1963-10-28

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
28902-5-260£
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 28, 1963


Mr. Speaker:: Last Friday a question of privilege was raised with regard to the procedure to be followed in calling the organization meeting of a standing committee. I promised last Friday to take the long and well written memorandum of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) into consideration. If I could have the indulgence of the house I should now like to give my opinion.
On Friday last the hon. member for Medicine Hat rose on a question of privilege which he summarized as follows:
The point I wish to make now is that a member of a standing committee which has been set up does in fact have the right to request a meeting of that standing committee, and the officers in this house are under obligation to call such a meeting.
Neither the standing orders of the house nor Beauchesne are very helpful in answering all the questions posed in the statement of the hon. member for Medicine Hat. Standing order 65(1) states:
At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of five members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the house;
This standing order was complied with on May 16, when on motion of the right hon. Prime Minister, seconded by the Minister of Justice, it was resolved that a special committee be appointed to prepare and report with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the standing committees of this house, the said committee to be composed of Messrs. Caron, Churchill, Knowles, Leboe, Pickersgill and Winkler, and that the provisions of standing order 65(1) be suspended in relation to the number of members thereon.
You will notice that among the members to compose the committee are the whips of the different parties and the house leaders of the government and the opposition. We will come back to this fact.
The procedure set out in standing order 65(1) was followed and on June 27, 1963 Mr. Walker, who had by this time become the
chief government whip and had replaced Mr. Caron as such on the special committee, presented the first report of the committee which was then concurred in. This report provided, inter alia, for the composition of the standing committee on agriculture, composed of 60 members, therein enumerated.
At this point I might perhaps be allowed to quote Bourinot on the organization of committees. He states at page 463:
It is usual for the leader of the government in either house to give the Clerk of the house instructions as to the time and place of meeting for the organization of the several standing committees.
In the case of standing committees of the commons, there are certain clerks whose duties are connected with them especially. For instance, the clerks of standing orders, private bills, public accounts, railways, canals and telegraph lines, and printing. It is usual for the member, on whose motion a select committee has been nominated, to take the initiative in calling it together, and having it organized; and this he will do by placing himself immediately in communication with the Clerk of the house.
You will notice that Bourinot mentions that it is usual for the member on whose motion the select committee has been nominated to take the initiative in calling it together and having it organized.
It is true that the committee on agriculture is a standing committee, but it is true also that it is on the motion of the chief whip that the standing committees have been nominated. Therefore he is in the same position as a member on whose motion a committee has been organized, and he is acting in the name or in the place of the leader of the government in the House of Commons. It is not necessary to decide whether his power is delegated or not; it is certain that this has ever been the practice in the house before and after Bourinot.
The chief whip is the instrument, the channel of operation, from constant practice. It would not be of much use to organize a committee unless some special matters were to be referred to it; and as these matters can only be referred on government motions, who is better placed to call a meeting than the chief government whip?
In other words, organization meetings of standing committees have always been called on instructions from the chief government whip the moment the house refers or is about to refer matters to the said committees. It is for this reason that instructions have invariably come from the chief government whip's office. This is why, in the absence of any

Question of Privilege
other specified authority, the hon. member's request was sent to the chief government whip to call an organization meeting and to ask the house to refer to the committee the matters mentioned in his letter.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat said at the beginning of his remarks in the house that he had addressed a letter to the chief of the committees and private legislation branch, and he quoted from his letter as follows:
Dear Sir:
I wish to request that a meeting of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be called with all convenient speed for the purpose of selecting a chairman and other officers.
I further request that the committee be asked to consider and investigate the wide difference between the price received for feed grain by the producers in western Canada and the price paid by livestock feeders in eastern Canada.
Later on the hon. member for Medicine Hat declared that-
-a member of the staff of this house wrongfully interfered with the rights of a member.
Also that-
-the officers of this house are under obligation to call such a meeting.
To this I have already given a preliminary answer, but I might add first that Mr. Anthony Plouffe is not an officer of the house. If one looks at the last pages of Hansard of October 23, that is, last Wednesday, page 10, it will be noted that officers of the house are the Clerk of the house, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the parliamentary counsel, the assistant clerks and the deputy sergeant-at-arms. Under the heading of chiefs of principal branches is the name of Mr. Plouffe as chief of committees and private legislation. This does not make him an officer of the house.
Second, the member for Medicine Hat requests from the chief clerk committees branch-
-that the committee be asked to consider and investigate the wide difference between the price received from feed grain by the producers in western Canada and the price paid by livestock feeders in eastern Canada.
This request, that the committee be asked by the chief clerk of committees to consider that particular proposition, is certainly not one which could be entertained by him even if he did have the right to call a meeting of the committee. As stated by Beauchesne at citation 304(1) page 244,
A committee can only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the house.
Neither the chief clerk of committees nor the clerk of a committee should interfere and ask a committee "to consider and investigate the matter referred to". There is no doubt that to do so would be most improper.

If only for this reason, the chief clerk of committees was justified in not calling a meeting of the committee, nor can it be said that he has "wrongfully interfered with the rights of a member"; for the second paragraph of the hon. member's letter cannot be dissociated from the first one.
Third, the responsibility of calling organization meetings does not and should not rest with the chief of the committees and private legislation branch. The main responsibility of the branch consists, once the organization meetings have been called, in seeing that the committees are provided with quarters for the meetings, and to provide also for secretarial and other assistance to the committees. If any and all members could request the calling of committee meetings at any time, it is possible that three or four members might request meetings of the same committee at different times, or at the time of meetings of other committees, and the result would be utter confusion and disorganization.
The government leader in the house, who followed the hon. member for Medicine Hat and who was careful to state that he had not made any study of the question, declared that he had "no doubt it has been the custom that these committees be set up at the suggestion of the government whip as a convenience", but he added other comments which are not in accord with the conclusions of this memorandum.
Perhaps we can leave it at that, with the further suggestion that as the procedure is not clearly defined in our standing orders, this might be a matter that could very well be studied in the committee on procedure.



MR. WEBB  POSTMASTERSHIP AT ENTERPRISE, ONT.

Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On October 23 the Postmaster General referred to the postmastership at Enterprise, Ontario, and stated that the widow of the deceased postmaster, Clare Stewart, was not a veteran as I had previously stated.
Mrs. Stewart is a war veteran. Her service number is W23627. She has five children to care for. One of these children has to be maintained at the home for retarded children in Smiths Falls, Ontario. Her husband applied for an army pension shortly before he died but this had not been processed. Mr. and Mrs. Stewart, on being appointed postmaster in April, 1962, purchased a home formerly owned by a doctor in Enterprise. This home was purchased due to the fact that there were no steps leading into the home, thus making it more convenient for elderly people.

On October 4 Mrs. Stewart wrote to the Postmaster General and at the bottom of her letter stated "Please acknowledge". On October 18 her mother wrote from Toronto to the Postmaster General, and as of October 25 no reply had been received by either. On October 10 I received a letter from the service officer of the Royal Canadian Legion, branch 458, asking me to make representations on behalf of Mrs. Stewart. On that date I wrote to the Post Office Department. Only this morning did I receive a reply.
The minister also stated that the new appointee had 10 children. I should like to lay before the house the facts with regard to the 10 children. One girl is married and is living in Kingston. One son is working in Ottawa. Two daughters are working in Ottawa and one daughter is working in a bank in Kingston. The husband works as a carpenter for a construction firm. The appointee works part time as a store clerk and also drives a mail route. They also own a farm.


An hon. Member:: Also Grit.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: On Friday October 25 I
received a petition which reads as follows:
We, the patrons of Enterprise post office and the rural routes are well satisfied with the excellent services of our postmistress, Mrs. Betty Stewart, and it is our wish that she remain in her present position.
This petition involving this small post office contains 190 signatures.


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to give an answer to the hon. member, since I did so on the twenty third when I gave a precise summary of the facts.
First of all, Mrs. Stewart is not entitled to the privileges granted to veterans.
Then, she has never been postmistress. She was employed in the post office in question, on a temporary basis, after her husband's death.
It has also been said that she had increased the post office revenue to $2,000. In fact, she was employed for one month only, and the revenue was not increased to $2,000 a year, the total annual revenue of that post office being of about $1,421.
The hon. member has mentioned what type of work Mrs. Dillon's children do. That they work in a bank, as labourers or carpenters, does not change the fact that Mrs. Dillon is the mother of 10 children.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Administrative Change in Parks Branch


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -in regard to revenue, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; it seems to me we have spent a considerable time on this matter. I thought the quickest way to deal with it was to let the hon. member explain his point and then get on with our business. If the hon. member is not satisfied he should follow through with a motion. Otherwise we must follow the regular routine.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I just want to put before the house, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure there are other ways of doing that. For example, there will be the estimates of the Postmaster General.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with a request made by the Leader of the Opposition on Friday I should like to table copies of the order in council appointing the board of trustees and also copy of a letter which I sent to Mr. Banks dated October 23. I regret that I stated incorrectly on Friday it had been sent on October 22. This was an inadvertent statement.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I did not hear what the inadvertence was.


Mr, MacEachen:: It was an inadvertent mistake which I made on Friday, which I wanted to draw to the attention of the house.



NATIONAL PARKS


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement concerning the national parks branch of my department. Because of the ever-expanding increase in the use of our national parks and national historic parks and sites, it has been concluded that a decentralization of administration is necessary. Therefore, instead of all park field units reporting directly to Ottawa, in future each unit will report to a regional headquarters and only the regional offices will report to Ottawa.
There will be three regions, each headed by a regional director. The western region, with headquarters at Calgary, will cover everything west of the Manitoba-Ontario boundary. The central region, with headquarters at Cornwall, will cover Ontario and
4074	HOUSE OF
Administrative Change in Parks Branch Quebec; and the Atlantic region, with headquarters at Sydney, will cover the four Atlantic provinces. To give additional strength to the Ottawa head office of the national parks branch, there will be a second assistant director. Similarly, in recognition of the complexity of problems in administering the townsite of Banff, a townsite manager is to be appointed. The townsite manager will be resident in Banff and will report to the general superintendent. This reorganization of the national parks branch will go into operation as soon as the necessary new regional headquarters can be opened and staffed.
The announcement I have just made is all the more significant in view of other information just placed before me today. Attendance at our national parks and sites for the period April 1 to September 30, 1963 has soared to an unprecedented 9,224,788, an increase of 24 per cent over the same period in 1962. This information confirms the popularity and importance of our parks and the need for even more efficient administration and more careful development to ensure their proper use and preservation for present and future generations.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house has listened with interest to the statement by the minister in regard to the re-organization of the parks branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
I would like to point out that the necessity of decentralizing the parks administration has been evident for some time. As the minister will remember, during the early period of the previous administration we made a first move in this direction by putting the western parks under a western supervisor, who tried to bring about some cohesion in over-all field of policy to the western parks, and the extension of this principle to central Canada and the mari-times is good.
I would like to take this opportunity, I think on behalf of most Canadians, to put forward the idea that any effort made by the government to try to establish national parks in the big provinces of Quebec and Ontario will be welcomed by all the people of Canada. These national parks can play a big part in the Canadian parks policy that can only be fully understood as generations follow each other; and if in the future we in Canada have parts of our country in the very conditions they were in at the beginning, they will be a constant reminder of the wonderful pristine wilderness our country was, and how we saved its natural resources.
My second thought in connection with parks policy is to remind the house that formulating it and making it good can only be done


most effectively when there is complete cooperation and co-ordination with the provincial governments. They each have their parks policies, and if in the working out of a co-operative program with the provinces they are continually informed they will be able to share in this over-all planning. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the last government helped in bringing the provinces together to further that policy, and I am glad this statement by the present minister is carrying on the moves made at that time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we were all very pleased to hear of the increased patronage of the national parks-I am referring to numbers, not other aspects thereof-and of the division of the administration into regions. I have been very interested, as have members of this group, in national parks for many years, because they are a very important part of our national resources, and there is a great need for improvement in their administration, which result largely from changing circumstances and the growing numbers they are required to handle.
I agree with what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said, that there is a need for close co-operation with provincial governments, and also with the public. We must have the understanding, appreciation and co-operation of the public in general if we are to devise a permanent national parks policy that will be satisfactory in preserving the parks for future generations.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, without going into any detail on the effect that this new administrative policy might have regarding our national parks, I would just add my support to the remarks that have already been made, which emphasize the importance of the national parks in our Canadian way of life and the need not only to improve the administration but also to extend the services of national parks. Therefore in so far as the general principles involved in this statement of policy are concerned, we give our support to them.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that we learned from the minister that the administration of national parks in Canada is being decentralized.
I should like to point out to the house, however, that even though it was deemed advisable to decentralize the administration of national parks by dividing it into three regions, that is, the maritime provinces, the western provinces and the central provinces

Questions
comprising the two largest Canadian provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec, the administrative centre for those two provinces is being located in the province of Ontario.
I suggest to the minister that it would have been much more advisable to set up four regions instead, a third one for the province of Ontario and a fourth one for the province of Quebec.
We know that national parks in the various provinces may present different features to tourists. In my opinion, such an aspect should be considered.
May I also suggest that in order to encourage our fellow citizens to visit our national parks, we could try to find some incentive for example: an income tax deduction for expenses incurred by Canadians who spend their holidays in national parks. This would not only allow us to develop national parks in Canada, but would prompt our fellow citizens to take advantage of all their features. It is very fine to have national parks, but we should also give our fellow citizens the opportunity and financial means to visit them and make use of them.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: May I direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. Will the minister say how his statement affects purchasing for the parks? Will orders for materials formerly not purchased locally, about which there has been some criticism, now be placed through the regional office instead of Ottawa?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Thomas Miller Bell: The question arises from the statement made today.


Arthur Laing: It is the objective of the new arrangement in connection with our parks to facilitate both the making of decisions and purchasing, and to localize these as much as possible.



QUESTIONS

['Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my question No. 1,335 has been on the order paper for some time. All I wanted to know was how many grain boats were waiting to be loaded during the strike. Surely it does not take that long to count these boats.']
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the house that	the following questions	are	beinganswered today: 1,154, 1,189, 1,242, 1,260, 1,262,	1,304,	1,306,	1,307,	1,329,	1,345,	1,350,1,353,	1,358,	1361,	1,364,	1,365,	1,376,	1,382,1,396,	1,397,	1,398,	1,400,	1,405,	1,411,	1,415,
1,419, 1,438, 1,440, 1,453, 1,457 and 1,483.
28902-5-261

If questions 1,280 and 1,369 could be made orders for returns the returns will be tabled immediately. If Your Honour would be good enough to call starred questions 1,134, 1,315, 1,372, 1,385 and 1,445, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Mather: In the appointments to such bodies as the Atlantic development board, the economic council of Canada, the judiciary, the diplomatic corps and the Senate, is the government giving consideration to naming a due proportion of qualified women for these positions?


Mr. Pearson:: The answer to this question is
yes.


PETER LEBEL, TORONTO  R.C.M.P. INVESTIGATION
Mr. Orlikow: Is the R.C.M.P. investigating the whereabouts, occupation, friends, etc., of Mr. Peter Lebel, now a resident of Toronto and, if so, (a) for how long has this surveillance been carried out (b) what is the purpose of such surveillance (c) is the information acquired passed on to anybody outside the department and (d) how long will such surveillance continue?


Mr. Chevrier:: It has not been the practice either of this government or its predecessor in office to furnish information of the kind sought by this question.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT
Mr. Laiulippe: Is it the government's intention to establish, during the present session, a federal-provincial secretariat and, if so, when and how will it do so: and, if not, for what reasons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question of the setting up of appropriate machinery to ensure continuing liaison between the federal and provincial governments will be considered at the federal-provincial conference in November. It is not possible to anticipate at this stage what the decision of the conference will be.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO DISASTER REGIONS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What is the total amount granted by the federal government since 1949 to regions which have been declared victims of a disaster such as drought, tornado, flood or fire?
2.	Out of that amount, how much was granted to regions outside Canada?
3.	What amount has been granted each year to the different provinces since 1949?
4.	What amount has been granted each year since 1949 to regions outside of Canada?


Mr. Benson:: 1. $34,991,197.
2.	$11,046,729.

Questions
. Year	Province
1949/50	British Columbia
1950/51	Manitoba
	Quebec Quebec
1951/52	Manitoba Quebec Quebec
1952/53	Quebec Quebec
1953/54	Quebec Ontario
1954/55	Quebec Ontario
1955/56	Ontario
1956/57	Nova Scotia Saskatchewan Manitoba
1957/58 1958/59	Nova Scotia
1959/60 1960/61	New Brunswick
1961/62 1962/63 1963/64	New Brunswick
4. 1949/50	Nil
1950/51	Nil
1951/52	$ 825,000
	43,900
1952/53	27,996 1,000,000
1953/54	50,000
	5,000,000
	497,954
1954/55	24,988 224,629
1955/56	49,999
	99,474
1956/57	1,475,833
1957/58	Nil
1958/59	Nil
1959/60	60,000
1960/61	1,599,864
1961/62	67,092
1962/63	Nil
Disaster	Amount
Fraser river flood	$ 4,024,186
Red river flood	14,422,208
Rimouski fire	1,000,877
Cabano fire	218,270
Red river flood	1,585,553
Rimouski fire	1,177,519
Cabano fire	80,439
Rimouski fire	257,389
Cabano fire	531
Rimouski fire	615
Sarnia tornado	137,462
Rimouski fire	233
hurricane Hazel	330,258
hurricane Hazel	434,379
first Springhill mine	disaster 25,000
floods	31,779
floods	17,770
second Springhill mine disaster 100,000	
fishermen's disaster	50,000
floods	50,000
wheat famine relief, Greece relief supplies, Yugoslavia wheat famine relief, Greece European flood relief food flood relief, Japan wheat famine relief, Pakistan Greece-Ionian earthquake, reconstruction and rehabilitation fish hurricane relief, Haiti food and drugs flood relief, India, Pakistan and Nepal flour hurricane relief, British Caribbean area
medical supplies and other emergency-material for flood relief, India and Pakistan
wheat flood relief, Pakistan
canned pork, Japanese typhoon victims flour and pork for Chilean disaster victims
skimmed milk powder and canned pork for British Honduras hurricane disaster


PURCHASES BY INDIAN BANDS
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering amending sections 88 and 89 of the Indian Act so that they would permit an Indian band, as an organization, to make purchases of equipment and other material needed for improving the economic status of members of the band?


Mr. Munro:: While sections 88 and 89 of the Indian Act are being reviewed for possible amendment, it may be mentioned that where the provisions of section 68 of the act have been applied to a band, the band council from band revenue funds may purchase equipment and other material needed for improving the economic status of the band or its

members, provided that an item has been included in the band budget for this specific purpose.


PROVINCIAL CENTENNIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Southam: What provinces have organized their 1967 centennial celebration committees under the proposed federal government plan, and what are the names and addresses of the executive officers of each of these provincial committees?


Mr. Lamonfagne:: Listed are the names of provincial centennial committees provided under provincial legislation and the executive officers in those instances where appointments have now been made.
Province: British Columbia, Canadian confederation centennial committee of British Columbia; Alberta, national centennial committee (Alberta); Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan diamond jubilee and Canadian centennial celebrations committee. Executive director, Mr. Albert G. Watson, 1753 Cornwall street, Regina, Saskatchewan; Manitoba, Manitoba centennial corporation; Ontario, centennial committee; Quebec, provincial secretary's department; New Brunswick, confederation centenary celebration committee; Nova Scotia, confederation centenary celebration committee. Chairman and chief executive officer, Mrs. Abby Lane, 61 Cambridge street, Halifax, N.S.; Prince Edward Island, Prince Edward Island centennial committee, Inc. Manager-Mr. William Hayward, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Newfoundland, national centennial committee.


BILINGUALISM AMONG C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the C.N.R. developed a policy to encourage bilingualism among its employees and, if so, is this policy reflected in advertisements for new employees?
2.	On October 8, 1963, did the C.N.R. advertise in the Montreal Gazette, page 34, for young men between 16 and 13 years of age and, if so, was there any mention of bilingualism as a necessity or an advantage?
Answer: 1. and 2. The memorandum relating to bilingualism in Canadian National, tabled in the house on October 4, indicates the company's policy and progress being made in this regard. Advertisements for new employees refer to bilingualism when the job requirement is that the employee speak both French and English.


EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, TORONTO
Mr. Scott: Has the government given consideration to the request of the city of Toronto to have the winter works program extended from October to May and, if so, what has been the government's response to such request?
28902-5-261*
Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Consideration has been given to a number of representations, including a request from the city of Toronto, regarding the effective period of the winter works program, but it is not the intention to extend the period beyond the six months commencing November 1 and ending April 30.


CANADIAN ARSENALS PLANT, SCARBOROUGH TOWNSHIP
Mr. Scott: 1.	Briefly, what is the nature of the products being produced by the crown owned Canadian Arsenals plant on Warden avenue in the township of Scarborough?
2.	How many persons were employed there in the years 1959, I960, 1961, 1962, and 1963?
3.	What lines of production are being abandoned, and what specific products are being discontinued.
4.	In detail, what efforts are being made to find alternate domestic and/or foreign markets for the lines being discontinued?
5.	Is any "on the job training" being contemplated to fit the workers being released for other gainful employment?
6.	What are the guide lines for deciding who will be let go, and who will be retained?


Mr. Drury:: 1. Some types of military
electronic, optical and fire control equipment.
2.	The average number of employees at this division for the fiscal years requested is as follows: 1959, 272; 1960, 277; 1961, 300; 1962, 290; 1963, 252.
3.	Those production facilities and military products involved in (1) above.
4.	Such lines are military in nature and are not marketable in terms of commercial product line. The market depends upon the requirements of the armed services in Canada and abroad.
5.	The personnel are highly qualified in their own particular fields and therefore no on the job training is being contemplated.
6.	The factors that will be considered in reducing staff are ability, qualifications and length of service.


*USE OF &quot;AIR CANADA&quot; BY T.C.A.
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): What are the security and control reasons which make it impossible to add the words "Air Canada" on the fuselage of T.C.A. aircraft?


Mr. Cantin:: Mr. Speaker, both air traffic control and ground control of aircraft movement on airports involve visual identification features at certain times, and both governmental and air line officials are strongly of the opinion that the use of two different names on an aircraft fuselage, particularly in circumstances of congestion and high-density movement, could lead to misunderstanding and confusion on the part of the various personnel involved in giving and receipt of control and movement instructions.
Questions


SUSPENSION OF COLD STORAGE ACT
Mr. Howard: Upon what date, by whom, by what method, by what authority, and for what reason, was assistance under the Cold Storage Act suspended?


Mr. Hays:: Assistance grants for the construction of cold storages under the Cold Storage Act were suspended in July, 1962, as an economy measure.


COST OF NORTHERN TRIP BY MINISTER AND OFFICIALS
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	What was the total cost to the treasury, including hotel, meals and miscellaneous expenditures, of the recent trip by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and his officials from the time of their Ottawa departure, through the Yukon and Northwest Territories until their return to Ottawa?
2.	What was the cost of the chartered DC-3 aircraft employed for the northern part of this trip, including gasoline surcharges and crew expenses?
3.	Were tenders called for the charter of this aircraft and, if so, which companies submitted bids, in what amounts, and which bid was accepted?
4.	What are the names and functions of each of the persons accompanying the minister on this trip?
Answer: 1. $16,402.61.
2.	$13,250.00.
3.	Four companies invited to tender. Complete bids received from the two following companies only: Pacific Western Airlines, $13,680 plus additional charges for fuel and oil as specified in the carrier charter tariff by the air transport board; Connelly-Dawson, $13,045 plus additional charges for fuel and oil as specified in the carrier charter tariff by the air transport board, low tender accepted.
4.	The names and functions of the people on the tour, which began at Whitehorse are: Mr. E. A. Cote, deputy minister; Mr. J. Austin, executive assistant, joined tour at Fort Smith; Mr. B. G. Sivertz, commissioner of the Northwest Territories; Mr. J. Turner, parliamentary secretary, joined tour at Yellowknife; Mr. Cameron, commissioner of the Yukon, left tour at Mayo; Mr. H. Howith, editor of "North" and staff officer; Dr. A. Gascon, chief of curriculum section, joined at Fort Smith; Mrs. Irene Baird, chief, information services division, Frobisher-Ottawa only; Mrs. Arthur Laing, no cost to crown, left tour at Inuvik; Mrs. L. Basu, secretary to deputy minister, left tour at Yellowknife; Miss E. Sloan, secretary to Mr. Austin.
Press: Mr. B. Hill, Edmonton Journal and Vancouver Province; Mr. T. Ardies, Vancouver Sun; Mr. R. Reguly, Toronto Star; Mr. G. Waring, Canadian American News
[Mr. Cantin.l
Service, joined tour at Dawson; Mr. C. Morin, Radio-Canada; Mr. J. Fauteux, Radio-Canada.


WAR MEMORIAL, NEPEAN POINT, OTTAWA
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to proceed at this time with the construction of a war memorial on Nepean point and if not, for what reason?
2.	Has the government received representations from the dominion command of the Royal Canadian Legion regarding this project and, if so, what were the recommendations?
3.	When may a final decision be expected?
Answer: 1. The government does not intend to proceed immediately with the implementation of the original plan for the construction of a national shrine of remembrance on Nepean point.
This proposal has been the subject of some public controversy in the press and otherwise. A number of the views expressed have supported it while several have, for various reasons, suggested modifications or alternatives or even the abandonment of the whole project. It seems possible that some of the criticisms of the concept of the shrine have been founded on a lack of appreciation of its principal purpose which is to enable the display, in suitable surroundings, of Canada's Books of Remembrance containing the names of our war dead.
At present, all four of the books are on display in the severely limited space in the world war I memorial chamber in the peace tower. That is, of course, the best place to display the world war I book as the atmosphere of the chamber relates solely to that war. The other three books-those containing the names of the dead of the Nile expedition of 1885 and the South Africa war, and world war II and Korea-were placed temporarily in the chamber so that they might be seen by the Canadian public during the time prior to the completion of a permanent repository. The proposed shrine would enable the display of these three beautifully illuminated books, together with a facsimile of the world war I book, in surroundings comparable to those of the memorial chamber but, of course, in an atmosphere not designed to commemorate one period only.
The realization of this concept of a shrine of remembrance dedicated to the memory of Canada's dead of all wars and containing a record of their names would be a significant expression of national pride in their achievements and sacrifices. The decision to proceed with the construction of such a shrine honouring our war dead is not, however, one that should be taken in an atmosphere of disagreement or controversy.

Questions
2.	While this government has not received direct representations from the dominion command of the Royal Canadian Legion regarding the proposal to erect a shrine of remembrance on Nepean point in Ottawa, the stand of the Legion in this matter is well known. They were represented on the committee which first recommended the erection of such a shrine. Their continuing strong support of the project was expressed in a recent editorial in their official publication, The Legionary.
3.	The government has undertaken a thorough review of the proposal to erect the shrine, including the design of the building itself and the surrounding area. Some time will elapse before this study can be completed and the final decision reached.


PICNIC SITE AND CAMP GROUND CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Will picnic site and camp ground construction be included in the winter works program this year and, if so, what period will it cover?
2.	If not, will it be replaced by a recreational parks program?
3.	Does the government intend to continue the useful federal provincial parks conference inaugurated last year and, if so, when will the conference be convened?
Answer: 1. The winter works program for national parks in designated areas provides for the extension and development of picnic sites and camp grounds. The program will extend to March 31, 1964.
2.	N/A
3.	Yes. The second federal-provincial parks conference will be held in Ottawa from November 18 to 22 inclusive.


DIRECTIONAL RADIO BEACON, BLANC SABLON, QUE.
Mr. Ricard: Have tenders been called for the building of a directional radio beacon at Blanc Sablon, Quebec, and, if so, (a) what are the names of the tenderers (b) what was the amount of each tender submitted (c) what is the name of the tenderer to whom the contract was awarded?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Yes, (a) and (b).
Names of tenderers	Amount
Nordec Construction Inc.	$23,600
Plessis Construction Ltee.	25,890
Continental Electrical Contracting Ltd.	28,650
Avalon Construction and Engineering Ltd.	30,350
Gauthier & Gagne	34,662
Frs. Marquis Ltee.	55,770
Gaspe Sud Construction Ltee.	74,350
(c) Nordec Construction Inc.


DEFENCE EXPENDITURES
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the amount, in dollars, expended in the fiscal years 1960, 1961, and 1962 on national defence?
2.	What in 1962 was the approximate percentage of federal expenditures represented by the combined costs of interest payment on the federal debt and on defence outlay?


Edgar John Benson: 1.
Department of National Defence 1960	1961	1962$ $ $ Department of Defence Production 17,600,214	20,435,693	23,929,9261,516,572,454	1,517,530,583	1,626,104,312

2.	37.62 per cent.


EQUITABLE INCOME TAX FOUNDATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Was the Equitable income tax foundation given the right to receive contributions which are deductible for income tax purposes and, if so, on what date was the right granted?
2.	What reasons were advanced by this organization to the minister in its request that it be granted such a right?
3.	What were the government's reasons for granting such tax exemption status to the Equitable income tax association?
4.	Is the Equitable income tax foundation engaging in activities such as proposing that the tax laws be changed in respect to Canadian co-operatives?
5.	Is the government reconsidering the tax-exempt status of the Equitable income tax foundation?


Mr. Garland:: 1. No.
2.	The foundation has been formed as a permanent organization to conduct study, research and investigations on the subject of taxation and its effect on the economy of Canada; to propagate the principles of equitable taxation; to make representations to governmental authorities at all levels regarding tax legislation as may seem desirable as a result of the study, research and investigation carried on by this organization.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.


CANADIAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Was the Canadian economic association given the right to receive contributions which are deductible for tax purposes and, if so on what date was the right granted?
2.	What reasons were advanced by this organization to the minister in its request that it be granted such a right?
3.	What were the government's reasons for granting such tax exemption status to the Canadian economic association?

Questions
4.	What are the principal aims of the Canadian economic association, and do they include participation in political activities?
5.	Is the government reconsidering the tax-exempt status of the Canadian economic association?


John Richard Garland: 1. Not aware of this association.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
^PROBLEMS OF EXCESSIVE DRINKING, N.W.T.


Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Have any comprehensive studies been done by the federal government on the social and economic problems resulting from excessive drinking of alcoholic beverages in the N.W.T. and, if so, what studies were done, by whom, and what were the recommendations, if any?
2.	Does the government have any program under way to alleviate or combat problems resulting from excessive drinking in the N.W.T. and (a) if so, what are these programs (b) if not, are there any plans to initiate such programs?


Arthur Laing: 1. My department, through the northern co-ordination and research centre, has commissioned studies into the uses of alcoholic beverages in three settlements in the Northwest Territories. These studies are being carried out by Mr. Donald Clairmont, assistant professor of sociology, St. Mary's University, Halifax, N.S. and Dr. John J. Honigmann, professor of anthropology, University of North Carolina. The studies are still in progress, and the only preliminary report received to date contains no recommendations.
In addition the incidence of excessive drinking where this occurs, and special factors which may influence the problem, have been discussed in other sociological reports on northern communities commissioned by the centre.
2.	Federal participation in the study of this problem is occasioned by the federal concern for Eskimos. An interdepartmental committee has been at work for some time assembling information on the handling of comparable situations elsewhere in Canada, and assisting in co-ordinating the work of government and private agencies. However, liquor policy is the responsibility of the territorial council and government. As its votes and proceedings show, the council of the Northwest Territories has given extensive and continuing attention to the problem of excessive drinking and to policies to deal with it.


THOMPSON, MAN. RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS
Mr. Fisher: 
Mr. Pickersgill:: 1. Yes. The decision was announced on March 21, 1962.
2.	No.
3.	Since June, 1963, the board has received one letter from Mr. R. I. Robinson of Thompson in which he complains of the program quality and technical standard of the service provided by the closed circuit T.V. station CESM at Thompson.


WHEAT SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL
Mr. Jones: How many bushels of wheat have been shipped out of the port of Churchill this year to date?
Answer: Shipments of wheat out of the port of Churchill during the complete 1963 season of navigation amounted to 22,864,409 bushels.


*REAPPLICATION FOR POWER INCREASE, STATION CJCH-T.V.
Mr. Rideout: What is the earliest possible date that a reapplication can be made by station CJCH-T.V. for a power increase to service the Westmorland county area in the province of New Brunswick?


Jean-Charles Cantin: There is no restriction with regard to this matter.


J. D. HERBERT, PARKS BRANCH
Mr. Fisher: With regard to J. D. Herbert, an employee of the national parks branch, what are the details, of his birthplace, institution and place by years of his education, his diplomas and degrees, his experience in his field by place and institution, his publications (titles and bibliographical notation), his citizenship and the dates and data on his civil service grading?
Answer: Birthplace: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Education: University of Saskatchewan, Canadian history and political science, B.A., 1948; honours, 1949. Toronto University, Canadian history, M.A., 1950.
Awards: Regina college, Smith scholarship, 1946; University of Saskatchewan, honours bursary in political science, 1948; University of Saskatchewan, provincial I.O.D.E. scholarship, 1949; University of Toronto, W. L. Mackenzie King fellowship, 1949.

Experience:	1949-50 (seasonal), research
assistant, Fort Battleford museum (provincial); 1950-53 (permanent), supervisor and custodian, Fort Battleford; 1953-56 (permanent), director, historic sites branch, department of natural resources, province of Saskatchewan; 1956-59 (permanent), executive director and director of research, Glenbow foundation, Calgary, Alberta; 1959 to date, chief, national historic sites division, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Publications: "Guide to the Historic Sites of Saskatchewan", prepared for Saskatchewan golden jubilee committee. Published 1955 by department of natural resources, government of Saskatchewan.
Citizenship: Canadian.
Civil service grade: July 7, 1959, chief, national historic sites division, national parks branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


CLIFFORD R. WILSON, NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Fisher: With regard to Clifford R. Wilson, an employee of the national museum, what are the details, of his birthplace, institution and place by years of his education, his diplomas and degrees, his experience in his field by place and institution, his publications (titles and bibliographical notation), his citizenship and the dates and data on his civil service grading?
Answer:	Birthplace:	Repton Derbyshire,
1902; came to Canada 1913; Canadian citizen.
Education:West Hill school 1909-13; University school, Victoria, 1913; Upper Canada college, Toronto, 1914-19; McGill University, 1919-23 (B. Com.)
Experience:	Curator, Hudson's Bay Co.
museum, Winnipeg, 1937-57 and editor of BEAVER 1939-57. Director, Glenbow foundation, Calgary, 1958-60. Assistant-Director, National Museum, 1960 (President, Canadian museums association 1955-57)
Publications: 1933 Adventures all: Tales of Forgotten Heroes in New France. Macmillans; 1943 "Modern Trends in History Museums", "B.C. historical quarterly (Reprinted by Ontario government for distribution to all Ontario history museums, 1950. Reprinted for distribution to prairie museums, 1958). 1947 "The New North in Pictures", Ryerson; 1953 "Northern Exposures", Nelson; 1954 "North of 55Ryerson; 1956 "North Treasury," Nelson; 1956 "The Hudson's Bay Co. Museum", UNESCO magazine museum, Paris 1956; 1957 "Pageant of the North", Ryerson; 1962 "Adventurers from the Bay," Tales of the Hudson's Bay Company, Macmillan.
In addition, about 30 magazine articles on Canadian history and natural history including: Etienne Brule and the Great Lakes,
Questions
Canadian Geographical Journal, 1932; Browns-burg, Canadian Geographical Journal, November, 1936. Letters from Geo. Back, Canadian Geographical Journal, September, 1938. "Private Letters from the Fur Trade", Manitoba historical Society, 1950. "Where Did Nicolet Go?" Minnesota history, September, 1946. "Across the Prairies 200 years ago" (Anthony Henday) Canadian historical association, Annual Report, 1954. "La Verendrye Reaches the Saskatchewan", Canadian Historical Review, March 1952.
Civil service grading: Assistant director, national museum of Canada. (Technical officer 11); appointed May 2, 1960 by civil service commission competition.


RESIGNATIONS FROM NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Fisher: 1.	On what date did Dr. Jacques Rousseau leave the national museum?
2.	Since that date what are the names with positions held, of all employees who have resigned or been dismissed from the national museum?
Answer: 1. P.C. 1959-1/247 dated February 27, 1959, provided for the release of Dr. Rousseau with effect from February 28 of that year. It is understood that he physically left the museum about a month earlier.
2.	According to our records, the following are the employees who have resigned:
1959: Mrs. V. M. Atkinson, Feb. 13, resigned steno 3; Miss H. Bujold, March 31, resigned, assistant technician 3; Dr. A. W. Cameron, Sept. 28, resigned, chief mam-malogist-bio. 3; Mrs. J. C. Cole, Jan. 30, resigned, steno 1; Mrs. P. Dolan, Jan. 15, resigned, steno 2; Miss M. L. Funke, Sept. 30, resigned, typist-knowledge of shorthand; T. E. Lee, March 20, resigned, bio. 3; Miss
1.	O'Connell, Sept. 24, resigned, clerical assistant.
1960: Miss M. T. I. Brunet, Feb. 5, resigned, steno; Miss J. I. Crosby, Oct. 14, resigned, steno 2; Mrs. M. Davison, Jan. 20, resigned, steno 2; Miss M. Ouimet, Jan. 13, resigned, steno; Mrs. M. T. M. Robineault, Aug. 15, resigned, steno 3 (secretary).
1961: Mr. A. Balikci, June 17, resigned, anthropologist 2; Miss L. Bourbeau, March
2,	resigned, technician 1; Mrs. H. Lochmotov, Apr. 10, resigned, clerk 2; Miss I. McCarthy, Jan. 5, resigned, typist 2; Dr. C. A. Proctor, June 6, resigned, anthropologist 2.
1962: Mrs. W. E. Bartosch, July 24, resigned, T.O. 2; Miss M. Emard, July 6, resigned, technician 1; Dr. W. Langston, Jr., Oct. 22, resigned, bio. 4; Miss C. Provost, Nov. 1, resigned, steno 2.
1963: W. T. Kennedy, Apr. 20, resigned, clerk 2; Dr. R. S. MacNeish, Aug. 1, resigned, bio. 5; Miss E. V. Masters, Nov. 5, resigned, steno 3 (secretary); Dr. T. F. S. McFeat, Oct.

Questions
7,	resigned, bio. 5; Dr. L. Oschinsky, Sept. 24, resigned, bio. 3; J. T. Pinnacle, Sept. 3, resigned, junior exec, officer; Dr. L. S. Russell, Oct. 31, resigned, director, natural history branch.


ERNEST COTE, NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Fisher: What responsibility has Ernest C6t6 had in the past ten years for the national museum, in general and in terms of directives or memoranda or instructions given him?
Answer: Subject to the directives of the minister and, until July 1, 1963, of the deputy minister, he had the general responsibility for the policies affecting the development of the national museum for most of this period.


BENEFITS TO DESIGNATED AREAS IN MANITOBA
Mr. Simpson: What benefits, if any, will accrue to designated areas (a) in the municipal district of Dauphin (b) in the district normally coming within the administration of the Dauphin branch of the unemployment insurance commission (c) other areas of the province of Manitoba?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: (a) and (b) All municipalities located in the area serviced by the Dauphin local office of the national employment service, which has been designated as an area of high winter unemployment, will be entitled to a federal contribution of 60 per cent of direct payroll costs incurred on approved projects under the municipal winter works incentive program. This area will also qualify in connection with the supplementary federal government winter construction program, which applies to designated development areas and designated areas of high winter unemployment.
(c) The Dauphin local employment office area is the only area in Manitoba which has been designated.


FEED GRAIN BOARD OF EASTERN FARMERS
Mr. Laverdiere: Is the government considering setting up a feed grain board, to consist of eastern farmers and modelled on the Canadian wheat board and, if so, will that feed grain board have a responsibility of buying and selling feed grain on behalf of eastern farmers, and to provide for adequate storage of feed grain?


Harry William Hays: Representations with respect to a feed grain agency for eastern Canada are being considered by the government.


