Mr. Smallwood:

Speaking to a C.C.F. rally of 1,000 people on April 23, 1935, Mr. Woodsworth made this clear and unequivocal declaration:

The doctrines of the C.C.F. are the doctrines of the united front or communist, and all that keeps us apart is a difference of tactics and a suspicion of insincerity.

That is why this matter has been brought up tonight. They do not want nuclear weapons in Canada for the simple reason that they want their big brothers in Russia to overrun this country, and we in this capitalist country do not want that.

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised how such a simple little grievance-

Mr. Speaker:

Are your remarks on the same matter?

Mr. Peters:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised how such a simple little grievance should raise such a storm of protest. It would seem to me that the minister in this case made a speech at H.M.C.S. Carleton. I think

National Defence

he admits that. I think he also admits that he stated a new policy as far as the reservists of Canada are concerned.

As an active military man over the years, with a good reputation, and getting into a department now that he should know something about-certainly more so than in the previous department-I am not surprised to find that he has asked his reservists to do something that he wishes to be done.

Reading the press statement we come to the conclusion that the reservists in Canada are going to be asked to help the minister in this way, "Let us get as big an appropriation out of my cabinet colleagues as possible and we will keep all you boys employed".

I do not blame the minister for this, if he wishes to do it and has the inclination. If he is, as the minister was, asked to make that statement, then he should make it. But I think the question now is not whether the C.C.F. is interested in banning the bomb, or whether we are neutralists, or what our position is going to be, but whether the minister agrees with the statements he is reported to have made at a meeting that he attended.

I think it is that simple. If this is a new policy of the Conservative party, then I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) should be told; I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) should be told, because we have three or four different policies going around. We in the opposition are entitled to know what the stand of the government is.

I do not believe we will ever find out what the Liberal stand is; we cannot follow them. If we are going to have airplanes, we can bird-watch; if we have no airplanes we cannot even do that. So I am not particularly concerned with what they stand for. I am concerned with the fact that the Canadian reservists should have an honest appraisal of what they are doing. If we are going to ask them to go out and spread our military strength, the fact that our country has a capable defence, then I think the minister should say so. He should be quite proud to say that that is his opinion and go on from that supposition.

If he was misquoted in this case; if he did not say that, he should say so. It is true that over the years reservists have been allowed much more freedom than the active army, the active air force or navy, who have been told they are not to participate in political action of any description except by special request, although allowance was made for certain people in the services to declare themselves political candidates during the period of war. With that exception they have

not been able to do what the reservists have been able to do; but they are not acting in the line of duty.

If this is a change in policy-and it appears to us to be a change-then I think the minister should say so. But if he says this, I think he must go much further and make the statement that is requested by the opposition. He should give out information that is contrary to that being propagated by "ban the bomb" and other pacificist organizations. He should be in a position to give to the reservists more than just the speech that he gave off the cuff. He must come out with the new policy so that the reservists will have some opportunity at least of being informed, or half as well informed as the opposition.

The Prime Minister is giving leadership, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is giving leadership to those who say we should work toward disarmament and peace, toward banning the bomb. I think that at least the reservists should be given enough information so that they are not going to look silly putting forth a half-baked scheme that the minister may get up for his amusement for an after-dinner speech.

As I see it, that is all that is involved in this particular matter. If the minister has been misquoted, if he does not believe these things, then he should say so. If he does believe them he should have the gumption, in my opinion, to stand up and say, "I said them; I stand behind them, and if the other cabinet members do not like it they can go jump in the lake".

(Translation):

Mr. Louis Fortin (Montmagny-L'Islet):

Mr. Speaker, I listened, along with everybody else, to the remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) and, surprisingly enough, with my limited experience of only two and a half years in this house, I managed to understand fully the explanation provided when old-timers of the parliamentary scene do not seem to understand it or at least are not willing to understand it.

We are called upon at times to account to our constituents for the work being done in the House of Commons. I believe it would be very difficult to explain to those who elected us the hour and a half we spent tonight discussing this problem.

The government has to find answers to serious problems. Some important legislation is awaiting our consideration. And we are being asked now to spend an hour and a half to discuss a matter that the minister might have raised some place.

Mr. Speaker, for my part, I would rather consider, first of all, the military record of the Minister of National Defence and then his accomplishments both political and administrative. What he told us tonight in this house is worth a lot more than all those reports which were read to us and whose origin cannot even be ascertained.

I would rather stick to the tradition existing in this house and which gives a member claiming to have been misquoted, let us say, in the newspapers the opportunity to explain the situation and to have his word accepted by his colleagues.

The Minister of National Defence explained to us tonight what had taken place. I think we should all accept his word of honour. Second, he has witnessed and lived through the very events that he related.

Consequently, we are faced here with only hearsay such as the C.C.F. party like to spread. They preferred to rely on what they may have read.

The minister, who naturally was present on that occasion, told us exactly what had taken place, and I feel his word should be accepted. More especially as the position he holds is so closely connected with the one occupied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) and both these gentlemen, let me emphasize it, have done a lot to bring about a well balanced and controlled disarmament.

At all events, I think this debate will have been a good thing since it will have indicated that our people-who are so much interested everywhere in the work done by the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs-can be very happy about the task performed by these two ministers.

I am not suggesting that this debate was begun in bad faith, I am only suggesting that it will nevertheless have been beneficial to the people.

Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):

Mr. Speaker, on this same grievance I will say only a few words. Indeed tonight's discussion should produce good results, I hope.

Not too long ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that the Conservative party failed to make its record known to the Canadian people. Ever since that statement was made, we have noted that ministers, took turns in delivering speeches here and there. Saturday's speech was one of the series; quite often however, those same ministers have had, not to retract, I would not say that, but they had to correct newspaper reports.

Business of the House

To clarify.

Mr. Habel:

To clarify, if you like. Then, to use the words of Mr. John Bird, I say that he was perfectly right when he blamed the present government, whose fault is not to keep its record secret but to talk too much.

Therefore, the ministers had better agree before making statements; then they would not have to take the time of the house afterwards to correct newspaper reports.

(Text):

Motion (Mr. Fleming, Eglinton) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.

The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration branch

1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $911,098.

Mr. Chevrier:

May I have an indication of what the business is to be tomorrow and Thursday?

Mr. Churchill:

Tomorrow we shall continue the debate on the motion setting up the committee on broadcasting. This would be followed by consideration of the budget resolutions of which there are two, to be taken in this order-the one dealing with customs tariffs and the second dealing with income tax. If we finish the budget resolutions we will consider the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on Friday.