which it had handled the cancellation of the Avro Arrow. Much of the confusion and indecision dates from that time.
The Prime Minister in his statement to the house in February, 1959 told us that the Bomarc had to do the same job for which the Avro Arrow had been designed. Well, as most of us know, that press release was written in the Prime Minister's office and not by the chiefs of staff. So was started a continuous problem from which the government has never completely escaped. It started from the date he gave to this house information which was incomprehensible, incomplete and incorrect. The Bomarc was never intended to replace interceptors. It was part of a theory at that time of interception in depth: first the interception fought out over the tundra, then the area defence of the Bomarc line, at that time planned to go right across the continent, and then the spot defence with the Nike-Hercules near the United States missile installations and their greatest urban centres. This was the theory. It was known to every person associated with national defence in this country and in the United States. Yet the Prime Minister in his statement took no cognizance of the military facts and advised the house that the Bomarc was in fact an alternative. Little wonder that the Canadian government had to pressure the United States into carrying on with the program when it was under such heavy fire.
Not only did the United States agree to carry on with the program but they agreed to pay the largest part of the cost. Then when the first missile site is completed, when the installation is all set and ready to go, the missiles are installed and in place, what does the Canadian government do? It does not fulfil its end of the bargain. It gives the United States government the gratuitous back of its hand. That was not a very friendly way to repay kindliness on the part of a nation which was doing its best to co-operate in those very difficult years.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to ask the hon. member, in view of what he has just said, if he has changed his mind since he made the

statement on April 4, 1962 that there is no need for us to get into the atomic business at all?


Lester Bowles Pearson: You got us into it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as of this date I have changed my mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What mind?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have very good reasons for so doing, the chief one being the incomparable mess this government has got us into with respect to defence matters.


An hon. Member:: How?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know how they could get us into it, but they have; and now there is no honourable way to get out of it other than to live up to our commitments to our allies. The United States government must have wondered at the Prime Minister dragging in the red herring of the Nassau agreement. Any person who knows anything whatsoever about military matters knows that the matters under discussion at Nassau had no immediate effect whatsoever on Canada's commitments. They were just not relevant at all to those things we had undertaken to do. It is most unfortunate that the little bit of defence information we get from the government is not accurate. Is it any wonder that the Canadian people are so confused and bewildered on perhaps this most important of all subjects facing us at the present time? It is incredible indeed, and where the Prime Minister would get that suggestion other than out of his imagination, no one knows; but it must have been a terrible shock to Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Kennedy when they saw it interpreted in that most unorthodox and unrealistic way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member accept a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no connection whatsoever between the Nassau agreement and Canada's commitments in respect of tactical weapons in Europe or to our agreement under NORAD to fulfil our end of the bargain and arm the Bomarc.


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


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have just three minutes left and there is something I have to say.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It will only take a minute and a half.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will accept it at ten o'clock. There is one thing I should like to correct at this time. That is the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North
Alleged Lack of Government Leadership (Mr. Harkness) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) intends to fulfil our commitments and then renegotiate the agreement the next day.


Some hon. Members:: That is what he said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is absolute nonsense.


David Lewis: That is what he said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That has never been said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Anyone with any common sense whatsoever, and apparently there are a lot of people over there who have not very much-


David Lewis: That is what he said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -knows that it is physically impossible to do anything of the sort whatsoever.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: That is exactly what you have said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Any new policy which would be agreed on by a new minister in June, for example, and adopted by cabinet in September or October, which could be concurred in by the NATO council in December, would take three or four years to implement in full, and during that time the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment which the government has bought would be worn out in the normal course of events. The effective life of the F-104 is five years. That is what is counted on overseas. The effective life of the Bomarc no one knows. Mr. McNamara has not much more faith in it than I have.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I want to finish this statement.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In my opinion the Bomarc will not be kept in operation for more than a few years.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister may request leave to ask a question, but if the hon. member chooses to disregard the request, he is at liberty to do so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to finish this most important point. The Leader of the Opposition-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker-

Alleged Lack of Government Leadership


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Leader of the Opposition is very clear about what he means, and it is this. The commitments which this government has entered into on behalf of the Canadian people will be lived up to and fulfilled. There is no question about that. A new Liberal government will examine the whole-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -area of defence policy and will adopt a policy becoming-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -to this country, and then we will put it into effect in a normal, orderly way over three or four years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock, this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
3431:
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 5, 1963