SPONSORED IMMIGRANTS RECEIVING WELFARE PAYMENTS
Mr. Pritiie: Is it possible, from records maintained by the Department of National Health and Welfare, to determine (a) the number of sponsored immigrants

who are in receipt of old age security benefits, disabled persons' allowances and blind persons' allowances at the present time (b) the number of sponsored immigrants who will be eligible for such allowances by the year 1970, and (c) the estimated cost of the allowances to such persons at present and projected to 1970?


Miss LaMarsh:: No, the information asked for is not available.


CHIEF ARCHAEOLOGIST, NORTHERN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Fisher: Has the minister of northern affairs under consideration the appointment of a Mr. Taylor to the post of chief archaeologist of Canada and, if so, what are Mr. Taylor's qualifications in detail, including the archaeologists under whom he has worked?
Answer: This question presumably refers to the chief of the archaeology section of the national museum. Appointment to this position is not the responsibility of the minister but of the civil service commission. However,
I	should advise the hon. member that the civil service commission appointed Mr. W. E. Taylor, Jr., who had been acting chief of the section, as chief, effective July 10, 1963. Mr. Taylor's qualifications follow:
1.	Academic background: B.A. (Honours) anthropology, U. of Toronto, 1951, A.M. sociology, U. of Illinois, 1952; graduate fellow, U. of Illinois, 1951-52; graduate fellow, U. of Illinois, 1952-53;; teaching fellow, U. of Illinois, 1953-54; research assistant, U. of Michigan, 1954-55; research assistant, U. of Michigan, 1955-56; post-M.A. student, U. of Illinois, 1952-3, 1953-4, "A" standing; post-M.A. student, U. of Michigan, 1954-5, 1955-6, "A" standing; passed Ph.D. oral and written examinations, May 1956, U. of Michigan; Ph.D. pending submission of dissertation; won but declined graduate fellowships and assistant-ships at several universities including Chicago, Arizona, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Harvard, and North Carolina.
2.	Publications: He has published 28 titles, has one in press, two others ready for submission, and is preparing five others. He is also compiling, editing and contributing to a large volume, "The Archaeology of Canada" to be published by the museum. He has represented the museum and read technical papers at international meetings.
3.	Experience: Between 1947 and 1963, he has participated in 25 field projects in Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland, Illinois, Arizona, Michigan and the Canadian Arctic. In the last named, his area specialization, he has passed
II	field seasons. He has been invited to join archaeological expeditions to Alaska, Greenland, Egypt, Mexico, and Ecuador. He has examined museums in Canada, the U.S.A., Mexico, Scotland, England, France, Belgium,

and Denmark, and has served as acting senior archaeologist at intervals since 1960.
4.	Teachers: In the field he has worked with J. N. Emerson, U. of Toronto; K. E. Kidd, Royal Ontario Museum; J. C. McGregor, U. of Illinois; H. B. Collins, Smithsonian institute; E. F. Greenman, U. of Michigan; and T. E. Lee, Ottawa.
In universities, he has studied under Emerson, McGregor, Greenman and J. B. Griffin, R. K. Beardsley, A. C. Spaulding at the University of Michigan. Among the other anthropologists he has studied under are J. Steward, O. Lewis, and E. Wolfe at Illinois, L. White, F. Thieme, and E. Service at Michigan, and T. Mcllwraith, G. Brown, and E. Carpenter at Toronto.
5.	Mr. Taylor is also a: fellow, Arctic institute of North America; fellow, American association for the advancement of science; fellow, society of the sigmaXi; member, Arctic circle; member, society for American archaeology; member, American anthropological association; assistant editor for the journal "Anthropologica"; consulting director, Canadian research center for anthropology.


SKOPJE, YUGOSLAVIA  REQUEST FOR AID
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	Has the government received any requests for aid to the stricken city of Skopje, if so, from whom, and when?
2.	What aid has been advanced thus far?
3.	What plans, if any, have been formulated by Canada to contribute to the rebuilding of Skopje?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: 1. Yes. On August 8, 1963 the Yugoslav ambassador to Canada called on me to report the tragic disaster at Skopje and to describe the more immediate needs for which his government was making an international appeal. On August 15 he provided me with preliminary estimates of longer term reconstruction costs.
2.	To date some $45,000 has been made available from Canadian sources, of which $10,000 was a grant from public funds.
3.	No decision has been taken concerning additional Canadian government assistance.


USE OF LIME TO COMBAT STRONTIUM 90 IN WHEAT
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
1.	Has the Department of Agriculture inaugurated any program to encourage increased lime applications on wheat lands to combat the tenfold increase of strontium 90 in spring wheat reported by the Department of National Health and Welfare in the September issue of "Data from the Radiation Protection Programs"?
2.	Has the department inaugurated any similar program with regard to increasing calcium intake of livestock to counteract the uptake of strontium 90 by cattle?
Questions


Harry William Hays: 1. 2. No.
The Departments of Agriculture and National Health and Welfare keep closely in touch with each other in such matters. It is felt that the measures mentioned are not required to ensure public safety with the levels of strontium 90 that have been found to date.


*INCREASES IN BREAD PRICES
Mr. Pigeon: Since this government took office, what have been the increases, if any, in the prices of bread and milk in the cities of Montreal and Toronto?


Mr. Sharp:: As measured by the consumer price indexes for Montreal and Toronto respectively, the price of bread increased 2.8 per cent in Montreal and decreased 1.4 per cent in Toronto between May 1963 and September 1963. Over the same period, the price of milk was unchanged in Montreal but increased 0.8 per cent in Toronto.


BEER ADVERTISING ON TELEVISION
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Have any consultations been held between the B.B.G. and the Secretary of State in connection with the decision taken by the B.B.G. to increase from 12 to 60 seconds the time allowed on television for advertising by breweries?
2.	Were temperance associations requested to present their views on this matter before a decision was taken and, if so, how many, and what associations accepted such an invitation?
3.	Is the decision taken by the B.B.G. in this matter irrevocable and final?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. No consultations were held between the Secretary of State and the B.B.G. in connection with the decision by the board to amend the regulations governing the advertising of beer and wine by broadcasting stations. The amendment enacted by the board on August 29, 1963, does not, in fact, increase the time allowed on television for advertising by breweries, but it permits certain changes in the form and technique of such advertising.
2. As required by section 11(2) of the Broadcasting Act, the board published in the Canada Gazette of July 20, 1963, a notice of its intention to amend the regulations governing the advertising of beer and wine by broadcasting stations. Copies of this notice were at the same time provided to the press gallery of the House of Commons and were sent out to those names on the board's general mailing list. The notice confirmed that representations on the proposed amendment would be received by the board at a public hearing on August 27, 1963. Association Lacordaire et Sainte-Jeanne d'Arc du

Questions
Canada was the only association which advised the board that it wished to present representations at the August 27 public hearing.
3.	Under section 11 of the Broadcasting Act, the board is empowered to make or amend regulations. Regulations having been enacted by the board may only be changed or revoked by the board under the authority of section 11 of the act.


SUBSIDIES PAID TO JAMES CULLEN AND SONS, WOODSTOCK, ONTARIO
Mr. Scott: 1.	During the year 1963, has the government or anyone on its behalf conducted an investigation and/or audit of the affairs of James Cullen & Sons, Ltd., of Woodstock, Ontario, relating to the payment of subsidies to the company by the Department of Agriculture?
2.	Has such investigation and/or audit disclosed that subsidies have been improperly claimed from the Department of Agriculture?
3.	Briefly, what has been the result of the said investigation, and what action has to date been taken by the government in this connection?


Harry William Hays: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The amounts improperly claimed have been recovered.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION VICE PRESIDENT
Mr. Langlois: 1.	Has the position of vice president on the board of directors of the Farm Credit Corporation, which was vacant in May, 1963, been filled and, if so, by whom?
2.	Is this person a Canadian of French or English origin?


Harry William Hays: 1. No. This matter is presently under consideration.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my question No. 1,335 has been on the order paper for some time. All I wanted to know was how many grain boats were waiting to be loaded during the strike. Surely it does not take that long to count these boats.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Martineau: 1.	How many municipalities within the constituency of Pontiac-Temiscamingue instituted a works program under the winter works incentive program during each of the fiscal years 195859, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63?
2.	What are, in each case, the names of such municipalities, and what were the costs, in each case, of such works program?
3.	How many applications have to date been received by the federal Department of Labour from municipalities located within the constituency of

Pontiac-Temiscamingue for participation under the current winter works incentive program?
4.	What are, in each case, the estimated costs of such works programs?
Return tabled.


PRODUCTION, EXPORTS, IMPORTS AND SUBSIDIES
Mr. Martineau: 1.	What was the total Canadian production of coal in 1962, showing the quantity for each class of coal produced?
2.	What is, for each such class of coal, the estimated Canadian production for 1963?
3.	What is the total Canadian export of coal for each such class, for each of the years 1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962?
4.	What is for each class of coal, the total imports into Canada, for each of the years 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962?
5.	What is the estimated total quantity of coal exports for each class of coal for 1963?
6.	What is the estimated imports of coal into Canada for each class of coal for the year 1963?
7.	What were the total subsidies paid by the Canadian government to coal producers by provinces for the years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, and 1962-63?
Return tabled.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to report on the widespread refusal of United States dockers to load Canadian ships, as reported in today's Ottawa Journal, which refers to a statement made by Mr. Tanner, vice president of the S.I.U. of North America, that the S.I.U. program of picketing Canadian ships would last indefinitely. I would ask him whether, in face of what is taking place in this connection on the great lakes, a stern note will be sent to the United States government asking for the co-operation of that government in law enforcement, protesting against the flagrant violations of Canadian rights which are taking place.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter has already been taken up with the United States government. It was taken up again this morning, and the state department has been again informed of the views of the government in respect to this matter. I would point out that when the Leader of the Opposition talks-I am not sure whether I am using his exact words-of the widespread holding up of Canadian ships, I believe there are three ships which have been subjected to picketing over the week end. One in Chicago has been in that unhappy position for a good many weeks. One in

Superior, Wisconsin, was loading United States barley, and when it was unable to proceed with loading United States barley it moved to Fort William, where it will load 600,000 bushels of Canadian wheat, which I think is an improvement from the Canadian shipping point of view. The third ship which was picketed, I believe in Buffalo, has been cleared and the ship is operating.


John George Diefenbaker: The report says that this is going to be continued. I ask the Prime Minister now, has he been in touch with the President in this connection and protested against it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been in touch with the United States government as recently as this morning.


John George Diefenbaker: Not with the President on the "hot line".



REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING INTERFERENCE IN UNION AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In the Christian Science Monitor of Saturday, under the byline of Associated Press and Reuters dispatches, there is this statement with reference to the trustees: "The trustees have agreed not to interfere with the union's internal affairs". Is this correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not been talking to the trustees at all since last Wednesday night, but I did notice in the week end press that Mr. Justice Dryer stated on his arrival in Vancouver that no arrangements had been made with Banks as a prelude to getting the men back to work, and I think Mr. Millard, the other trustee, specifically dealt with this particular question and said that no commitment had been made with respect to any trusteeship decision, or that no commitment had been made by the trustees not to interfere in the operations of the S.I.U. So I think in this instance we must rely on a Canadian-made statement rather than a Boston-made statement.



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that it requires an increase of 30 cents a bushel in the price of wheat to warrant an increase
Inquiries of the Ministry of one cent a pound on a loaf of bread, has the restrictive trades practices branch looked into the recent increase in the price of bread? If so, is there any indication that the milling monopolies across Canada have once again been guilty of price fixing, as they were found to be guilty some time ago?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the director of research in the combines investigation branch is keeping under surveillance the question of prices of bread. He had the matter up for discussion with me prior to his departure for Paris and the United Kingdom, which was a short time ago. At that time he gave no indication to me that there was sufficient evidence before him to warrant a prosecution.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. If the minister's department has not been able to make a full investigation, would he consider referring this matter to the committee on agriculture and colonization for a full study of bread prices as related to flour and wheat prices?


Lionel Chevrier: As the hon. gentleman knows, the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice is under the Combines Investigation Act, and that will be pursued. So far as the other matter is concerned I would have no objection, but it would not be my decision to refer the matter. If that is the wish of the house, I think there are methods whereby that can be done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister agree, in view of the ruling today by Mr. Speaker, that any matter referred to the committee must originate with the government? I have not had an answer. Could I ask the Secretary of State as government house leader if the government would be prepared to refer this matter to the committee on agriculture and colonization?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not think of committing the government without consulting with my colleagues. I will be very glad to do that and report to the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Since today is the 28th of October, has the government decided to have the winter works program initiated on October 30 instead of

Inquiries of the Ministry November 30, as it should normally be, in order to help underdeveloped and depressed areas in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Prime Minister recently made a statement in the house on the general policy of the government in this regard and gave reasons why it was felt the present dates selected for the operation of the winter works program would be most effective in creating the maximum number of jobs during the period of high seasonal unemployment.


David Réal Caouette: Does the minister agree that it is urgent to help those depressed areas?



FALCONBRIDGE NICKEL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
In connection with the lay-off at the Falcon-bridge nickel mine, in the Sudbury area, can the minister tell the house whether his department has reached a decision concerning the proposals made by unions and union members of the Falconbridge nickel mine?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this is a question for the order paper?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which applies not only to what took place today but to what has taken place on many other occasions.
Whenever a member of the house puts a question in French to an English speaking minister, the minister listens to the simultaneous translation and only gets the point a few seconds after the question has been asked. That happens every time and explains the apparent hesitation on the minister's part when he starts to get up, but you lose no time ruling the question out of order.
That is my question of privilege. When a question is put to him in French, we should allow an English speaking minister a few extra seconds to hear the question in full instead of always thinking he does not wish to answer. I feel it would be wise to wait a few seconds to make sure the minister has heard the question in its entirety. A case in point is what happened a few moments ago when the hon. member for Villeneuve asked his question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened very carefully in French and English, and I am capable of listening in French and in English, to the hon. member for Lapointe. The question asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve was out of order, at least should have been put on the order paper, because the information he expected to get from the minister was not such that a minister could, on the spur of the moment, be expected to give to the house. I did not need to wait for the minister to make up his mind, because the question itself was faulty.


David Réal Caouette: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the minister was just going to rise to answer my question.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Were two veterans by-passed in favour of a non-veteran in appointing a postmaster at Sprucedale, Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member would prefer to put that question on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES TO COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question based on the disturbing information given by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac when he spoke on a question of privilege earlier today. Does the minister not think it is about time the estimates of his department were referred to the standing committee for close examination?


Azellus Denis: It is not the question of the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac that is disturbing to the hon. member. It is the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



LIST OF CONSULTANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. My question relates to a current matter, but it is based on a question of privilege which I raised on November 30 of last year, when the previous

government was in power. My point of privilege was that it did not seem to me to be appropriate that persons who had violated the law should be appointed to certain positions. I referred to defeated candidates who had failed to file their expense returns. The Secretary of State supported my point of privilege and felt that these people, like other citizens, should obey the law.
In view of that fact I wonder if the Secretary of State would call to the attention of his colleague, the Postmaster General, sessional paper No. IB, which the Secretary of State tabled on October 1, 1963, and which lists a number of people who failed to comply with the law by not filing their return. Because a number of these people are on the Postmaster General's list of consultants, would he not suggest they should be excluded from that list?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hearing of the Postmaster General is just as good as mine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why do we get this difference in attitude on the part of the Secretary of State when he is on that side of the house as compared with when he was on this side of the house?



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO CHARGES OF PATRONAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the various charges relating to the unusual patronage in the Post Office Department, will he look into the matter and inform the house whether there is such a policy of Liberal preference over a veteran's preference?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe that question is in order. If the hon. member wishes to make a charge he should make it and not put a question in that form.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On the point you have raised, Mr. Speaker, we have spent a good deal of time on questions of the Postmaster General, and if these charges are well founded surely the Prime Minister could clear it up. If they are unfounded, then he could tell us that there is no such patronage in the Post Office Department.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the extreme urgency and importance of
Inquiries of the Ministry this matter to my constituents and to the whole area, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether he has received a communication from the annual clergy conference of the diocese of Antigonish held at East Bay, Cape Breton, requesting a railway car order for the Eastern Car plant at Trenton, Nova Scotia? If so, will the minister advise the house what action the government will take on this pressing matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not recall receiving any such communication, but I will check and let the hon. member know.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour received an urgent communication from a congress of the clergy of the diocese of Antigonish in reference to the location of a heavy water plant in Cape Breton?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that. I have received a good many communications on this matter, but I am not sure whether this is among them.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Did the statement he made on Friday night with regard to security procedures apply to members of the armed forces as well as to those employed in government departments? If so, can people who have already been the subject of adverse decisions now ask for a review of their cases under the new regulations? I am thinking of the Petersen case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The statement did apply to members of the armed forces, but it is my view that it would be undesirable to make this procedure retroactive. The cases which have been decided under the procedure which applied when the decisions were taken should be regarded as closed. To go back and reopen any particular case would involve, surely, the risk of having to reopen them all, and the situation in this respect might become altogether impossible.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Did not the government actually reopen a case not very long ago concerning a man in the armed forces, the case of Gordon Knott?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right, but I am being asked whether we would make the new procedure retroactive to cover all cases in the past, and I think that would be undesirable.


David Orlikow: May I ask the Prime Minister if the new procedures have been embodied in written regulations or in written form. If so, will they be made available to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They will be embodied in written regulations and in written form. I will be glad to look into the question of whether they could be made available to the house, but I would point out that it would be undesirable to make these regulations at the present time. We are having a debate on the subject, and some good suggestions were made the other night. I do not think we should put these regulations into written form until the debate is concluded.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponfiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
In view of the contradictory reports concerning the future location of the royal mint, could the minister inform the house of the government's intentions in that respect?


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I read an article in Saturday's newspaper which confirmed what everybody knows, that is that the hon. member for Hull looks most actively after the interests of his riding.
However, I must say that no decision has been made concerning the possible relocation of the royal mint and that no new site has been chosen in case it were moved.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the reference made by the minister with respect to the hon. member for Hull, could he tell us if there are grounds for his remarks on this matter?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would you kindly repeat the last part of your question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would like to know whether the remarks made by the hon. member for Hull are founded.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, if the remarks made by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue are meant to find out how I might feel about such a project, I must tell him that I am always favourably inclined towards any project that would benefit the city of Hull.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Can he tell the house if he intends to reach a decision about that matter soon, so that one may know if the mayor of Ottawa has more influence than the hon. member for Hull?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, that decision will have to be taken by the government, and the house will be told about it in due course.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Public Works suggesting that the hon. member for Hull is making irresponsible statements in the press to the effect that the mint would be moved to Hull?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the gross injustice felt by those affected, will the government reconsider its decision not to grant retroactive pay increases to federal civil servants who were on strength after the effective date of such increases but who had retired before they were announced?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: This question has been raised on a number of occasions, and I have nothing further to add on the subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. gentleman and the government reconsider this matter before we reach the point where we have to approve of the government's decision by voting for a certain dollar item in the estimates?



GLASSCO COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the President of the Privy Council a question. In view of the very widespread interest in the matter, would the minister

make a statement this week as to the government's intentions with regard to the recommendations contained in the Glassco commission report?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I could probably be ready to make a statement on this matter very soon, but first I would want to have a word with the leader of the house.


Reid Scott: Can the minister indicate when we can expect this important statement?


Maurice Lamontagne: I may give an answer to the hon. member tomorrow.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister advise me whether he has received a telegram from the Charlottetown and district labour council regarding the possible closing of the R.C.A.F. station at Summerside, and whether he has been able to give this important body an assurance regarding the matter?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I have received a telegram and I am surprised that this body, or the hon. gentleman, would even think I would think of doing such a thing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps the minister would give us his comments with regard to these suggestions that the R.C.A.F. station at Summerside is to be closed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I shall be glad to tell the hon. member tomorrow.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he recently received a brief entitled "The protection of animals used in scientific research". If so, would the hon. gentleman tell us what action, if any, is contemplated?


