1964-05-11

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is a matter which, in my opinion, reflects on the rights of every member and those of the Canadian people. My question of privilege is directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), and 1 regret that he is not in the house at the present time.
The statistics provided by the Department of Labour, and consequently by the Minister of Labour, concerning unemployment in Canada do not show the real situation.
In fact, we learned recently that in the province of Quebec there are as many unemployed people not registered on unemployment lists as there are registered. Therefore, it means that the number of unemployed would be twice the number given by official statistics. Now, the use of false statistics is likely to mislead hon. members.
I might have raised a grievance on that matter, but since the ministers and government members, in turn, refer to those statistics to praise the government and try to blot out the true situation, I thought it was appropriate to make it a question of privilege.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Labour to see to it that his staff and officials give us the exact figures concerning the number of unemployed in the province of Quebec and all across Canada so that we will not be misled by the figures now provided to us and by the statistics as they are compiled.



STANDING ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Edmund Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace)
presented the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from the opening ministerial session of the Kennedy round of trade and tariff negotiations in Geneva. I ask the permission of the house to table the official text, in French and English, of the report adopted at the meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house grant permission?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, let me deal
briefly with the main decisions of the GATT meeting, particularly as they relate to Canada. First, the trade negotiating committee explicitly recognized that Canada is a country with a trade and economic structure such that the simple across the board formula for tariff negotiations would not yield reciprocity of benefit. The procedures for our participation have been agreed. Canada will begin the negotiations by offering concessions equivalent in value to the trade and economic benefits we may expect to receive.
Second, for the main industrialized countries, including the United States, the European common market, Britain and Japan, the working hypothesis will be an across the board cut of 50 per cent in their tariffs.
Third, it has been agreed that the exchange of offers will be made on September 10. Countries participating on the basis of across the board cuts will on that date notify the other negotiating countries of their list of exceptions to the general 50 per cent rule. Canada, on the other hand, will be starting from a positive list of offers of concessions. I confirmed that we are prepared to table our offer on the same date, September 10. Consultations with industry have been under way for some weeks during which hundreds of submissions have been received. I am confident that we shall be able to analyse these submissions and be in a position to table the Canadian offer on the agreed date.
Fourth, it was decided that for the countries participating on the basis of across the board cuts, exceptions are to be limited to a bare minimum required by overriding national importance.
As far as tariffs on industrial goods are concerned, these were the main decisions. The difficult question of disparities between