Lionel Chevrier: Notwithstanding the urgency of this question and, I must say, the importance which attaches to it, the reply I have to make is that I did receive a copy of this brief. I referred it to my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, because it is her department which would be concerned
Inquiries of the Ministry with taking any initiative in this matter. At that time I explained my position to those who had sent me the brief, and suggested that they direct any further submissions they might have to make to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Arnold Alexander Webster: A supplementary question. Could the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell us what she is doing about this matter?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
In view of the importance of the occasion, the influence of the speaker and the incales-cence of his subject, would the minister provide members of the house, for their illumination, with a copy of his address at the 18th annual meeting of the Saskatchewan river development association on November 1 at Moose Jaw, after delivery?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would put that question on the order paper.



HAINES ROAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, as found on page 3948 of Hansard of October 24 I asked a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or his parliamentary secretary. Unfortunately they were away at the time I asked the question and the acting minister, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, indicated that he would try to give me an answer.
The question had to do with the completion of negotiations between the United States authorities and the Canadian authorities with respect to the maintenance of the Haines cutoff. Can the minister tell me whether those negotiations have yet been completed and, if so, what are the results?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think this question was answered in part last Friday by the Minister of National Defence. Negotiations are still in progress. As my hon. friend knows, a number of bodies are interested because they can see the advantage of keeping the road open and as far as possible we want to have them all participate. We expect to make an announcement shortly.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: The reply of the Minister of National Defence to my question concerned only the Alaska highway, not the Haines cut-off. In the absence of a clearcut answer with respect to these negotiations, can the minister assure the house that only Canadian workmen will be employed on the maintenance of this road?


Arthur Laing: As my hon. friend might have suspected, this is the end to which we are working.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the large potato production in the maritime provinces and the very depressed market price prevailing at the present time, I wonder whether the minister could advise what action his department is taking to provide an export market for potatoes.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a question of some urgency. Perhaps hon. gentlemen do not think markets for potatoes are important, but I do.


Mr. Nowlan:: When did you grow a potato?


Mitchell William Sharp: My officials are in contact with the potato producers and shippers in the maritime provinces and are well aware of the present need for export markets. They are exploring every possible opportunity for sales to traditional as well as new markets, and any prospects will be reported to the trade as soon as they arise.



COMMODITIES TO BE TAKEN FROM RUSSIA IN EXCHANGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Megantic addressed a question to the Minister of Agriculture which properly should have been addressed to me. I should like to answer it now. The question was whether or not Canada received any commodities, apart from cash in connection with the wheat transaction with Russia, and if so, what were those products? The answer is that all the shipments that have been made from Canada to the Soviet union have been paid for in cash. There are no barter arrangements in the agreement.



ALBERTA-COMPLAINTS RESPECTING QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has just been dealing with the marketing of potatoes. Has he had a complaint from the Alberta wheat pool and farm organizations that some of the points in Alberta have not even had a one bushel quota? In answering a question by the Leader of the Opposition last week he said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -that quotas would be increased by two or three bushels in Saskatchewan. Has he had any complaint from the Alberta wheat pool and, if so, is it being investigated?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I personally have not seen the complaint but I shall certainly look up the files and see if it exists. I can assure the hon. member that we are trying to increase quotas as rapidly as possible.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that obviously a group under the leadership of the hon. member for Red Deer would at all costs support the Liberal government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I study all statements of the right hon. gentleman very carefully.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I wonder if the Prime Minister can say if changes in the ministry are imminent?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture for eastern Canada, the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane. Can the minister tell the house whether the government has initiated proceedings, or studies, in order to

give eastern Canada elevators for feed grain? If such were the case, could the minister tell us how far those investigations and studies have progressed?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the Department of Agriculture are constantly reviewing the needs of eastern Canada in matters of feed grain, and whatever measure the government will be taking will be announced by the Minister of Agriculture.



REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF COLD STORAGE SUBVENTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wonder if in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I could direct a question to the Prime Minister. Earlier today I received a reply to a written question indicating that the subsidies under the Cold Storage Act were suspended in July, 1962 because of the austerity program then in effect. Is it the intention of this government to reinstitute those subventions under the Cold Storage Act, especially as they apply to fisheries products?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into the matter. I am sorry the minister is not here, but he is laid up with the flu.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I shouid like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport of which I gave him notice. Does his department intend to pay the costs of refloating the Tritonica wreck which may impede winter navigation on the St. Lawrence?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the notice of the question is somewhat different from what I heard. I take it the hon. member was inquiring about the removal of the Tritonica, not who would pay the cost. Responsibility for removal lies with the owner, managing owner, master or person in charge of the vessel at the time of the wreck. The owners and their agents and also the owners of the Roonagh Head were notified by letter of July 25 that the wreck was considered a menace to navigation and must be removed. In their reply of July 29 the owners of the Tritonica advised that tenders for the removal were due on August 3.
Inquiries of the Ministry
No contract has been awarded to date due to disagreement on the extent of the removal to be undertaken. The Department of Transport requests that the vessel be completely removed, and so far the owner has not signified acceptance of this. If the owner fails to complete arrangements for removal as required by the department within a reasonable time, the federal government will call tenders and see that the work is done.
An attempt is being made to have the removal take place at the earliest possible date. However, in view of some questions asked the other day on this point perhaps I should add that it is probable that the removal cannot be undertaken until spring, due to the lateness of the season and the prevalence of heavy fields of floating ice during the winter months.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the Canadian delegation abstain on the vote which was taken at the United Nations requesting Great Britain to stop all shipments of arms to Southern Rhodesia until that country has a representative government? If the Canadian delegation did abstain, did they do so on the instructions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answering my hon. friend I would say that the action taken by the Canadian delegation, which of course was on instructions from the government, was predicated on the fact that the British government is engaged in difficult and complicated negotiations to bring about the dissolution of the federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland by December 31. It has been the policy of the government and of the preceding government not to support proposals advanced at the United Nations which will impede these negotiations.
The Canadian government is concerned that the political future of Southern Rhodesia after the dissolution of the federation should be decided by negotiation and agreement between the African and the white population. The government is aware of the fact that the British government is exerting its influence in that direction. The Canadian delegation abstained on the resolution in question which passed in the committee on October 18. The resolution criticized the United Kingdom and urged the imposition of a solution in Southern Rhodesia.

Inquiries of the Ministry
This is a complicated matter. The course taken by the Canadian delegation was a responsible one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Is the minister implying that all other governments which voted for the resolution took an irresponsible attitude?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend knows that my reply obviously does not reflect on the action taken by any government. But my hon. friend may be sure that the Canadian government, after assessment of its commonwealth position and in its anxiety to see all groups treated alike, believes that this is the responsible attitude to take at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in no way disagreeing with the hon. gentleman's final statement may I ask, so the record will be complete, that he place before the house the names of the nations which were the sponsors of the resolution in question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to do that.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he is now in a position to inform the house of the results of the investigation by the commissioner of penitentiaries into the attack by guards on an inmate of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary days after a riot took place, such investigation having been most strongly recommended by a judge of the Quebec courts.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I came into the house during the last week with a statement covering that matter. It is a lengthy statement, and it would be much too long for me to read. However, if I have the permission of the house I can bring it in tomorrow and, with unanimous consent, table it. It is an answer to the statements which were made before the courts in Montreal. I take it my hon. friend is referring to the Gunn case?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes. It will be brought in tomorrow and filed?


Lionel Chevrier: If there is unanimous consent I will have it ready for tabling tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, on October 23, as recorded on page 3922 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence in relation to the discontinuance of the commuter allowance at the Point Edward naval base. Is the minister in a position today to confirm this, or are these employees in fact receiving a cut in wages by this government.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associaie Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that as of November 1 the commuting allowance will be discontinued at the Point Edward naval base in order to keep our practices in accord with those prevailing in industry. So far as any cut in wages is concerned, of course, this is not a question of wages. I understand that the Department of Labour revises the wage rates in these bases periodically.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee of supply.



ABANDONMENT OF DEFENCE PROJECTS AND INSTALLATIONS

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate today because of a situation prevailing in Canada that has engaged the attention of everybody and needs to be examined here in this house of parliament. I hope to open up discussion of a subject which will create a lively interest amongst all members of this chamber.
We have, as Canadians with some national pride, been disturbed about Canada's prestige abroad. It has reached an all-time low. When we read in foreign newspapers that the present government is a rudderless mess, we think it is time that parliament had a look at the situation. It is a regrettable circumstance indeed when people abroad are looking at Canada, finding fault with Canada and expressing their opinion in the printed word that the government of this country is unsuitable to carry on the work that we expect the government of Canada to do. It is a very serious matter indeed.
The prestige of the government at home is another matter of very serious concern. There is no question about the widespread discontent across Canada with regard to this

government. Almost every newspaper in Canada now is making comment which is far from complimentary to the government. I do not intend to read these newspaper comments, not even the one which was in the Toronto Star on Saturday last; but when a paper as close to the Liberal party as the Toronto Star has to take action of that sort, then every Canadian must re-examine the position of this government.
Let us not overlook the fact that only a few days ago one of the most serious charges I have ever heard in my time in this chamber was levelled against people on the treasury benches, to the extent that one of the senior members of the house, the hon. member for Kootenay West, said that when we can no longer respect the word of a member of the cabinet democracy in this country is on the down grade. This is indeed a very serious matter, and we have heard question after question put in this house to which evasive answers have been given, and to which a few misleading answers have been given.
Members of the house have been rising on questions of privilege to draw attention to these misleading statements. Only today we listened to a question of privilege respecting a misleading statement by the Postmaster General, disclosing an attitude toward the veterans of this country which does not redound to the credit of the government.
When one enters upon a subject such as this it is rather difficult to select a specific area on which to dwell, because the areas of indecision, hesitation and spinelessness are so many. Which department should one deal with? Is it the Department of Finance? Could anybody stand another rehearsal of the ineptitude and mistakes of that department? What about the Department of National Health and Welfare? Do we want to have a look at that? The department of the Postmaster General is gradually disclosing itself as one of the least well administered departments of the government, and the Department of Agriculture is being served by a minister in absentia, so it is very difficult to get any conclusive answers with regard to the problems that confront agriculture.
The Department of National Defence looks like a suitable area to which to draw a little attention, the department whose motto now reads "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow". This is the department from which we were to get decisions, but six months have gone by, 190 days-that is three times 60 days plus 10-full of indecision and inability to cope with the problems, and the hopes of the people of Canada have been frustrated.
Abandonment of Defence Projects
Back in March the Prime Minister wrote a letter to Canadian servicemen to bring them up to date prior to the election. I quote from the Winnipeg Tribune of March 26 what he said in his letter:
Efficient and stable government at home is a first requirement.
I think it is. This is what we want, but it is not what we have been getting. He also said:
We must regain it to rebuild confidence to bring about sound administration of the nation's business, to end deficits and promote steady economic expansion with full employment.
Then he went on to say:
The Liberal party will take decisive action to meet these goals. It has no illusion that the task will be easy.
It has fewer illusions now.
It means hard work for all of us.
Are these the men who were going to do the hard work and make the decisions? Then he ends by saying:
The time has come for action and decision with a new Liberal government.
Now 190 days have gone by, and where is the action and the decision? Well, the Prime Minister made some impression on some people in the country, and the Ottawa Citizen on March 27 dealt with this on the question of defence:
There is not the slightest doubt now about how a new Liberal government will proceed on the tangled and emotionally charged question of defence. As soon as parliament meets-and that will be on May 16-a Pearson government "will act vigorously, decisively and responsibly" to end the defence muddle.
Then it went on to say:
It will refer the long range question of Canada's defence role to an all party defence committee of the Commons.
Those were bold words forecasting decisive action, but 190 days have gone by and the decisive action by the minister of defence and his department has been the scuttling of the Royal Canadian Navy.
What other decisions have we had in this 190 days? Let me give some examples of what has been going on. Going back to July 2 there was a report in the Winnipeg Tribune headed "Ottawa won't wait for defence views."
Defence minister Paul Hellyer said today the government intends to make a decision on the navy's $300 million shipbuilding program without awaiting the views of the Commons defence committee. He said the review of the eight ship program would be carried on and the decision would be made within a few weeks.
We had been led to believe that we would be able to play some part in helping the government make the decisions, but on July

Abandonment of Defence Projects 3 the hon. member for Victoria, who I am sure will want to participate in this debate, was reported in the Montreal Gazette as follows:
David Groos (L-Victoria) said yesterday in the Commons defence committee that the government seems to be making decisions on equipment procurement programs before deciding what defence policy will be.
Further on the article said this:
Mr. Lloyd (L-Halifax) said the committee apparently would not have a chance to look at the program before the government decided to cancel or go ahead with it.
I hope that hon. member will give us his views in this debate. We were led to believe the defence committee would be permitted to assist the government by discussing in advance questions of policy, and getting statements from the minister with regard to his proposed policy, so the committee would have the opportunity of making recommendations to him. But on July 5, somewhat disturbed by some of the things that were going on, the hon. member for Edmonton West asked the Minister of National Defence this question with regard to the frigate program, as recorded at page 1868 of Hansard for that date:
Will the decision of the government await also the recommendation of the defence committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have no control over the defence committee. I have no idea how long their deliberations will take, nor when they will be in a position to advise the government. I do have, under our constitution, the responsibility for making a recommendation to the government, and I will do that at the proper time.
I then asked him:
Will the Minister of National Defence refer this problem to the special committee on defence for their recommendation?
And the minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker-
It makes it a bit awkward for a committee on defence to advise a government under circumstances such as those. However, calling back to my mind the statements of the Prime Minister early in the session that this committee was to review defence policy and make recommendations to the minister, I persisted in my questioning, and on October 1 I asked the minister of defence would he refer to the special committee on defence certain proposed changes in defence policy which he had referred to in a speech outside this chamber.
He was very evasive and said:
Mr. Speaker, no doubt the committee will wish to consider all these problems and I will be most happy if it does so.
I was not satisfied with that answer and asked him again:

May I ask the minister again, will the committee have an opportunity before he makes his decision to inquire into and give him advice with regard to proposed changes in policy?
His reply was:
I am not a member of the committee, Mr. Speaker. I cannot really control how fast it acts. If it acts with dispatch I have no doubt it will be able to consider some of these problems before the decision is made. If it is tardy in its deliberations it may not be able to do so.
We are not told when the minister is going to make these statements or disclose them in advance to the press. He is not putting before the defence committee the subject matter that we should like to discuss with him. But what is one to do about it. I have pressed him on a number of matters. On October 22, page 3857 of Hansard, I asked him:
-is it the intention of the government to purchase United States armoured personnel carriers rather than the Canadian produced type?
The Minister of National Defence answered:
Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken in this matter yet. When it is it will be announced in the usual way.
I submit the announcement "in the usual way" is to leak information to the press. We read about it in the press, and do not hear about these matters in the House of Commons. I made the mistake the other day of thanking the minister for announcing in the House of Commons the proposed reduction of the frigate program, because I found it was all in the press several days before. This is an affront to parliament. Away back on July 6 the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) warned that the elimination of the frigate program would be a disastrous blow to employment in Canadian shipyards. This is reported in the Montreal Gazette of that date. Both the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and myself asked the minister whether he would refer the matter to the defence committee for its recommendation or await such a recommendation. The minister declined. He said that the views of the defence committee would, however, be taken into consideration along with representations from other sources. But this is after the fact, after he has taken his action, and not before. Every newspaper I have picked up recently has some story about national defence, some story based on statements which the minister has made outside the house or some statement from informed sources and so we have to watch very closely to see what he is doing. We cannot depend on him to inform the house or pass the word on to the committee. Away back on September 4, according to the Winnipeg Tribune, which quoted a Canadian Press dispatch, the minister indicated that he would cancel the

frigate construction program initiated by the former government. On September 17 the Quebec Chronicle took a look at the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin), and I think he should be given more prominence instead of being in the shadow of the Minister of National Defence. When the associate minister took office back in April he stated that his position was co-ordinated with that of the Minister of National Defence on an equal basis, that he should not be kept in the shadows. The Quebec Chronicle of September 17, under heading:	"Government
dodging clear stand on naval building issue", had this to say:
One would have thought that the cue given by Mr. Lowery-
-who was speaking at the meeting which was attended by the associate defence minister-
-the associate defence minister would have had an excellent opportunity to say something ex cathedra on the subject. He is presumably not a little cog in the government machinery, but a real big wheel. As associate minister he is obviously intimately aware of government policy on the subject-if, in fact, there is any policy.
Did Mr. Cardin rise to the occasion and make a clear statement? Not at all. Mr. Cardin waffled. He gave his listeners a history of the Qu'Appelle-
-and he failed to give any indication as to what his program was. I think the Minister of National Defence should permit the associate minister to leak some of this information out to the press from his office, as is obviously happening.
On October 1 the Winnipeg Tribune quotes Southam news service as follows:
Defence minister Paul Hellyer practically admitted Monday that the R.C.A.F. decision, now reversed, to use Penhold as a jet training base was made without all the facts in hand.
I am not going to deal with that particular area of decision and indecision, advance and retreat; I will leave that to others to discuss.
On October 12 the Ottawa Journal carried the heading: "Mr. Hellyer whittles". He is sitting in a corner somewhere, whittling away with a jackknife. This article says:
The R.C.N. sees old veterans of the destroyer fleet going into retirement with no decision made on whether there will be new all-purpose frigates or a clutch of submarines to keep the navy up to date in years to come. There is uncertainty about the future of the Bobcat armoured personnel carrier for the army now under development. The R.C.A.F. is concerned that only 25 per cent of its budget is available to buy equipment which is more complex and more expensive.
Mr. Hellyer has a responsibility to eliminate useless expenditures but he also has a duty to maintain efficient defence services for the protection of Canada and to keep faith with our allies.
And so it goes-decisions announced by way of the press, and failure to let us have a go at these things in the committee which
Abandonment of Defence Projects was set up for that specific purpose, in accordance with the instructions that this house received from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
On October 9 the Ottawa Citizen reports the following, and the question here was with regard to the naval program. I had asked him a question and the newspaper reports this. The defence minister said:
I hope to reach a decision very soon-
I had asked whether the minister wanted a recommendation from the committee, and the minister said he did not think this would be necessary, although of course the committee had the right to do so. Well, Mr. Speaker, what can you do with a minister like this, who is advancing a program piecemeal through the press and not through parliament, or with the assistance of the defence committee?
On October 16 the Winnipeg Tribune quoted a Canadian Press report as follows:
The government plans to switch half the R.C.A.F. strike force to low level jet bombers in Europe to a non-nuclear role, informed sources say.
When I asked the Minister of National Defence whether something like that might be done he brushed me aside. Away back on May 30 I said the CF-104 Starfighter might be modified. I asked him whether he was aware that the Starfighter aeroplane with appropriate modifications could use a conventional bomb instead of a nuclear weapon and he gave me a profound answer from high Olympus. He started oft by saying that I knew nothing about it, but that is the normal answer I get from the minister. Then he said, as reported at page 486 of Hansard:
It is not a good all-purpose, general weapons platform, and the particular configuration purchased by this government was designed in such a way that it is virtually useless for anything except the role that was undertaken by the previous government; and the modifications which could make it useful for some other purpose are so considerable, and the effectiveness that it would have under those circumstances would be so low, that no military adviser would ever recommend it to any government, I can assure you.
Now an informed source says that the government is planning to switch out of low level jet bombers to a non-nuclear role, which means that it will have to be modified in order to carry a non-nuclear weapon. We have seen, and are seeing, massive confusion in the Department of National Defence, and along with the other departments I have mentioned this department is creating confusion in the minds of the public and is contributing to the lowered prestige of the present government. Three times 60 days for decision, with 10 days extra, and the government have created the impression in the minds of the people abroad and in the minds

Abandonment of Defence Projects of the people at home that they are the most ineffective government which Canada has seen since confederation.
The most recent announcement made by the minister with regard to the frigate program constituted a shattering blow to the senior service in Canada, a service which has a remarkable record both in war and in peace. Yet this shattering blow was dealt to the Royal Canadian Navy without any suggestion of an alternative being put forward so that the service could keep going. Now we find all the men in the Royal Canadian Navy considering, and rightly, that this government is washing its hands of the service and intends to scuttle it. Everyone in the navy knows that the present ships are rapidly becoming obsolete and that new ones need to be provided. I expect most members of this house know that a shipbuilding program cannot be completed in one year or in two years-it has to be a continuous process lasting over a number of years and a start has to be made immediately, before present vessels go out of service. The pride of Canada, the Canadian navy, has been shattered by the Minister of National Defence, working in accordance with the plans of the Prime Minister and the government to reduce the effectiveness of our armed forces.
The effect of the blow which is being struck at the morale of the navy will be hard to calculate. As anyone who has had experience of the services knows, morale is a factor of the highest importance. If morale is high, people can sometimes manage with equipment which is not the best; but if morale is damaged the whole organization suffers. I think it was a terrible thing for the minister, acting of course with the approval of the Prime Minister, to announce in the house the cancellation of the program the other day without having consulted the defence committee, without even asking the committee for its advice. A preliminary statement appeared in the press and then an announcement was made in the house in order to satisfy our demands with regard to the authority of parliament. We spend all these hours in the defence committee discussing these very matters, and then we find our feet cut right out from under us. What a waste of time it is. We are discussing whether to put our money into one thing, or into another, and here the minister has decided: "This is it." We might as well disband the committee. When I asked the hon. gentleman if he wanted advice on the frigate program, he said it was not necessary.
What does this committee sit for? This is certainly a derogation of the functions of parliament-a refusal to let us determine some


of these issues. Yet that was the purpose for which the committee was set up. Statement after statement was made by the Prime Minister to the effect that the committee was to assist in the solution of this great problem facing Canada, namely what our defence policy should be. We want to assist. We have been attending meeting after meeting. Yet our assistance has been refused by the Minister of National Defence.
I do not intend to discuss the work of the committee in any detail, but if it has served no other purpose it has, in the course of its deliberations, learned the truth with regard to the Arrow program, and this has more than repaid us for all the hours we have spent in that committee. Now we have it clearly set out that in 1957 the government of that day was prepared and determined to cancel the Arrow program, but they deferred taking action because there was an election.