Report on GATT Meeting tariff levels and how to deal with them is not yet resolved. Nor has satisfactory progress yet been achieved with respect to procedures for the negotiation of agricultural products. As hon. members will see when they read the report I have just tabled, the ministers confirmed that the negotiations shall provide for acceptable conditions of access to world markets for agricultural products. While detailed negotiations have already been initiated with respect to wheat and other grains, the general rules and procedures for agricultural negotiations have yet to be worked out. Canada and other agricultural exporting countries expressed in strong terms their concern with this lack of agreement as to the treatment to be applied to agricultural products, and it was agreed that the necessary rules and procedures shall be established at an early date.
On the whole I believe this was a useful meeting. It committed the members of GATT to a timetable and to a number of procedures that should facilitate the forthcoming negotiations. Needless to say we did not resolve all our difficulties. Much remains to be accomplished even before September 10, and the subsequent negotiations themselves will probably last for many, many months beyond that date. Nor is this surprising, for never before has the world attempted such a far reaching attack on international barriers to trade.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is to be congratulated on making his statement in the house, but not on the luminous nature of the statement. Indeed, I doubt whether I have ever heard a statement made in respect of a matter of such transcendent importance as trade as the one just made by the minister. Everything is postponed. Negotiations are to continue. Hope of ultimate success in some fields is held out. 'inis is a far cry on this sixtieth day of this session from the enthusiastic and optimistic statements made when hon. members opposite were in opposition about how simple the problem was going to be and how they were going to bring about an expansion and an extension of world trade.
In so far as agricultural products are concerned, I recall so well that when we were in power we were endeavouring to ensure the protection of Canada's position in the European common market. Those who now sit opposite were most critical of our stand in that regard. As agricultural exporters the reduction of tariffs on agricultural products is of prime importance to our country. Barriers against wheat imports are most important.
[Mr. Sharp.)
The minister has stated that no longer is the Liberal party-and this has been so for some months now-in favour of what it so strongly advocated when in opposition, namely a 50 per cent cut across the board in tariffs. It now has taken up the position which we had assumed; yet when we took the stand that a 50 per cent cut would be detrimental to Canada, more serious to Canada than possibly to any other country, the answer was that it could be done. In office hon. gentlemen opposite have found that what they advocated in opposition has been ineffective and has had to be retreated from.
Altogether, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the report is one of the most disappointing that the house has yet heard from the minister. In place of the optimism of the past there is today not even qualified optimism. There is uncertainty, if not a degree of hopelessness, which does not spell well for the future negotiations which will take place. All of us had hoped that out of this Kennedy round would come new expansion and development of trade; but certainly up to the present time, with the exception of platitudes and highest expectations, little or nothing has been done.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to comment on this matter, but in view of what the Leader of the Opposition has said perhaps I should say something. The minister is undertaking very delicate and difficult negotiations and it seems to me that it is a time for as little carping criticism as possible-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Reid Scott: -in view of the very important nature of these negotiations and the vital effect which they will have on the future economy of our country.
I think the minister has given us a note of cautious optimism this afternoon. There are circumstances in connection with these talks which were not in evidence at Brussels, but at the same time we still do not know what the French are up to and we do not know what the Germans are up to.


An hon. Member:: We do not know what you are up to.


Reid Scott: But I know what you are up to, and I think by this time all of Canada knows what you are up to.
We do hope that as the talks proceed the minister will be able to resolve one of the most vital problems which, of course, is the problem of agriculture. Although at the moment there seems to be no clear indication where the talks are going on the whole, as I have said, we are glad to have this report and we hope that as negotiations proceed some of the more difficult aspects can be

resolved so that future reports will contain something a little more concrete which we can discuss.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that the announcement the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just made in respect of new negotiations on world trade and commerce concerns probably the most ambitious undertaking the world has ever known to reduce tariffs in all fields. We are disappointed, of course, that there has not been more progress that could be announced at this date. We are particularly disappointed at the indication in the minister's speech that there was almost no progress in resolving these problems relating to trade in agricultural products.
I want to say to the minister, however, that we hope this problem does not get blown up to such magnitude it prevents progress in other fields. We know from the past few months that there have been some very serious ramifications in other relationships between countries because this matter of agricultural trade is one in which emotion runs very high. We hope there will be, as I said, more progress, and we would not like to see these discussions bog down so that progress is prevented in other fields.
We are also a bit apprehensive about the package or packages the minister intends to offer on September 10. We hope he has communicated sufficiently with all the industries involved and has, in fact, received some approval and co-operation or promise of cooperation from them so that we do not have a situation in which one segment of our industry is going to be sacrificed or partially sacrificed to the advantage of some other segment.
There is one other point I should mention, and that is this matter of some new and more workable means of international settlements. We believe this is a most important new departure in world trade that needs to be developed, and while the minister did not say anything about it in his statement today we hope Canadians are leading the discussions in attempting to arrive at some new and more workable means of making these international settlements.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to see that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) has returned safe and sound from the Geneva conference. We listened very closely and have noted that he stated that various countries in the world are trying to improve their respective economic standards of living.
We find that every country is looking for foreign markets, in other words they are
Sale of Wheat to Red China trying to increase their exports as much as possible and, to help them, it is announced that certain tariff barriers between those various countries are being removed.
Shortly, at another meeting, another deci-cision will be taken on September 10, but to date I think few changes were made in regard to imports or exports or in regard to trade with other countries.
Every country has to cope with an overabundance of goods and products, and they all are seeking exterior outlets, while neglecting the domestic market.
When he was in Geneva the minister certainly realized that all countries have to face the same problems. We all have products to export. There are certain financial obstacles which threaten smoother relations between countries, as there are financial obstacles inside this and other countries which impair the disposal of existing goods, and preventing satisfaction of our domestic needs.
I ask the minister when he returns to Geneva, to suggest in turn to all those countries that they control or settle their own domestic problems. Then we shall see that the international question will be much more easily settled. Yet this way we shall not only assist our farmers, but our businessmen and industrialists as well and improve our economic system, because we shall help our own people first, which is what we want to do. [Text]