John George Diefenbaker: Falsified the position
completely.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When we tried to find some method of dealing with this problem we were accused of having sabotaged the defence program, of having destroyed the Royal Canadian Air Force and of having ruined the air industry in Canada. Now we know the facts. Now we have the statement by General Foulkes detailing the advice which was given to the former administration in 1957, and the fact that they deferred taking a decision to cancel the program because there was an election coming up and they did not want the people to have the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman let me ask him a question? Has he just told us that a decision had been made in 1957 to cancel the Arrow program but that it took his government until February, 1959, to carry out a decision which had already been made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We did not look back at the secret conclusions of the cabinet. When we took office in 1957, the prime minister said we would not look back at the conclusions of the earlier administration but follow the well established practice of parliamentary government, by putting aside those conclusions. My right hon. friend said we would make our own decisions and go ahead. But the situation has changed. There has been a great search, in 1963, of the secret deliberations and conclusions of the cabinet of the previous six years in order to find something which has never been found and which cannot be located. How many hours of searching was done by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) or by Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) in an effort to produce the document they hoped to find within those secret records?

One way to destroy the effectiveness of parliament is for an incoming government to act in that way toward an outgoing government. To do so is to break with a tradition established over generations and, regretfully, we have to deplore this action by the present government. Whether or not the government in the early part of 1957 had arrived at a written cabinet conclusion with regard to the cancellation of the Arrow program I do not know, because none of us ever examined those conclusions. However, we have the authority of the chief of staff for saying that this was the advice which was given. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite failed to take action because of the fear of an election. So they saddled the Canadian people with these tremendous expenditures, knowing all the time that the cost of these airplanes had jumped from $2 million to $8 million per copy, and knowing also that the requirement had dropped from 400 planes to 100 planes. They had that knowledge, but they did not want to take action; they did not want to tell the people the truth. They saddled us with the problem and then, throughout 1957 and 1958 they condemned us in the harshest terms for our bold and decisive action with regard to the Arrow program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: After 18 months.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish I had time to remind the house of some of the words the Minister of National Defence used in those debates- how he condemned that great gentleman who was then the minister of national defence, Mr. George Pearkes, for his actions on that occasion. It is a shocking record which, eventually, we may have to bring forward to show just what the attitude of the present Minister of National Defence was when he was in opposition, and when he was so irresponsible.
I said I hoped the subject I was introducing would develop a lively interest, and I am sure there are members on the other side who would like to take part in this debate. I do not wish to deprive them of the opportunity. In any case, there are many on this side who will have additional information to lay before the house, so I will conclude by moving, seconded by my hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets the widespread confusion, unrest and damage caused by the government's piecemeal pronouncements concerning abandonment of defence projects such as, in particular,
(1)	the cancellation of the general purpose frigate program,
(2)	the cancellation of the conversion of R.C.A.F. station Penhold for jet training, and
(3)	the contemplated abandonment of other defence establishments, and deplores that such steps
Abandonment of Defence Projects have been and are being taken without seeking the views of or awaiting recommendations from the special committee on defence."


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, until a few moments ago it was impossible for all hon. members to know what grievance was being raised by the official opposition on this supply motion. As you will understand, sir, it is therefore impossible for us at this time to comment on the subject by the use of direct quotations from newspapers or from the evidence presented thus far to the special committee on defence. However, it does not make a great deal of difference to us that we are not able to do so.
In my opening remarks on behalf of this group may I say I regret very much that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), in presenting something which I would have supposed would have been based on principle, made use of so many "I's". There were so many "I's" that I started to wonder whether he was and is the only member of the defence committee of the House of Commons. He has also seen fit, for reasons best known to himself, to convey what may or may not be the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence which has been presented to the House of Commons committee on defence. However, I do want to say that I agree in part with the hon. member, who has introduced a want of confidence amendment to a supply motion.
It has been my privilege to be a member of two defence committees of the house in the past 10 years. The first one was a special committee on defence that dealt wholly and solely with the estimates of the department which had been referred to the committee by the house. At that time the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) was an opposition member. I can remember questions being asked of the then minister of national defence, Major General Pearkes, and the military authorities day after day in our meetings and we could not get any answers. This question was a matter of policy; that question was a matter of security. I still have a vivid memory of the man who is now Minister of National Defence being aroused and irked that the committee could not get the information it desired.
Today we have another committee of the House of Commons on defence which was set up, not to deal with the estimates but with policy, a committee which was given a great build-up by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence. I find there is no difference in the situation between trying to get information from the present Minister of National Defence and the situation when the present minister
4098	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Abandonment of Defence Projects was a member of the opposition and he and I were trying to get information on the estimates. It is very strange what happens to members when they cross the floor from one side of the house to the other.
The present special committee of the house was given very great responsibilities. There has been a great deal of criticism of the committee in the press both in reports and editorials, but I do not think the members of that committee should be too concerned about that, as long as they try to do the job for which they were appointed. We have not been allowed to do the job for which we were appointed because over the weeks it has been made clear to us that the Minister of National Defence, in view of his responsibilities in that position and as a member of the government, would make his own decisions. Therefore the committee was basically a window dressing show behind the curtains of which the government would do whatever it jolly well pleased.
This has disturbed a great number of the members of that committee because, first of all, we read in the newspapers leakages as to probable or possible policy and then at the very time we are receiving evidence on certain phases of defence policy an announcement is made by the government as to what the policy is, without the government even having the decency or courtesy to say a word to the special committee on defence.
A few moments ago I criticized the previous speaker for using "I" so much, but may I say that on three occasions in the defence committee meetings I suggested we should give consideration to whether or not the committee should be disbanded, because we were just being used as window dressing or camouflage while the government was proceeding to reach its own decisions as to what it was going to do, anyway.
Irrespective of that, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a major job which can be done by the committee, and that is the laying down of a defence policy over the years and giving some indication of our views in that regard on the basis of the evidence we have had from some very excellent witnesses. It is only because I think we still have a job to do in analysing the past and the present and trying to lay down an over-all picture for the years ahead that I am still prepared to remain a member of the committee.
But I do want to point this out and I do so by way of a challenge, if you like, to the previous speaker because, I did not think he was fair. I believe he spoke from the point of view of Conservative opposition bias, and not as a member of parliament and of the committee of the house which is making an analysis in the interests of Canada to find out

what our defence policy should be. There are times, sir, when you must recognize that partisanship is not the right attitude to adopt. Admittedly, it was a serious thing when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) told this House of Commons that the government had reached a decision to eliminate the expenditure of $425 million on the general frigate program. Of course, sir, this announcement hit our shipyards very hard. It hits hard at thousands of our workers in the shipyards.
But, sir, if the members of this House of Commons are motivated by sincerity and honesty, then they must act on the basis of principle. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if you accept the statement made by the viceadmiral who appeared before the defence committee, all the evidence tended to show that the general frigate program would not aid the defence of Canada, would not improve our contribution to NATO or any other alliance and was a useless expenditure of the taxpayers' money. Therefore, anyone who guides himself by principle and not partisanship, by being constructive and not obstructionist, can only agree from the evidence which we have received in our defence committee, that in this respect the government made the right decision. They made it with understanding of the need for maintaining our shipyard industry. It was for this reason they immediately introduced a $110 million program for ship construction for peaceful purposes. I hope the government will also give consideration to our proposal for maintaining our shipyards on a full time basis by rectifying a mistake they made in the past and starting a Canadian merchant marine for use in peacetime and, if it is required, God help us, in time of war.
Our experience on this defence committee has been to some extent most frustrating, but also most interesting. We have heard from such men as Major General Simonds, General Foulkes, the former chief of staff or chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. These men have given us an indication, from their experience and their knowledge, of the part they think Canada could, should or might play with a comprehensive, understandable and reasonable defence policy. They have pointed out in the clearest possible terms that Canada has no part to play as a nuclear power. Both of these men have pointed out emphatically that Canada has nothing to gain, nothing to offer either tactically or strategically, with nuclear weapons. These two men, with their most remarkable experience, say that Canada has an entirely different role to play. Both Major General Simonds and General Foulkes, if you will read the evidence they gave before the committee, say that Canada has spent millions

of dollars uselessly on defence which is no defence; that over the years we have lost any idea of defence policy because of the personalities, suspicions, ambitions and jealousies between the three services.
As a result of their experience, both of these gentlemen say that we need a unified command. Will you note this, though, Mr. Speaker? Both of them say you are never going to get a defence policy in Canada that means anything, you are never going to get efficiency in the service, you are never going to get value for your expense dollar until the government has the courage to lay down defence policy and make the brass adhere to it, or get out. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been frustrated in this committee. Yes, we have been heartbroken in this committee. As committee members, we get most of our information from things that have been leaked to the press or from statements the minister makes to the house, without ever having had the courtesy to meet the defence committee and talk them over.
However, Mr. Speaker, despite the frustration and the set-backs, I still think that the evidence we have received thus far, and what we hope to receive in the future of a constructive nature, will make this defence committee pay off, if we are allowed to recommend an over-all policy for the future. I believe, sir, it could be done. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that all members of this house will read the evidence presented to this committee. There are only 24 members of the committee. Perhaps all hon. members can help Canada arrive at a defence policy that, for the first time, means defence; a defence policy that represents a dollar's value for a dollar spent. Perhaps those who become emotional or hysterical about some of these matters should know the words of Major General Simonds, the words of General Foulkes concerning the role they believe, as a result of their experience, Canada should play in the maintenance of peace.
I may say that I do not believe I have missed one meeting of this committee. I feel very proud, and do you know why? Those who are professional soldiers have given evidence indicating that we in this group, who are not professional soldiers, were right and have always been right in our policies for Canada in connection with defence. We have recommended a unified force in being and on call for the United Nations. This should be a highly mobile force. I regret that the mover of this motion had to resort to an attitude of partisan opposition and obstructionism as a basis for his motion instead of considering the best defence policy for Canada. I believe our committee still has a job to do and, given an opportunity, we will do it.
28902-5-262
Abandonment of Defence Projects [Translation]


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, I should like to begin my remarks by reminding the hon. members of this house that the committee was set up to examine and deal with the defence of Canada, something which our movement had been advocating for two years.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the work the committee has done so far and the evidence given are enough to prove that we were right in making our proposal. I am convinced that when the committee submits its reports, which we hope will be before Christmas, it will then bring before the house, the government and the Canadian people the essence of what must be the future defence policy of our country.
I listened with attention to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) violently attacking the government's present defence policy and especially its recent abandonment of the previous government's project of building frigates to strengthen the Canadian navy.
I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has seen in that step taken by the government some sort of revenge for the abandonment by the Conservatives of the Arrow project in 1957-58. The only difference in those two cases is that vast sums of money were already invested in the Arrow project while we are told that $500,000 have been spent for the frigates.
In the light of all the evidence presented since the beginning of the committee sittings, it is obvious, I think, that the frigate construction program was absolutely useless, because they would be of no use for the purpose for which they were intended.
I am glad that the government decided not to provide more public funds for a project which is definitely doomed to fail.
On the other hand, if the government was ready to spend the sum of approximately $500 million on that single frigate item the cancelling of which our group fully supports -we should like to see that amount spent in another sector, more economically sound for Canada, and in my opinion, in the maritime field, there is only one profitable sector for the Canadian economy, and it is the setting up of a merchant navy so that we might ship our products to the markets abroad without using the ships of other countries, as we are doing at the present time to move the wheat we have sold.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in this attack of the official opposition against this government's policy, there are certain points

Abandonment of Defence Projects which may be well-founded, in that the minister makes decisions without letting us know about them.
I admit that the minister has to make decisions. He certainly cannot wait until the committee has submitted its report to decide on the day to day administration of his department. But the members of the committee would like to be told of those decisions so that they may discuss them at their meetings.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that the proposed amendment is related, among other things, to the conversion, let us say, of the Penhold base, and I feel that is precisely a matter that should be the subject of a special study by the members of the committee on national defence.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that since the committee began to meet, the members' attendance record has been remarkable, as well as their interest in the proceedings. I think that all those who attended the meetings have noted that.
In my own opinion, the information which has been conveyed to us has proved most useful. Officials of the various branches of the Department of National Defence stated their problems and made their requests. Were we to grant all the requests made by the representatives of the three branches of the services, the whole budget would be used up.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members that although they are aware of the requirements of the armed forces of the country, the members of the committee know equally well that they simply cannot appropriate the whole national revenue for a defence system against a hypothetical enemy.
On the other hand, we have had the opportunity to hear counterclaims, when retired generals, now released from their oath of office and secrecy, appeared before the committee to state their views and analyse past and present Canadian defence policy and, what is even more important, in my opinion, our policy for the next ten years.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that as responsible and conscientious citizens, we should attach much more importance to future rather than past national defence policy. And even if I am prepared to blame in part the present government, a share of the responsibility should be attributed to the previous government.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the report submitted by the committee on national defence will reflect the policy that the present government intends to follow in the future for the defence of the country. If the policy suggested in this report were not to be followed by the government, or by any succeeding one, then the government in power would
[Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John) .1
be the only one responsible and would have to submit to the people's judgment. As a matter of fact, I am firmly convinced that the press in general and the Canadian people will support the committee report.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that the members of the committee showed a great deal of objectivity, especially in the last meetings.
At the beginning, we feared that there would be constant conflict between the various members but, fortunately, that was only a question of adaptation and we can now inform the house that the sittings of the committee have become truly interesting in view of the sincere questions which are asked-at least, I hope they are sincere-and the impartial and complete replies which are given by the witnesses.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the members of the present cabinet cannot state fully the the policy which will be followed in the future since, in most cases, it has not even been decided upon. That is exactly what we want, because we firmly believe that in addition to the white paper to which the Minister of National Defence refers in particular, the government will have the opportunity to give serious thought to the report which will be submitted and which may well have some bearing on the decisions which will be communicated to the house.
Mr. Speaker, a non-confidence motion has been "moved against the government concerning its national defence policy. When you consider the proposal made by the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), you wonder whom he is criticizing. Is he blaming his party for having introduced the frigate construction program or is he criticizing the present government for abandoning the program? I feel that the situation is rather confused. In view of the incomplete and inconclusive evidence we have at the present time, the least we can say is that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has made a hasty decision anticipating the report which will be submitted by the committee.
Mr. Speaker, we are convinced that the defence of Canada is a most important factor; however, the testimony heard so far has established practically beyond doubt that it is extremely difficult, not to say impossible, to plan any defence system of our shores in case of a nuclear war with guided missiles.
In view of this evidence, we wonder what role Canada could actually assume. I believe it is General Foulkes who told us that he was opposed to a nuclear defence role for Canada, because he felt that it would be absolutely impossible and futile. He thinks that if Canada decided to play a nuclear role, it should be offensive rather than defensive.

Mr. Speaker, that is an idea I had already expressed myself, because I feel that if Canada is unable to counter-attack and must be restricted to a purely defensive action, then we have to admit some weakness on our part. And as we are economically unable to launch an attack and it is useless to think that we could withstand one, I think that we should advocate, for Canada, an army that would hinge on certain bases, that is an extremely mobile army that would enforce law and order in this country and that would also be available to assist United Nations forces.
I think that the United Nations is perhaps the place where Canada can play her greatest part, and that part will be even greater if it is really devoted to peacemaking.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the importance of military matters will decrease in years to come and that the present conflict is to be waged on the economic plane rather than on the battlefield that is precisely the competition of an economic nature which was launched 30 years ago by the communist block and which we are in the process of losing.
I believe that the future will prove it is only in that field we can really effectively fight, for if we have to provide a defence against an attack, would it not be more sensible to eliminate the causes which could justify this prospective attack?
If we refer to the origin of all the wars in history, we realize they always resulted from an economic weakness and also from somebody's wish to subjugate another nation.
I believe that in the present context of war, the will to subjugate another nation has lost some of its attractions. Today, it is especially the question of a higher standard of living which we consider. It is especially on that ground that we should consider our future policy.
In my opinion, when the committee publishes its report, such report shall obtain the support of the whole population, since I am more and more convinced that unanimity is making progress among the members of the house on the part Canada should play, that is the part of a peacemaker devoted to maintaining peace through the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, other members of the house will probably follow me in this debate. I know that the future has certainly surprises in store for us. I know also that it is difficult to foresee in which way military weapons will develop in future. It is as if the government was placing money in quicksand for what it decides to do today, in the light of the available knowledge, may soon become entirely useless. In fact, this item concerning frigates substantiates that fact.
28902-5-262i
Abandonment of Defence Projects
It may well be that the government, which had decided to put forward that frigate program, had first hand information. But unfortunately, I find that the military men who are supposed to have been the government's advisers in the matter are the same who are telling us today that the program is useless and will not serve the intended purpose.
Therefore, I believe we ought to wait for the committee's report so that the government can find out exactly what is the general opinion of the committee, which is made up of members from all parties. As a matter of fact, I even think that the tabling of that document in the house will give everybody an opportunity to take part in a debate which could, in my view, be of benefit to all.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the opportunity which this debate affords me to make a few comments on the non-confidence motion or, if you prefer, the amendment put forward by our Conservative friends. In proposing the amendment, the hon. member said:

max oe deleted and
Mr. Speaker, last year, just about the same non-confidence motion could have been put although against the Conservative government of the day.
As far as defence is concerned, if the government cancels the frigate program or intends to cut down expenditures in the various services of the national defence department I think it is due to certain suggestions made more than a year ago while the Conservatives were in power when we were made aware, for instance, of the Glassco report which clearly pointed out that tremendous and fantastic amounts of money were ill spent for armaments or defence projects which would never be used.
Today, the Conservatives are censuring the policies which they advocated themselves last year, two years ago and even five years ago.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time those reductions are announced, we are told about the setting up of new nuclear bases in various sections of our country and more particularly, as far as we are concerned, in the province of

Abandonment o} Defence Projects Quebec. For instance, there is one nuclear base at Bagotville, another one at Val d'Or, one at North Bay and another one in Labrador.
We do not know exactly what the government means or intends to do when it says that those nuclear bases will cost Canada absolutely nothing but that the Americans will pay for all organization and even operation costs.
As for us, we have taken, in this house as well as outside, a stand against nuclear arms, neither through sentimentalism or parochialism, nor for regional or local reasons only, but rather because we feel that Canada must lead the way to peace instead of putting up with methods that will not fail to bring us inevitably to nuclear war.
Mr. Speaker, when we agree to have nuclear bases in Canada, supposedly because it is one of the steps in the defence program-we will not have offensive weapons, just defensive weapons-is it not true that by creating the defensive nuclear bases announced-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I waited until now to interrupt the hon. member, hoping that he might soon revert to the subject of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), which is very limited in scope and does not allow for a general debate.
I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member that the house already came to a decision as to the general problem of nuclear arms when a vote was taken on the occasion of the debate on the speech from the throne.
For those reasons, I would suggest to the hon. member for Villeneuve that he try to limit his remarks to the amendment proposed by the hon. member and which is already before us.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, with all due respect, I wonder, while the amendment states here, at the end-

-and deplores that such steps have been and are being taken without seeking the views of or awaiting recommendations from the special committee on defence.