WHEAT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF FURTHER SALE TO RED CHINA

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some diffidence to make another announcement and I do hope this one will not disappoint the Leader of the Opposition as much as my previous announcement apparently did.
The Canadian wheat board is announcing in Winnipeg today that under the provisions of the second long term wheat agreement with China a further sales contract has been signed to provide for the export of 1,075,000 long tons, 5 per cent more or less, of wheat of which one million tons will be shipped from Pacific coast ports during July to December and the balance of 75,000 tons from St. Lawrence river ports during the period May through December, 1964. Assuming the full tolerance is taken, this amounts to slightly over 42 million bushels.
Including the sales contract covered by this announcement, total sales under the second long term agreement amount to 2.1 million tons or approximately 77.4 million bushels. As in the previous sales contracts, payment terms for sales under the long term agreement are 25 per cent cash when each vessel is loaded

Harbour Commissions
and the balance of 75 per cent in 18 months with interest. The deferred payment provision is made possible by a guarantee to the Canadian wheat board by the government of Canada.

On the orders of the day:


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the statement he made today, and ask him whether there is any flour involved in the recent wheat sale to China, and if he would give the same priority to the sale of wheat flour as he indicated to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam he would give to sales of wheat so that our flour mills may continue to operate at their present capacity beyond July 1.


Mitchell William Sharp: In the announcement I made earlier today, only wheat was involved. I can assure the hon. member that wherever possible we try to sell flour, but the choice is the buyer's choice and if we cannot sell flour we sell wheat.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Would the minister advise the house whether a decision has already been made, in connection with the delivery of this grain to China, that none of it will be shipped through the port of Churchill? Was any consideration given to this aspect of the subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: The question of the ports of shipment was discussed between the Chinese authorities and the Canadian wheat board and they made the choice in accordance with the announcement I made today, namely that most of the grain should go from the Pacific coast ports and the balance from the St. Lawrence ports.



HARBOURS


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-10 (from the Senate), to provide for the establishment of harbour commissions.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, this bill was presented in the other place at the last session and the bill now brought forward is the same, with the exception that amendments have been made in some of the minor clauses arising out of the proceedings in committee in the other place. There is also a change in the schedule to the bill by deleting the reference to Toronto and Hamilton. Otherwise the bill is the same.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXPORTS CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Mitchell William Sharp: That the house do go into the committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:-
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to increase from four hundred million dollars to six hundred million dollars the limit of the liability of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation under contracts of insurance entered into under section 21 of the act; to enable the aggregate liability of importers under all instruments guaranteed by or payable to the said corporation to be increased from three hundred million dollars to four hundred million dollars; to permit the said corporation to enter into reciprocal arrangements with export credit insurers in other countries for the reinsurance of liabilities under contracts of insurance with exporters; and to provide further for certain consequential changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture) moved:: That the house do go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:-
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to increase the authorized capital of the farm credit corporation from sixteen million dollars to twenty four million dollars and thereby to increase the maximum borrowing capacity of the said corporation from four hundred million dollars to six hundred million dollars; to increase the maximum loan limits under part II of the said act from twenty thousand dollars to forty thousand dollars; to increase the maximum loan limits under part III of the said act from twenty seven thousand five hundred dollars to fifty five thousand dollars; and to provide further for certain other changes in connection with the administration and operation of the said act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	Did the United States of America provide free transportation for the toboggan and other equipment for the world championship team when it returned to Canada from Innsbruck, Austria?