Is not the question of nuclear weapons precisely a question of defence dealt with by the defence committee?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It may be noted that I cannot start a debate with the hon. member. Even though the remark he just made is correct, we must stick to the various basic points of the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).
rMr. Caouette.]
There are three points mentioned in the amendment and there is no reference to nuclear weapons.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I shall then stick to these three points. But I still maintain that these three points will unavoidably be replaced by nuclear weapons, in Canada.
At any rate, I will limit myself to the three points mentioned in that amendment, and first the discontinuance of the frigate program, a defence program, when the government has announced, for instance, expenditures of the order of 400 and some odd million dollars. And the other day, the minister said that these outlays were restricted to about 100 million dollars.
We are wondering what is the positive program of the government. And if they do not need those amounts for defence, will they apply those appropriations to help this country get for example a merchant marine, which is not that flourishing at the present time? The shipping of Canadian products abroad could be done with Canadian ships instead of using or allowing foreign ships for that purpose as is now the case. These amounts taken out of arms or war ship production should be affected to the Transport Department or other departments, and not necessarily to the National Defence Department, but to others in order to strengthen the Canadian economy.
In regard to the cancellation of the conversion of the R.C.A.F. station Penhold for jet training, the same thing could apply here, and these sums could be used to set up some peace industries, to create a climate of peace, of confidence and not of distrust as it is the case today.
The third point deals with the abandonment of other defence establishments. Mr. Speaker, we suggest that the government should assume its responsibilities in view of the situation very chaotic indeed, which prevails in Canada.
We might use those sums of money for practical construction programs. We realize that all countries of the world, after having improved their economic conditions following the war or the declaration of war in 1939, improved their economy, not only as far as frigate construction was concerned, but also in production improvement. So when we compare the 1939 production in the United States with the 1943 production in that same country, that is a period of four years, taking for granted that production was 100 per cent in 1939, we realize, according to official statistics, that in four years, the production of electrical steel in the United States increased by 383 per cent, railway cars, 391 per cent-for electric equipment, the increase

was 521 per cent in 1943 as compared to the 1939 production. Aluminum increased by 588 per cent; for machines and equipment, production increased by 630 per cent. For engines, the 1943 production increased to 853 per cent as compared to 1939. The production of airplanes increased from 1939 to 1943 in the United States-we could say the same thing in Canada-by about 1632 per cent, while the production of merchant ships increased by 6918 per cent, and for magnesium, the increase in production was 7100 per cent, as compared to the 1939 production.
That indicates that when there is a war emergency, a national defence emergency, governments, whatever they are, Liberal or Conservative, or Democrat or Republican in the United States, found the required means, funds and credits to make possible those improvements and increases in production amounting to about 500 or 600 per cent in a period as short as four years.
But the war ended in 1945, almost 20 years ago. Since then, the Conservatives and the Liberals have headed the government one after the other, but nothing has changed. We are still looking for a solution to the problem of unemployment in Canada and for means to establish new secondary industries. The situation remains unchanged: we do not have the necessary capital, we do not know where to get the required funds to develop our natural resources in order to help-


Mr. Nugent:: On a point of order, I think the hon. member who has the floor was certainly closer to being in order when he was talking about nuclear arms. Certainly he was a lot more interesting when he was speaking on that subject than he is on this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have already reminded the hon. member that his remarks did not pertain to the matter being discussed and that he should stick to the amendment before the house.
I take the liberty of reminding him of that once again.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the amendment seems to provide that the government should continue spending those sums for national defence, on the recommendations of the special committee on defence.
And now the government decides to curtail those expenses, to reduce the national defence forces and replace those forces by something more constructive.
The hon. member who just finished his remarks, will certainly understand the attitude according to which the government
Abandonment of Defence Projects should not stop spending, but direct its spending to other areas of economic activity, because defence is certainly one of them.
Mr. Speaker, at any event, the amendment submitted to us this afternoon does not mean so much.
The government must be blamed for it. But, when the Conservatives were in power they behaved almost in the same way. Today they are trying to blame the government for things the former government did not do or neglected to do.
Mr. Speaker, I should like now to move an amendment to the amendment. Therefore, I move, seconded by Mr. Gilles Gre-goire:
That all words after "government" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
subserviently agreeing to the storing of nuclear arms on the territory of the state of Quebec, notwithstanding the strong protests voiced by the civic and municipal authorities of Quebec, the national societies and the welfare clubs, the labour and agricultural unions as well as by the Quebec members of parliament belonging to all political parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might give my ruling now on whether the subamendment introduced by the hon. member for Villeneuve is in order or not.
As the hon. member and the house know, the debate now in progress originates in an old parliamentary practice, that is a proposal subject to amendments that the house resolve itself in a committee of supply. In this case, it is a grievance and an amendment. But the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is to the effect that some national defence programs established previously had been cancelled by the government. This is the essence of the amendment.
In my opinion, the subamendment of the hon. member is completely outside the scope of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and contains something new. Consequently, the hon. member's subamendment is inadmissible and I must rule that it is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to explain myself.
First of all, the amendment-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member is entitled to give explanations on the validity or the admissibility of the amendment which the Chair has ruled out of order. The only thing he can do now, is to appeal from the ruling. It is certainly not proper for him to launch a debate on a subamendment which has been ruled out of order.

Abandonment of Defence Projects Mr. Gregoire: Mr. Speaker, I shall not comment on the subamendment but on the amendment which was moved a short while ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will have an opportunity to take part in the debate on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when he is recognized, in a few minutes, I believe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appeal from your ruling. In my opinion, you misconstrued the Conservative amendment itself a while ago by wanting to limit it to the three points mentioned whereas, in the amendment they are used as an example, as indicated by the words "such as". Therefore, if that is a limitation, I appeal from your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon. member for Lapointe has appealed to the house. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.
Som hon. Members: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
The question Is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chair, which is as follows:
To the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre proposed an amendment as follows:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets the widespread confusion, unrest and damage caused by the government's piecemeal pronouncements concerning abandonment of defence projects such as, in particular,
1)	the cancellation of the general purpose frigate program,
2)	the cancellation of the conversion of R.C.A.F. station Penh old for jet training, and
3)	the contemplated abandonment of other defence establishments, and deplores that such steps have been and are being taken without seeking the views of or awaiting recommendations from the special committee on defence.
To this amendment the hon. member for Ville-neuve proposed an amendment:
Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Gilles Gregoire, moved that all the words after "government" be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "subserviently agreeing to the storing of nuclear arms on the territory of the state of Quebec, notwithstanding the strong protests voiced by the IMr. Deputy Speaker.]
civic and municipal authorities of Quebec, the national societies and the welfare clubs, the labour and agricultural unions, as well as by the Quebec members of parliament belonging to all political parties."
The Chair decided that the subamendment was in effect a new question, a new grievance, and also that it was out of order as not being relevant to the grievance raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Thereupon the hon. member for Villeneuve appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the ruling negatived.


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to uphold your decision.


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to uphold your ruling.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against your decision.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to uphold your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The debate bears on the subamendment.
The hon. member for Villeneuve-
Abandonment of Defence Projects Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):	Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member proposed the subamendment, and I must now recognize another hon. member, because he took part in the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I point out it is six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, the subject of defence is a very complicated one and the prime mistake I shall likely make tonight perhaps is to reduce it to too simple terms. I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject, and I think that should be most encouraging to the house, because we have had nothing but confusion from all the experts. I have, however, paid more than a passing interest, as I am sure have most Canadians, to this subject which is of such vital importance to us.
We sometimes lose track of the object of defence, which I think is simply to protect the security and integrity of our country and our way of life, and to maintain our freedom and independence from all other nations. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, when we consider defence policy I would think that no matter what subject or what items under the heading of defence we are considering, we have to measure them by asking whether they add to Canada's defensive armament. Do they give us an extra weapon, or a choice of or share in extra weapons, which will make our country more secure?
In this respect I do not think we can overemphasize the changed position in the world today as compared with the last world conflict in which Canada became engaged. Today it is not a question of whether we have enough fire power to protect ourselves, because having enough fire power is impossible; it is indeed impossible for any nation. There is, Mr. Speaker, too much fire power on our side, and also too much on the other side. The whole world can be wiped out many times over, so obviously any defence policy whereby

Abandonment of Defence Projects we merely try to add a pittance to the total fire power of the western side does not make sense.
Perhaps, then, we should see whether our efforts are going to help to add to the control of that fire power. Do we have a voice which will enable the fire power which exists on the western side to be more effective in our defence? Again, no one on the government side, in fact no one in this house, has ever attempted to suggest that we can pretend, through any alliance we make or any action we take in this house, to gain for ourselves a voice which will be effective enough to increase our defence by giving us a control over the total weapons of the western world. If we are to look at the matter realistically, if we cannot contribute to total defence because there is already too much, and if we cannot share in world control of these nuclear weapons which are already so complete in themselves, then obviously if we are to make any contribution to our friends, our allies and the world at large we must make it in a role where Canada can play an honourable and responsible part, maintaining our voice in its proper perspective, protecting as best we can our right to be heard in world councils, and our right not to be dictated to by anyone, whether they be friend or anybody else.
I will not attempt, Mr. Speaker, to deal tonight with the methods by which we might attain some of these objectives under NATO or United Nations auspices. In the field of defence only, I would suggest that concern with weapons, if we are to have our own voice and control of them, must be confined to those weapons which we can handle, use, hold and control by ourselves. Whether the make-up of our own particular forces differs from that of our allies does not matter. Whether we are merely one unit of ten identical units on the western side should not matter too much. But if we have our own distinctive unit made up of our own contribution, in co-operation proportionately with our allies, it seems to me that this is the most we can hope to contribute to our defence and the defence of the western world.
Therefore I suggest that any proposal that we take nuclear weapons can only complicate the question of control. It can only complicate our relations with our allies and friends, and unless handled with tremendous skill lead to suspicion that we are asking too big a voice, and therefore alienating our friends, or that we are asking too little a voice, and therefore losing our self-respect. Certainly to demand less than our fair share of the voice of the western world is to surrender some of our sovereignty. I note, as I am sure all hon. members noted, the remarks and reassurances of


the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that the arrangements made for acquiring nuclear weapons on Canadian soil have not involved loss of sovereignty. This is very encouraging Mr. Speaker if we can place any reliance on it. However, a little review of this question of nuclear weapons and the difficulties posed by control does little to reassure us on this score.
The Prime Minister has referred in this house to the long arguments and the frustrating attempts to reach agreement in this regard. To put it very simply, that degree of control of nuclear weapons which is consistent with our sovereignty has always been taken as a further expansion of the nuclear club which would unsettle world conditions and really not increase our defence. Any control less than that, any nuclear weapons on our soil over which we did not have full voice, must of necessity involve a loss of sovereignty.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we be reminded that one of the purposes of our defence policy is to protect our sovereignty. For at least four years the previous government wrestled with this problem, but were unable to solve it because it was not capable of solution without loss of sovereignty. I am suggesting that despite the assurances of the Prime Minister, and despite anything that can be said along that line, we cannot accede to the proposition that Canada, in accepting nuclear weapons, has not given up its sovereignty. Common sense rejects it. The experience of the number of years we have spent in trying to arrive at a solution but could not find one is further evidence. France pulled out of her close alliance with the United States on this same subject. I should like to refer to the answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in this house.
It will help us to understand where we are with regard to this nuclear question. I asked the right hon. gentleman whether he was ashamed of acquiring nuclear weapons. His answer was that it was a mistaken policy -that we were in error when we entered upon any agreement to take them. But, he said, having entered upon an agreement it was necessary to take these weapons. In a further question I reminded him that a further agreement was necessary before these weapons were made available; would this not give us a way out? The Prime Minister replied that this was perfectly true, that it had taken the previous government four years to make up its mind whether or not to accept that agreement and that, meanwhile, we had spent a billion dollars on this equipment. That exchange is to be found on page 791 of Hansard for June 7.

Here the Prime Minister himself confesses that Canada's policy with regard to the acquisition of nuclear weapons is wrong. He agreed also that there is an opportunity to get out of this situation, because another agreement is necessary. He further indicates that the only reason for adhering to the policy is because, he says, we had spent a billion dollars on equipment. That is the only reason why we are carrying on with the policy. I am sure it must be an encouraging situation for the citizens of this country to contemplate- that we are carrying on a policy which was wrong when it was made four years ago, despite the fact that there is a way out, particularly when a billion dollars is at stake. I may say immediately that this figure is a gross exaggeration. It is a lot of nonsense. Nevertheless, that is the justification given for our policy. We do not have a definite policy on defence: We have an excuse, the excuse that a billion dollars has been paid for certain equipment.
It might appear that I am being somewhat harsh in my criticism of the government. Perhaps certain hon. gentlemen opposite take umbrage at the suggestion that they are supporting a government that does not even pretend to give this country a defence policy. Let us look at the record of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) to see where he stands. I recall saying in this house that in the committee on defence we would not get any information. I wish now to correct that statement. The committee certainly does not get any information about the defence situation today, but there have been some interesting revelations about what went on in 1956. I am sure those of us who have been here for some time will remember the great indignation of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) every time the Arrow was mentioned. They will remember how he went up into the air as he spoke of the terrible Conservatives dropping that wonderful weapon, the Arrow. And all the time, if he were capable of blushing, he must have been hanging his head in shame every night as he remembered he was the associate minister of defence in a government decision that already made the defence decision to drop the Arrow. They had not made the political decision, but the decision based on defence requirements had been made while he was a member of that government. However, he and his colleagues were facing an election. This is what we know now of the government to which the hon. member belonged. It is not whether Canada gets sound defence that matters; it is the kind of image they can sell to the public, whether justified or not, which 28902-5-263
Abandonment of Defence Projects matters. The politics of defence in 1956 were much more important than the defence of Canada.
In 1963, the acquisition of nuclear arms is in no way involved in the defence of Canada. I am sure we can all see it does nothing in this regard. Moreover, the method by which this government tries to sell nuclear arms on the basis of a commitment is enough to make even the most naive person look at it again and again. Politics, not defence, is what the people of Canada get from this government.
There has been much confusion over what were commitments. For some of this confusion, we were, in part, to blame. We said there were no commitments, while on the other side they said there were, indeed, commitments. Perhaps what we should have said, was: define "commitments". We can all understand what is meant by an agreement to make an agreement. I can agree to buy a house. I can say I will definitely buy a house if we can agree on a price. To this extent, I have a commitment to buy a house. Canada had an agreement to accept nuclear arms if we could agree on a system of control which would not mean giving up our sovereignty. We tried for four years to reach such an agreement, but we failed. Finally, we said it could not be done this way-we must seek another road. Today, according to the Prime Minister, we are following a defence policy to which the previous government committed us in 1959, and we are following that policy, despite the fact that the previous government reached a decision that conditions had changed and that the problem could not be solved until we took a new look at defence problems. The previous government said that in the NATO conference they would reconsider our policies and help work out a new and sensible arrangement in which Canada could play its part. For this, we were condemned.
We could be charitable toward this government if they were to make even a pretence that nuclear arms would benefit the defence of Canada. But not even the Minister of National Defence has had the temerity or the effrontery to suggest this to us. The only excuse we have for the present ridiculous policy or lack of policy is the Prime Minister's statement that there are a billion dollars at stake. Let us consider this statement more closely. How much is involved in the two Bomarc installations? I suggest it is about $15 million. After hearing the Liberal propaganda some people might believe there was a billion dollars right there tied up in the Bomarcs. In fact, it is less than 1 per cent of our present defence budget for one year, and I am sure no member of this house will say that putting aside this $15 million amounts to wasteful extravagance. If we cannot find
4108	HOUSE OF
Abandonment of Defence Projects more than 1 per cent of the budget spent inefficiently in the department itself, then the Glassco report must be wrong.
Only in connection with the Honest John can we make out a case for nuclear warheads. As to the fighter planes, money spent on them is certainly not wasted. If the Prime Minister wants the country to believe he is honest, he had better explain how he arrives at this figure of a billion dollars difference between nuclear and non-nuclear defences. I suggest he can point to nothing which represents a sum anything like a billion dollars. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) talks about confusion and unrest in the country. When we consider how ridiculous and inadequate is Liberal policy on defence matters it is easy to see why there should be a great deal of confusion and unrest in the country, and I trust all hon. members will be honest enough to support the amendment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I say I cannot understand the charge which has been levelled by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, that the special committee on defence is being prevented from doing its work. The Department of National Defence has co-operated in every way to the maximum extent. A precedent has been set by allowing serving officers to appear before the committee. This has not been done before in Canadian history. Similarly there has been no attempt to limit the witnesses who might be called before the committee, and a wide range of witnesses with a wide range of opinions have been called and others will be. I think this is a good idea. There has been no attempt to divert the committee from its task of calling witnesses and getting opinions in respect of all defence matters, including policy and what the future policy should be.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, as minister I gave the committee an opening statement. I have been in attendance six or seven times along with the chiefs of staff, and I have consistently offered to appear before the committee whenever requested to do so. If I have not given more witness than I have, it has been the committee's decision and not mine. Let there be no mistake about that.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) said that I was making decisions without having the courtesy to discuss them with the committee. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those people who believes that the courtesy should be extended for me to go there and discuss them, if that is the wish of the committee, and without complaining afterwards that I have not when the opportunity was not made available. There


was a basic contradiction in the contribution of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre this afternoon. He talked about the strictures on the committee preventing a discussion of policy, if I understood him correctly. Did I understand the hon. gentleman correctly?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not put it that way at all. I dwelt on the failure of the minister to present his policies to the committee for consideration and advice before he made his decisions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understood the hon. gentleman to say, and I shall have to check the record again, that the committee was limited in its discussion, and particularly in the discussion of policy. But then he proceeded to introduce an amendment which was related entirely to hardware and housekeeping, and I found this fact not in accord with the speech he had previously made.
Surely hardware and housekeeping are not the main concern of the committee. They should, of course, use this opportunity which is available to them to acquaint themselves with the hardware and use the opportunity to study the weapons systems that are in modern use; but surely their main interest is in defence policy in the broader sense. Perhaps they have been directing their questions in the wrong way. What are the strategic considerations of future policy? I would have thought the committee would have spent a great deal of their time in trying to determine what western strategy was at the present time, what it would be in the future and whether or not it was realistic in the world in which we live-


An hon. Member:: Or is there any.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Or is there any-and once having determined the answer to those fundamental questions and having satisfied themselves in respect of them, to evolve a policy for the Canadian contribution which would be compatible with the over-all strategy. Once that is done, once the fundamentals have been considered and decided on, then the tasks to be assigned to our armed forces and the hardware necessary to carry out those tasks follow logically from the more basic considerations.
These are the large issues to which the committee could in fact turn its attention, and I think they would be doing the house and the country a great service if they would expend their major effort in determining the strategic considerations of future policy both for the alliance as a whole and for Canada as a member of that alliance.
In the meantime progress cannot stand still. Action must be taken in respect of some

matters. This should not surprise hon. members of the committee, because it was all forecast and carefully set out in my opening statement to the committee on June 27 last. On page 25 of that statement I referred to Canadian defence policy and I said this:
Our contributions at this time are those which have been agreed to in the past. They are as I have set them out for you. It is the policy of the government to make effective those weapons systems which have been acquired as part of the Canadian contribution, including making immediately available nuclear devices required to make our contribution credible. Furthermore, it is the policy of the government to undertake a thorough review of our defence policy and commitments in order to determine the best and most effective contribution we can make to the collective defence of the free world and to the maintenance of peace in the years ahead.
I then went on to say:
In order to facilitate the review, certain action has been taken. All major procurement programs are being reconsidered. In particular, any procurement program which would tend to limit future policy or interfere with the exercise of future options is being carefully reviewed.
That statement is very clear. Even more precise is the next paragraph:
One of these programs is the general purpose frigate program. It is a project involving the expenditure of large sums of money. For this reason all present and likely future options have to be carefully considered before proceeding.
Surely that was a clear indication to the committee that a review of this program would take place and that a decision would be made without too much delay. Later in respect of the air division and our commitment in Europe I had this to say:
We are considerably concerned about the effectiveness of the four squadrons to be located on the two French bases at Marville and Grostenquin. As members of the committee know, the French government has so far not permitted the stockpiling of nuclear weapons for NATO on its territory. In consequence, the weapons for the four squadrons would not be readily at hand, and those aircraft to be maintained on quick reaction alert would have to be deployed to other bases. This raises the further question of vulnerability. In view of these problems, it is considered desirable to review at once the alternatives which may be available now or in the future.
Is it surprising to hon. gentlemen that we are in fact reviewing them as we said we would? Is it surprising that we are doing precisely what was indicated to the committee would have to be done? Further on, Mr. Speaker, I said this:
As soon as a review of existing procurement programs is complete and decisions taken, which I hope will be within a few weeks, the general review of future policy will commence.
As a matter of fact, it has taken more time to reach some of these decisions than I had hoped, but as hon. gentlemen on the
28902-5-263J
Abandonment of Defence Projects other side know as well as we know sometimes in government it takes a few days to do what one might under other circumstances do a little more quickly.


An hon. Member:: We are all in a daze.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are learning.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Surely the indication is very clear. It was indicated to the committee that within a few weeks decisions would be taken on a number of important matters which were hanging fire from the previous government, including major procurement programs and including the follow-up purchase of CF-104 aircraft and the general purpose frigate program. They should not, therefore, be surprised when we do as we said we would do and make the decisions we said we would make. In our general review we have to consider the relationship between our forces and our allies.


Mr. Clancy:: Did you know in February that the French would not allow nuclear arms on their soil?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I knew it three years ago. As a matter of fact, I introduced the problem in the house and drew it to the attention of the government of that day. I was surprised that after three years nothing had been done about it and it was left for me to try to solve.


An hon. Member:: You are a hero.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In order to make our proper assessment of future requirements we have undertaken a number of studies. These include both major and minor studies ranging from the study of the probability of various types of wars to various types of incursion or insurrection which might take place in the world generally, the balance of forces at present existing between east and west and the possible most effective contribution which a country like Canada could make in the years ahead.
A number of additional specific studies have been undertaken and are being undertaken, and we hope that in total they will give us a very broad base of information on which to work toward a comprehensive policy for the future.
I also gave an indication of the timing that I hoped would be achieved and I concluded my remarks in respect of the general review by saying:
It is hoped that notwithstanding the considerable scope and magnitude of our own studies we will be in a position to reach conclusions early in the new year. I am sure that the views of this committee will be most helpful in assisting us to determine the best role for Canada to play in future years.

Abandonment of Defence Projects
Actually, Mr. Speaker, we have stuck to our target dates very well so far. We are making very good progress in the Department of National Defence. We still hope to achieve our goal of having a policy ready for consideration by the government in the new year which could be presented to this parliament before the following year's estimates are being considered. I still hope that the special committee on defence will make recommendations before we have completed our policy study so that we will have the benefit of their views.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said, and I state again, I would welcome a report from the committee stating the consensus of the members of that committee with regard to what the future defence policy of Canada should be. I have been told that the committee hopes to have a report ready in mid December. If this could be achieved, it would be very valuable and be of considerable assistance to the government in discharging its responsibilities. My statement to the defence committee not only set out the problems on which decisions must be made, but also was a rather accurate indicator of the timing in respect of them.
Now, I should like to refer to the specific charges set out in the amendment. The first of these is with regard to the cancellation of the general purpose frigate program. This decision was forecast in a statement to the special committee on defence. It was stated then the cost was considerable; that it was a major project involving a very large proportion of our resources, and for that reason would have to be reviewed very carefully. Particularly, it would have to be reviewed in *the light of the effect it would have on future policy because there has been the charge that [DOT]equipment determined policy, and there has been the suggestion put forward in many quarters that it should be the other way around-that policy should determine the acquisition of equipment.
This was certainly a consideration in the review of this particular project. There were, as I stated in the house the other day, other aspects in respect of the cancellation. These particular ships were multi-purpose, ships designed for a number of different roles; and because they were fairly small ships and so many different capacities were included as part of the design, the effectiveness of each was compromised considerably. One of the major problems, Mr. Speaker, in respect of this decision not to proceed, is the decision of what the future roles of our armed forces will be, and of the navy, which is the proud, senior branch of our armed services.

Our general review is taking a look, first of all, at strategy. Is the strategy of the western world realistic? Does it take into consideration the change which has taken place in the last few years or does it still reflect the circumstances of 1954 and 1955? I think Canada has a considerable influence, if it properly exerts this, in determining what strategy should be. Certainly, we should be aware of the strategical implication because our contribution and our policy must at least have taken them into account; otherwise we are likely to find ourselves in a position where we are either making a contribution which is redundant, or failing to make our most effective contribution towards the peace and stability of the world.
We are doing a special review on naval problems, and particularly in the antisubmarine warfare field. We are going to determine, if we can, the relative effectiveness of different weapons systems in that respect. So far as we can determine, this has not been done effectively by any navy in the western world. There have been studies, and I would not want to give hon. members the impression there have not been. However, a specific cost-effectiveness study of antisubmarine weapons systems to my knowledge is not available. We are going to undertake one in concert with our allies. It will be designed to determine, as best we can, the relative effectiveness of submarines, both conventional and nuclear, of surface ships, both large and small, of ship based aircraft, both fixed wing and helicopters, and of land based planes. It may easily be that in the antisubmarine role a combination of these carriers is the best solution. But we must have a broad band of information, more than we have at present, before deciding just what the proper mix should be. Our goal is to get for our navy the best equipment possible for the tasks and roles that it will be assigned in the years that lie ahead.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the second specific charge was in relation to Penhold. Penhold, as hon. gentlemen know, was chosen as a base for jet training. In order to effect jet training at Penhold, a number of requirements existed. The first of those was extra land; the second was runway extensions; and the third was the use of air space. When the question of air space was considered, it did not check out.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would answer a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be delighted to do so, if I can.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did you not, Mr. Minister, confirm that this would continue to be an air

base in Alberta in accordance with your own plans, and when you ran into difficulty was it not because of a conflict with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith)?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not believe I quite understood the first part of the question, but may I state the facts as I know them and if the hon. member has an additional question he may ask it.
Before our government took office it had been decided to use Penhold as a jet training base. It was in the plan; it was an accepted fact. Later, as information came across my desk, I found that not all of the things that had to be checked out in respect of it had been checked out. One of these things was the use of air space. When we communicated with the Department of Transport, this was confirmed. When their requirements were made known to us, it was obvious that there was not sufficient air space available to properly effect jet training safely at Penhold. With the facts in front of us, we had to make a decision for the safety not only of the people using the air lanes but also for the safety of the people on the ground in that district. There was no other choice open to us.
Now, my hon. friends might say that this could have been caught sooner, if the problem of air space had been checked out earlier, and this is quite true. It was not checked out earlier. It could have been checked out many months before under the regime supported by the hon. gentlemen. The main thing, so far as I am concerned, is that we caught the error before the plans got too far and before vast new amounts of the taxpayers' money had been spent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister answer another question? Did you not confirm, as reported in the newspapers in Alberta, that this was to be a training base?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know what is meant by "confirming". It is possible that earlier on I did state it would be used, because it was planned that way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Was it so?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I don't know, and anyway I think it is irrelevant at this stage.
The third charge relates to the contemplated abandonment of other defence establishments. First of all, this is hypothetical but also, Mr. Speaker, it is quite possible. We are making an effort in the Department of National Defence to effect economies by reducing overhead. The only way this can be done is to implement changes. One suggestion that has been made hundreds of times and in hundreds of places, including many hon.
Abandonment of Defence Projects gentlemen in various parts of this house, is that we have too much overhead, too much tail and not enough fighting teeth in the Department of National Defence; that we should cut the fat and increase effectiveness. However, just as soon as somebody initiates a move in this direction, there is a general outcry. It is impossible to have it both ways. If our job is to provide the maximum fighting effectiveness that we can with the resources available to us, and to get the best use of the taxpayers' dollar in making a contribution to the defence of freedom in the western world, then some changes are absolutely essential. They are not all going to be politically palatable. You just cannot avoid it. You talk about accepting the facts of life, and these are the facts of life. You either want a large establishment and a small operational force, or you want to put more of your resources into the forces and have a smaller overhead. This is a decision that must be made.
If we want to have the maximum defence effectiveness, then economies have to be effected in other directions. This is going to cause some hardship in some cases, and it cannot be avoided. It is clear, however, that if these housekeeping decisions must be referred to in the special committee on defence, it is an abrogation of responsible government.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Would the minister permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. member would wait until I am finished.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister is not prepared to yield the floor.


Donald MacInnis: I fully understand this, Mr. Speaker. We all know he is not capable.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, I am sorry to interrupt the minister but we have an amendment in front of us and an amendment to the amendment. What the minister is discussing right now is the amendment, while we in this part of the house feel he should be dealing with the subamendment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. gentleman would give me about two minutes to refer to a statement by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) I will get right down to the subamendment immediately after that. The hon. member for Lake St. John suggested we should spend some of our defence dollars to build up other parts of the Canadian economy. I would like to state to him my personal philosophy, which is that we have to put forth more effort in all direc-

Abandonment of Defence Projects tions. We have unused resources in Canada. We have men who are unemployed and factory space which is not being used. I would like to see these resources put back to work and our output increased, so that then we can direct some of this additional output in the direction which my hon. friend suggests.
I believe we should do that, rather than make a diversion from one requirement to another.
This is the proper approach when we have these tremendous unused resources. We should see them put back to work effectively and efficiently, increasing output, and then use some proportion of that output to alleviate hardship throughout the world and undertake many of the projects at home and abroad which I am sure all hon. gentlemen would support.
In respect to the subamendment, the question has been raised of the servile imposition of atomic arms on the territory of the "state of Quebec". First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think that the "state of Quebec" is still part of Canada, and one of the propositions which has been put forward, which I think most of us subscribe to, is equal rights and equal responsibilities. Now, it is part of the responsibility of this government to plan as best it can for the defence of Canada, including a contribution to the western alliance.
Part of this commitment, part of the role we have taken on in partnership with the United States, is the air defence of this continent. We are particularly placed in respect to that because, geographically, we cannot separate ourselves from the United States. We are part of the same land mass and we cannot extricate ourselves from our traditional, historical and geographic position associated with our allies and neighbours to the south.
We have accepted responsibilities. They are to our advantage as well as to the advantage of others, and we should never forget that. As I pointed out to the special committee on defence, the United States would have been willing to have placed the two Bomarc squadrons on their territory, but in order to facilitate us and in order to provide some semblance-as it was believed at that time- of protection for the cities of Montreal and Toronto, the stations were moved north into a position further away from the built up areas, in order that interceptions could take place at an earlier time.
This made perfectly good sense from our point of view, and it was a decision which was concurred in by the government of Canada. No one forced it on us, nor was there any servility involved. We made that decision; po one else could make it.


An hon. Member:: General Norstad.
[Mr. Hellyer.l


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hon. gentlemen opposite, when I say "we" I mean we in the broad sense. I mean "you". The decision was made by the government of Canada on behalf of the people of Canada. The people of Canada are proud people, and when they take on a responsibility by decision of their own duly elected government, they feel some pride and responsibility in carrying through with that commitment.
I have stated before, and I believe it strongly that, having led the United States to believe that if they provided the missiles, if they provided the large part of the cost of this weapons system, which is much larger than just the Bomarc stations themselves, and having encouraged them to make such large expenditures as part of their over-all defence program with the obvious thought in mind of making them effective when they were in place, then we had a responsibility as citizens of Canada to carry through with our part of the bargain.
Completely apart from the military effectiveness of the weapons systems themselves, we undertook a solemn obligation, and our neighbours and allies would feel we had let them down and deceived them badly if we did not do what we led them to believe we would do. It is important for us to live up to our word, because our voice is only as loud as our word.
Another point in respect to these weapons systems is that these are defensive weapons systems only. They cannot start a war. They cannot be used for aggressive purposes. There is only one potential use for them, and that would be after a general war had broken out. It is very easy for hon. gentlemen to say that there will be no general war. This is the view which is widely held and we all hope and pray it will be so; but let me just add this one word of caution, that if at the present time, with the present existing weapons stockpiles on both sides of the iron curtain, there were a general war by accident, madness or miscalculation, those weapons systems would save millions of lives.
I do not say this will be true two, three, five or ten years from now. It will depend on the weapons systems available on both sides of the iron curtain; but I am saying that, as of this moment, if there were a war of madness or miscalculation, those weapons would provide very effective and considerable interception of attacking bombers-


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about missiles?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And save a great many lives. The hon. gentleman knows they are not effective against ballistic missiles.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Don't mislead the public.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not misleading the public, but I would like to add a few things for the edification of my hon. friend, that whereas the missiles would, if there was such a war, be used in the initial attack, at this moment the big weapons, the weapons of millions of tons of explosive power, are still carried predominantly by manned bombers. So, the statement I made is mathematically correct.


Mr. Pugh:: Did you put that before the defence committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At any time.


David Vaughan Pugh: Did you put it before the defence committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is mathematically correct. If there were now, and pray heaven it won't happen, a war by miscalculation, these weapons systems would have a beneficial effect in that they would save many lives.


Harold Edward Winch: An absolute lie.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not a lie. The hon. gentleman can forecast into the future any amount he wants, and he may be quite right in respect to the future.


Harold Edward Winch: I am talking about now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Now is what I am talking about.


Harold Edward Winch: Well, take the evidence of your own chiefs of staff.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have, and I am more familiar with my own chiefs of staff than any hon. gentleman opposite.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If you wait a minute or two I will be through.


Donald MacInnis: The minister is trying-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister does not have to yield the floor.


Mr. Greene:: Stupid questions later.


David Vaughan Pugh: Stupid answers now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Because our air defences, even though they are not a major part of the total air defence of North America, are an integral part of a system designed on a continental basis. I believe we have a responsibility, for the time being at least, to carry forward with those weapons systems which we have acquired, and bring them to their maximum usefulness. It is for this reason that agreements have been signed and that the weapons systems will be brought to their maximum useful state as quickly as that can be brought about.
Abandonment of Defence Projects
Under the circumstances I reject in the strongest possible terms any implications of servility; this is not true. We want to make our own decisions, but we also still believe in the sanctity of contracts, and when a duly elected government of the people makes a decision it binds them to an action which is relied on by others. Unless the other party is willing by negotiation to contract out, which in this case I am sure it is not, then I think we are duty bound as honourable people to carry it through and do our part of the bargain. In consequence we must reject this subamendment. It is unfounded and is not in keeping with the spirit of all our peoples from shore to shore.
Finally may I say this. The question of the morale of the armed forces was raised.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister continues, he has finished the subject he has been dealing with just now. Will he allow a question at this point?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman made the statement a moment ago that he was sure that the United States would not be prepared to contract out of the responsibility of Canada's providing nuclear warheads on the Bo-marc-is that what the minister said? Has the government tried to contract out as yet, or how is the minister able to speak with such authority when he says that he is sure the United States would not agree to that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not entirely without perception, Mr. Speaker, and in discussions with respect to defence matters I know the regard had for these weapons systems in high places in the United States of America, the importance they attach to them, and the very significant impact they had on the deterioration of relations between our two countries.
The question of the morale of our armed forces was raised. The armed forces of Canada, like the people of Canada, expect this government to produce a comprehensive long range policy and plan which will enable them to carry out their tasks most effectively in the years which lie ahead. In this respect I am sure they will give their full and complete backing to the proposals which will be brought before this house next year. Morale will be stimulated and encouraged by decisiveness and by effectiveness in the years which lie ahead, and we are going to see that everything possible is done to ensure that our armed forces are given the tools with which to do the job.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I remind hon. gentlemen that we are going to proceed with our studies. We hope that the special committee will do the same.

Abandonment of Defence Projects


John George Diefenbaker: With perception.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With perception and with understanding, and I hope with comprehension as well.


John George Diefenbaker: I do too.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In accordance with our responsibilities we will prepare and bring before this government next year, before the following year's estimates are introduced, a comprehensive policy related to the strategic concepts of the western world. It will enhance Canada's contribution to the freedom of the western world, to the peace of all the world, and which will provide a plan and chart a course which will have the backing and support not only of the armed forces of Canada, but I hope of the special committee on defence as well, and the vast majority of people from coast to coast.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) rising to ask a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the minister did say he would answer. As I understood the position of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), he said that Canada would accept nuclear warheads, and when they got them, negotiate out of them. Is that still the Liberal policy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To the best of my knowledge he said no such thing. He pointed out very specifically that this commitment which had been undertaken on behalf of Canada was an attempt to work out a much more comprehensive and sensible policy for the years which lie beyond.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) rising on a question?


Donald MacInnis: I have a question to ask the minister. When I asked a question earlier the minister made a statement which suggested that the special committee would be dealing with this matter. I think his words were "an abdication of government responsibility". I would ask the minister whether the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made when the committee was about to be set up-


An hon. Member:: What is the question?
Another hon. Member: He does not know.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: May we please have some order and give the hon. member a chance to ask his question.


Donald MacInnis: The Prime Minister, in setting up the special committee on defence, said that it would be for the committee to


deal with all aspects of defence, including policy. How does the minister consider the remark that he has now made as anything but a contradiction of what the Prime Minister previously said?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not hear in what the hon. gentleman said any suggestion that this question of housekeeping would be referred to the committee for decision.


Donald MacInnis: On that very question the minister must be able to answer the point made by the Prime Minister when he referred to all aspects of defence, including policy. This would, I imagine, include the housekeeping aspect. How can he say that his statement tonight is not a contradiction?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It most certainly is not.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I did attempt to ask two questions, and on both occasions the minister said he would reply when he had finished. The minister also said that he is more aware of the opinions of his chiefs of staff than any other hon. member in the house. This was when he was speaking on the issue of the Bomarc. Does that mean that the chiefs of staff have not been accurate in their submissions to the defence committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at all.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I recognize at once the great importance of the question of defence policy as far as this country is concerned. It is something that exercises the minds of a great many Canadians, and in addition to that it is one of the costliest projects that Canadian taxpayers are involved in. At the moment we are confronted with the question of certain decisions which have been made, and others pending, which have a great bearing on what our defence policy is going to be in the future.
It was said during the campaign before the election last April that this is something which a committee of the house should decide. I am one who agrees that the airing of views in public, with a view to making as many Canadians as possible conversant with the various points of -view having to do with defence and the various problems involved, is a useful exercise. But I think the government cannot have it both ways. Last March 26, while speaking in Kingston, the Prime Minister had this to say:
A Liberal government also would set up an all-party Commons defence committee right away to take the defence issue away from partisan politics. The committee's work would be part of a Liberal government review of Canadian defence policy to determine an appropriate role for this country.