2.	Was there not available any space in one or other of the many Canadian government aircraft which go back and forth between the European continent and Canada?


Mr. Lamoniagne:: 1. The government has no direct knowledge of personnel or baggage, Canadian or otherwise, carried on U.S. aircraft, but it is understood that the items mentioned were transported aboard a U.S. aircraft from Innsbruck, Austria, to Lake Placid, N.Y., where the team was to compete.
2.	Answered by 1 above.


* CLOSING OF R.C.A.F. STATION EDGAR
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What is the likely closing date of R.C.A.F. station Edgar?
2.	What provision will be made to provide other employment in the immediate area for the civilians presently employed at R.C.A.F. station Edgar and resident in that area?
3.	Is any consideration being given to the establishment of a federal project in this area?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1. The operational function of station Edgar will terminate on April 1, 1964, but the total time taken to close the station will depend upon the disposition of the unit's equipment and personnel and the relocation of certain operational facilities necessary to ensure continued operational coverage. However, it is expected that this station will be reduced to caretaker status by August 31, 1964.
2.	All civilian employees will be interviewed by personnel officers of the department to determine their availability for transfer beyond the immediate locality in the event they cannot be placed locally. All employees will be interviewed and registered by the national employment service. The civil service commission and government departments in the area will be provided with particulars affecting all employees scheduled for lay-off. Every effort will be made to find other employment for these persons who are scheduled for lay-off, and these efforts will continue after the station closes down. The employees for whom other employment cannot be found will be placed on an official lay-off list and will be given preference in appointment to future vacancies with the government service.
3.	No.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY  RELOCATION COST, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What is the cost of the new alternative trans-Canada highway which will of necessity be constructed in York county, New Brunswick, as a result of the building of the Mactaquac dam?
2.	What percentage will be paid by the federal government?
3.	What percentage will be paid and charged to the Mactaquac project?
Questions


Mr. Deschalelets:: 1. $9.7 million (estimated).
2.	90 per cent.
3.	It does not appear that any part of the construction costs of the highway will be chargeable to the Mactaquac project. Right of way costs are a provincial responsibility along with costs incurred in the settlement of damage or other claims resulting from the construction of the Mactaquac project.


* EXCHANGE OF EDUCATORS
Mr. Mather: Has the government consulted with the provinces with the objective of working out arrangements for the exchange of educators between the province of Quebec and other provinces, and vice-versa, in order to better the understanding among all sections of Canada?


Mr. Davis:: This is clearly a matter pertaining to education and hence is subject to provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has not received any representation which would indicate that the provinces consider this matter an appropriate subject for federal-provincial consultation at this time.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY POLICY
Mr. Siefanson: 1.	When does the government plan on convening a federal-provincial conference to formulate a national highway policy?
2.	For what reasons did this conference not take place last fall as indicated in the statement made by the Minister of Public Works to the House of Commons on July 17, 1963?
3.	Have federal government officials held discussions with any provincial government officials and, if so, from what provinces and when and where did such discussions take place?
4.	Have written invitations been extended to the provincial governments to participate in such a conference?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Please refer to my statement to the house on 28 April, 1964.
2.	See answer to part 1.
3.	Yes. Officials of the Department of Public Works met with officials of the different provinces as follows: June 11, 1963 in Fredericton, N.B.; June 27, 1963 in Toronto, Ont.; July 11, 1963 in Ottawa, Ont. with P.E.I. officials; July 17, 1963 in St. John's, Nfld.; July 19, 1963 in Halifax, N.S.; July 26, 1963 in Edmonton, Alta.; July 29, 1963 in Victoria, B.C.; July 31, 1963 in Regina, Sask.; August 1, 1963 in Winnipeg, Man.
4.	No.