Such changes would take considerable time. We now find ourselves in the position where any report which the committee may make may be completely contradictory to the decisions the minister is currently taking.
It is said that the work of this committee will be part of the government's review of defence policy. If it is only a part, it should be consistent with the whole; and this is why I object most strongly to the fact that important decisions on defence policy are being announced before the special committee on defence has had any opportunity to study these specific matters.
It is said that the minister has confined his decisions to housekeeping matters. They are much more than that, because housekeeping matters in national defence must fit into a long term policy. If that long term policy is not yet formulated, the minister's so-called housekeeping decisions cannot be intelligently made. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in that same speech in Kingston on March 26, had this to say-and the fact that time has proved him so obviously wrong in this second statement removes credence from the other one. He said on that occasion: "As soon as parliament meets we will act to bring the muddle and confusion of defence to an end. We will satisfy Canada's defence commitments to our allies." If this is bringing the muddle to an end, I would hate to see the muddle in full steam. In my opinion the Canadian people have hardly ever been more confused about the problems of defence than they are at the present time.
In addition, there is a great deal of apprehension in various parts of the country, because defence decisions have an important bearing on the economy. People are uncertain as to what the future of large defence bases in any particular area may be. My chief concern is that the announcements which have already been made do not bear the earmarks of a policy evolved by defence experts. They bear all the earmarks of pressure by treasury board, I presume, in the process of evolving the estimates of the Department of National Defence for the next fiscal year. They bear all the earmarks of a decree from treasury board instructing the department to cut expenditures at short notice.
I have sympathy for the minister in these circumstances, and I suspect this is the position in which he finds himself. It is true that we should not have a defence policy which envisages spending more money than we can afford. But that is not to say we shall get best value for our defence dollar if we make sudden cut-backs in the program or in any given situation. It was said long ago that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Abandonment of Defence Projects This situation bears the imprint of the personality of certain people who believe that a red pencil is mightier than defence philosophy. I hope the minister will stand up against these demands for a sudden cut in expenditure until a reasoned policy can be evolved and until the special committee on defence has an opportunity to record its findings. I hope he will then act on the basis of those findings and on the basis of the evidence presented to the committee, much of which has been of a high order. The government can make the decisions and be responsible for them. No one suggests that the government has to accept holus-bolus any recommendations which the defence committee may make, but I feel the committee will be able to make recommendations worthy of very careful study by the government, recommendations which will be helpful to the government in evolving a long range policy on defence matters. For this reason I think it is most unfortunate that pressure is now being placed on the Department of National Defence to save money, in an attempt to make the deficits a little smaller in the next fiscal year, before a thorough study can be given to all the effects such sudden cuts may have.
Recommendations have been made to the government already with regard to national defence. They may be considered to be minor in character in some respects-I refer to the recommendations of the royal commission on government organization, the Glassco commission. In this report, this commission made certain recommendations to the government. It recommended the closing down of only one defence establishment, the defence college in Victoria, B.C. As far as I know, no action has been taken to implement this recommendation and I do not know what action, if any, has been taken in connection with the other recommendations of this royal commission. This is one phase of defence housekeeping, as the minister calls it, where a fairly thorough study has already been made. If economies are to be effected I would suggest that the minister confine them at the present time to those suggested in the report of this royal commission.
I wish to turn now for a few moments to a subject which the minister brought up, that of submarines. This relates not only to the navy but, also, to the air force and it raises most important considerations. In our day and age there have been great changes in the concept of submarine warfare and antisubmarine warfare. With the advent of nuclear powered submarines and submarines capable of firing medium range ballistic missiles, a new threat is posed to our security,

Abandonment of Defence Projects defence against which poses a difficult problem. Such submarines are no longer a weapon to be used against shipping alone; they pose a threat against land bases and against our cities, both on the coast and several hundreds of miles inland, depending on how close such submarines may get. Thus there is a great new defence policy required to deal with this extremely difficult problem. There is no defence against these missiles. The only defence possible would be to keep these submarines beyond the range of our coasts. If this is to be done, or attempted, a great new role remains to be filled in antisubmarine work. I would agree with the minister that a thorough examination of this whole problem of defence against submarines is most necessary, but I would most strongly recommend to him that no decision be taken with regard to our present forces in maritime command until the results of such a study become available. I have reason to believe there is a distinct possibility that the maritime command of the R.C.A.F. will be forced to cut its expenditure drastically in the next fiscal year. I would hope that the minister and his colleagues from the maritime provinces and British Columbia would recognize the importance of any decision along this line, and resist any ideas that their colleagues on treasury board might have to cut the expenditures of maritime command back, so that there may be money to spend somewhere else. The role of maritime command in the R.C.A.F. and of the antisubmarine branch of the navy is a most important one and, as I have said already, and I reiterate, I think it is most essential that no drastic action be taken along the lines of changing our ability to cope with the submarine threat until this study is completed.
If I may be more specific and come nearer home, I am naturally very much concerned about the future of the R.C.A.F. base at Sum-merside in my province. I want to turn now for a few moments from the question of the purely defence aspects of this matter and point out to the minister that the most serious consideration should be given to the economic impact of any drastic cut in existing defence establishments, especially those in areas of relatively small population where there are no other industries to cushion the blow if there is a cut-back in such military establishments.
If the R.C.A.F. station at Summerside were to be cut back this would have a profound effect on the economy not only of that area but of the whole province. Although this is only one R.C.A.F. station, I think I am correct in saying that looked at in the rather tiny background, relatively speaking, of the economy of Prince Edward Island it is perhaps

the second most important industry of that province. Its removal or drastic cut-back or even slight cut-back would have a very serious effect on the economy of that area.
I would hope that the minister would use his best arguments, and I think there are many in favour of maintaining that base, to convince his colleagues that to cut back this station would be a serious mistake not only from a defence point of view, but because it would have a very detrimental effect on the economy of that area and on the employment situation there.
I am generally not very concerned about whether or not we in this parliament make the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) an honest man, but I should like to remind the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) that the Secretary of State had this to say, speaking in Summerside on March 26 last:
It is the Liberal policy to see that every able person willing to work will have the opportunity to earn a decent living.
I should like to point out to the minister that if the air force station at Summerside is cut back there will be a great number of people there who will have their means of livelihood removed and it will be a severe dislocation to the economy of the province of Prince Edward Island. I might say that the fact that the Secretary of State made this statement does not necessarily mean it is now a policy that is embraced by the Liberal government.
I said there was confusion as far as defence policy was concerned, and that is not surprising because contradictory statements have been made not only in this house but with greater frequency during the election campaign by members who now sit on the treasury benches. Almost at the same time as the Secretary of State was saying that it is Liberal policy to see that every able person willing to work will have the opportunity to earn a decent living, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) at the opposite end of the country made this statement in Vancouver on February 25, 1963:
People who say that we are going to eliminate unemployment simply don't know the country.
I tend to agree with that statement, but at the moment I should like to point out to the minister that the impression was left not only by the Secretary of State but by his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Mac-Naught), and by everyone else speaking on behalf of his party, that this very important base at Summerside, which is so important to the economy of Prince Edward Island, would not be downgraded or cut back in any way. I am not raising this point at the moment for political advantage or anything of that

sort. I am speaking as an islander and I wish the Solicitor General well in his attempts with the Minister of National Defence to convince treasury board that this is not necessary.


Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I have the pleasure of speaking as a member of the defence committee. As a member of that committee I believe that its deliberations have been of value and help not only to the members of the committee but also, I believe, to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). Over the course of the meetings since June 27 we have had a variety of witnesses, all of them learned men, no doubt, in their art. However, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), as I understood his remarks this afternoon, apparently does not believe that the defence committee has been of much value, in that it has not been allowed to get to the bottom of things and no one has listened to it. He also says that the government has spread confusion and unrest, particularly by not waiting for the decisions of the defence committee and specifically by scrapping the general purpose frigate program.
I submit that the committee has had the opportunity of examining a great deal of the defence policy of Canada and especially with reference to the general purpose frigate. Since the committee's first meeting on June 27 it has heard many times about the general purpose frigate, about its speed, about its performance, about its cost and what it can do. We found out that the cost for eight frigates is $452 million, considerably up from the $300 million forecast a year or two ago. We can say, of course, that this is because it requires munitions, stores and various other equipment, but as we found out on October 15 the total cost is $452 million.
On October 18 we learned about the speed of the proposed frigate vis-a-vis a nuclear submarine. When a frigate that is supposed to go out, detect, locate and destroy enemy submarines can only travel 27 knots per hour it is not going to be very effective against a nuclear submarine that can travel 40 or 50 knots per hour submerged.


Mr. Langlois:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is somewhat off the subamendment at the moment.


Anthony Robert Temple: Mr. Speaker, I am coming very quickly to the matter of the subamendment. As a matter of interest, though, I thought that the subamendment was a little bit at variance with the amendment. However, members of the house have ruled that the subamendment does in fact bear a close
Abandonment of Defence Projects resemblance to the amendment so I do not think I am too far off base. I have spoken briefly about the speed of the frigate compared with the speed of a nuclear submarine. We also found out that the proposed general purpose frigate was somewhat inferior in speed to the latest Leander and Whitby class frigates produced in the United Kingdom.
This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre also said that the Minister of National Defence was scuttling the navy. He said that the Royal Canadian Navy was shattered and the effectiveness of the armed forces was reduced. I should like to ask this: Am I correct in taking from the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that we would help the navy, we would help the defence of Canada, we would increase the effectiveness of the armed forces, by continuing with the acquisition of eight obsolete general purpose frigates?
Now, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that was what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre implied. In fact, there was more than an implication; there was a definite statement that Canada should have eight obsolete general frigates. When the hon. member makes these remarks, I would refer him to the testimony of Commodore Plomer, General Foulkes and General Simonds before the committee, all of whom held opinions to the contrary about the acquisition of the general purpose frigates. I think, Mr. Speaker, it has been obvious to the members of the defence committee for quite some time that we should not go ahead with the acquisition of the general purpose frigates. I think the testimony that came out in the committee was of great help to the Minister of National Defence and his department.
No doubt my hon. friends across the aisle wish to hear some remarks about nuclear arms being based in Quebec. I shall leave that part of the subject to other qualified members of our party. I merely wish to say that I believe the committee is doing good work, will continue to do good work and that if the committee, the Department of National Defence and the minister continue to co-operate we will do a lot of good for the people of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, coming as they did after our subamendment on nuclear arms in the state of Quebec, I was rather surprised to hear the arguments put forth by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). However, there is surely one point that nobody could have forgotten. Last April a member of the United States cabinet, namely the defence secretary,
4118	HOUSE OF
Abandonment of Defence Projects stated that the Bomarcs we were seeking to instal at La Macaza base were obsolete and would serve but one purpose, that is to make good targets tor Russian atomic bombs or nuclear weapons in case of an attack against the United States or Canada.
Mr. Speaker, there are three nuclear arms bases in the province of Quebec: Val d'Or, Bagotville and La Macaza.
And those bases are to be used for one thing only, not for defensive purposes, because, as stated by the U.S. defence secretary, those weapons are obsolete, but as targets for the nuclear weapons that might be directed against the United States and Canada. That means that Canadians are to be used as targets for the nuclear attacks which would otherwise be directed against the United States.
Mr. Speaker, if those weapons are efficient, why were they not installed north of the American border itself? Then the American territory would have been protected. But no, they are installed 400 miles farther north, especially to prevent the first enemy nuclear bombs from hitting the United States and to have them fall on the heads of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we may well ask the Minister of National Defence whether, under such circumstances, the wives and homes of Canadian citizens are not just as important as the wives and homes of Americans.
That is when the Minister of National Defence jumped to his feet-I would practically say like a comedian-to speak of the responsibilities of the present government. I submit that the first responsibility of the government is towards the citizens of Canada and not those of another country. Its foremost concern should be the Canadian people.
In my opinion, the first duty of the present government was to commit Canada to a policy of world disarmament and to encourage all countries to follow a policy of nuclear disarmament because, as we all know, a nuclear war is unthinkable today since it would destroy the whole world.
By refusing to accept nuclear weapons, Canada could have kept on playing that part, but by joining the nuclear club, our country can hardly act as peacemaker or advocate nuclear disarmament.
When I went to the United Nations on September 15 last, the present government had just made known its intention to store nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. This was only a few days after a hundred or so countries of the world had signed the Moscow agreement banning nuclear tests throughout the world.
While the situation was less strained, while countries were effecting nuclear disarmament


and it was agreed to stop nuclear tests, Canada was the only country in the world willing to store nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, since then no other country has stored such weapons.
And yet, remember the fight there was last year, around the same date, when the United States objected to the storing of nuclear arms in Cuba because it was a neighbouring country. Well, Canada also is a neighbour of Russia. What if the storing of nuclear arms were to start a nuclear war, which is what almost happened last year?
Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, we object to the storing of nuclear arms in the province of Quebec. Moreover, we do not think that the role of Canada is a nuclear one, but rather that its role is to work towards peace and disarmament throughout the world. We also feel that a nuclear war is unthinkable and that the presence of nuclear arms on our soil must be avoided as much as possible so that our country may be spared the hardship that might be the lot of many countries.
That is why we are against nuclear stockpiling within the state of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, a great many municipal councils, social clubs and national organizations are opposed to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Canada or at least by the province of Quebec. I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of National Defence resolutions which were passed by municipal councils and national organizations in that connection.
I have here a resolution dated July 8 which was adopted by the town of Port Alfred, county of Chicoutimi, and which is signed by both Mayor J. E. A. Beaulieu and town clerk Willie Tremblay. The relevant part of the resolution reads as follows:
That the town of Port Alfred protest to the Minister of National Defence against the stockpiling of nuclear weapons at the R.C.A.F. base at Bagotville, and request that the government reconsider its decision and refuse to accept any kind of nuclear weapon in Canada. And if it is proven that the country needs them, the government must see to it that they are stored in a place where they would offer no hazard for our populations, should an accident occur.
Therefore, the town of Port Alfred should canvass all the towns of the area, from Dolbeau to the Baie des Ha! Ha!, and ask them to second its request to the government.
(Text):
That city, Mr. Speaker, is located three miles away from the military base of Bagotville, where squadrons are stationed and where nuclear arms are stored.
Besides the request from the town of Port Alfred, I have another one from the town of Alma, in the constituency of Lake St. John, which is signed by his worship Mayor J. L.

Desmeules and Mr. Paul Tremblay, deputy clerk, and which reads as follows:
It is moved by alderman Dr. Raymond Grenon, seconded by alderman Maurice Fortin, and unanimously adopted, to second the motion adopted by the city of Port Alfred to the effect that it opposes the federal government plan to store nuclear warheads at the Bagotville base of the R.C.A.F.


An hon. Member:: All good Liberals.


Gilles Grégoire: These are two official protests from public corporations in the ridings of Lake St. John and Chicoutimi, two of the largest cities in those regions.
Moreover, I received another letter of protest from the Societe St. Jean Baptiste, Saguenay branch. By the way, I know very well the former regional president of that society. It is a resolution adopted on July 30, 1963, at the annual meeting of the members of the executive of the Saguenay branch, which reads as follows:
The members of the executive of the Societe St. Jean Baptiste, Saguenay branch, protest against your government's decision to equip with nuclear warheads the planes at the air force base at Bagotville and to store them.
That dangerous situation will certainly endanger the life of the citizens. We know that the government will go ahead anyway, but it will be against our will.
In the hope that you will ask the proper authorities on our behalf to put a stop to such a situation, I remain, yours very truly-
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the representations made by the municipalities, I have here the July 3 issue of La Terre de Chez Nous in which the Catholic Farmers' Union protests as follows:
The Catholic Farmers' Union is made up of over 43,000 farmers-
In the province of Quebec only, and this is what they say:
Instead of joining in the arms race, our country could play a much more useful part in the world by urging other countries to promote disarmament and peace and by providing assistance to underdeveloped countries.


Some hon. Members:: Well said.


Gilles Grégoire: And the article of the Quebec Catholic Farmers' Union goes on as follows:
Quebec farmers, as all French Canadians, were against conscription in the 1914 and 1939 wars. The prospect of an atomic war is a thousand times more horrible than past conscription.
-Mr. Speaker, some municipalities, St. Jean Baptiste societies or other social clubs wrote to ask me to protest against the storage of nuclear weapons in Quebec using approximately the same terms as the St. Jean Baptiste society, from the Saguenay area used in its letter:
We know that the government will do it just the same without our consent.
Abandonment of Defence Projects
-I replied as follows: I think that my request will be useless since the Department of National Defence does not take any advice from anybody and makes sport of everybody.
Mr. Speaker, nevertheless we want to record the protest of the province of Quebec, and members from that province in this house know very well at the present time that such is the opinion of all their fellow citizens from Quebec to protest strongly against the storage of nuclear weapons in that province, in the counties of Lotbiniere, Mercier, St. James or any other one, and the Liberal members know that very well.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. Can he explain to us, in view of the stand taken by the present Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, how we still managed however to get 47 Liberal members elected in the province of Quebec?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the first three words of the amendment to the amendment explains that-


An hon. Member:: Because your leader believes in it.


Gilles Grégoire: The explanation is found in the first three words of the amendment to the amendment:
"subserviently agreeing to the storing of nuclear arms"
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals, the hon. members for Lotbiniere and Mercier included, know full well that during the last general election they accepted contributions from the U.S. financiers to bolster their slush fund.
They have not been elected by the voters of the province of Quebec, but by American money.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Lotbiniere and the others know that very well-


Mr. Deachman:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is no longer in the house. He is standing behind the bar.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I can see it hurts. There is a wound at the broken arm. They cannot stand the truth now, because you know very well that the last election was won with the help of American financiers.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, may I- [Text]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: If the
hon. gentleman has a question to ask the hon. member for Lapointe, will he do so?

Abandonment of Defence Projects Mr. Choqueile: I have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege?
What the hon. member for Lapointe says is absolutely untrue. In the riding of Lotbiniere-*


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I
have allowed the hon. gentleman to stray away from his place, but I would rather he would not stray away from the subamendment.


An hon. Member:: It is not a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is a wellknown fact that during the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to acquire nuclear arms and that their arguments had the support of American finance.
It is on account of the help of American finance, which bolstered the Liberal party's coffers, that they won the last election, and everybody knows that the cash-box was well supplied. We all keep in mind the great number of television programs and full page advertisements in the newspapers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was entirely within the limits of the sub amendment while I was explaining that to accept servilelymeans someone who can be bribed. This is the word I was trying to explain, and it is included in the subamendment.
Mr. Speaker, if I was dealing with that point, it is because the Liberal members of the province of Quebec are well aware that the Quebec voters do not support the storage of nuclear arms in the state of Quebec.
Tomorrow, during the vote on the motion, if they do not support the subamendment, the reason will be that they are tied, they have been bribed by American financiers who have generously replenished the election coffers.


Mr. Jean Berger (Montmagny-L'Islei):: Mr. Speaker, could I put a question to the hon. member?

May I ask a question of the hon. member for Lapointe?
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten).]


Gilles Grégoire: On one condition, that I will have the time back at the end of my speech.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: The hon. member claims, and keeps insisting on the fact, that the Liberal members were elected thanks to U.S. funds. I should like him to prove it or stop making fallacious assertions against several members from the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy. I put on the order paper of the house-


Mr.   Balien@Acting Speaker: Order. The hon. gentleman from Lapointe has the floor and has the right to make his speech without interruption. If any hon. member wants to ask him a question, then the hon. member for Lapointe may yield the floor. Otherwise he will continue with his speech.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I shall have ample time to do that since I have put on the order paper a notice of motion for the setting up of a committee to consider the sources of the election expenditures of the four political parties. Then, I shall be able to give proof.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, we know one thing, and it is that the province of Quebec does not want it. And I challenge the present government to hold a referendum, to have the courage to hold a referendum in the province of Quebec, as the Liberals did in 1942 on the conscription issue. At that time, the members from the province of Quebec reacted according to the will of their electors. And in the present case, they would soon realize that those electors are against the storing of nuclear weapons in the province of Quebec.
I would ask them who pretend to ignore where the funds came from for their last election, I would ask them to have at least the decency to vote according to the wishes and desires of their electors in their ridings. Now that they are sitting here, they could take the most decent way to defer to the desire of their electors in their riding, that is to vote for the subamendment against the acquisition of nuclear weapons in the state of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Very well.


Gilles Grégoire: We have said in the province of Quebec, that the part for Canada to play would be to strive for peace in the world and not for destruction and for war. That is what we said.
It was not nuclear arms we asked for, Mr. Speaker, but bread, butter, homes and work for everybody in this country.

While we are trying to suggest ideas to improve our system so that every Canadian citizen can find an adequate and decent living in this country, the present government has but one thing in mind, nuclear weapons, the storing of nuclear weapons we shall not even control but which will be controlled by foreigners, by the Americans.
When I see the surprise on the face of the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), I find that to be the normal attitude of the guy who could not care less, who crawls on
Abandonment of Defence Projects his belly, who drags along, acts like a sheep, is unable to think for himself and lets others do it for him.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock? [Text]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
It being ten o'clock p.m. this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, Oclober 29, 1963