NATIONAL CAPITAL DISTRICT
Mr. Martineau: 1.	What are the names of the municipalities within the national capital area?
2.	Has there been any correspondence, communications or negotiations with the governments of the province of Quebec and the province of

Questions
Ontario, on the one hand, and the Canadian government, on the other hand, regarding the possible formation of a national capital district?
3.	Have the views of the governments of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario been made known to the Canadian government in this regard?
4.	Have any of the municipalities within the national capital area been consulted in regard to the possible setting up of a national capital district and, if so, what were, in each case, the views expressed?
5.	Is the government considering presenting legislation proposing the setting up of a national capital district?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. The administrative
structures located within the national capital region are: seven counties, three cities, five towns, 35 townships, nine villages, and 12 police villages.
Within Ontario these are: (a) counties, Car-leton, Prescott and Russell, Lanark; (b) cities, Ottawa*, Eastview*; (c) towns, Almonte; (d) townships, Gloucester*, Nepean*, Osgoode, North Gower, Goulbern, March, Huntley, Torbolton, Fitzroy, Cumberland, Russell, Pak-enham, Ramsay, Beckwith; (e) villages, Rock-cliffe Park*, Stittsville, Richmond; (f) police villages, City View*, Cumberland, Embrun, Kenmore, Manotick*, Metcalfe, Navan, North Gower, Orleans*, Osgoode, Russell, Vars.
Within Quebec these are: (a) counties, Gatineau, Hull, Papineau, Pontiac; (b) cities, Hull*; (c) towns, Buckingham, Gatineau*, Pointe-Gatineau*, Aylmer*; (d) townships, Buckingham, Buckingham West, Buckingham South East, L'Ange-Gardien, Portland, Portland West, Aldfield, Onslow, Onslow South, Perkins*, Templeton West*, Templeton East*, East Part of Templeton East*, Eardley, Hull East, Hull South*, Hull West, Masham North, Ste Cecile de Masham, Wakefield, Wakefield East; (e) villages, Anger, Deschenes*, Masson, Templeton*, Quyon, Wakefield.
*Municipalities which form the Ottawa metropolitan area as defined by the dominion bureau of statistics.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No.


* NEWFOUNDLAND BROADCASTING CO.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What do the records of the board of broadcast governors indicate as to the ownership of the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company?
2.	Is one of the owners a resident in the United States?
3.	If so, is this same owner and any other coowner of Newfoundland Broadcasting Company listed as being owner in whole or in part of radio station CKGM, radio station CJON, T.V. station CJON, T.V. station CJOX, and for the two licences recently awarded by the board of broadcast governors for AM stations at Ottawa and Windsor, issued to Messrs. Bill Stewart and Royce Frith?

4.	With regard to the board of broadcast governors recommendations that the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company have the authority to establish a new 1000 watt AM broadcasting station at Grand Falls and another at Grand Bank, Newfoundland, what were the arguments which convinced the board of broadcast governors that the market areas could support another broadcasting station or that there was inadequate radio service choice at the present time?


John Watson MacNaught: I am informed that the board of broadcast governors' records indicate:
1.	That the ownership of Newfoundland Broadcasting Company is held by Mr. Geoffrey Stirling, Mr. Donald Jamieson and Mrs. Florence Curnan.
2.	That Mrs. Florence Curnan is listed as living in the United States.
3.	That Newfoundland Broadcasting Company is the licensee of stations CJON-TV, CJON and CJOX and that neither Mrs. Curnan nor Messrs. Stirling or Jamieson are whole or part owners of the new stations in Ottawa or Windsor. Mr. Stirling is shown as the owner of station CKGM Montreal.
4.	That there are three radio systems in the province of Newfoundland, operated by the C.B.C., Colonial Broadcasting System Limited, and Newfoundland Broadcasting Company. It is the view of the board that these systems should be extended to cover the province of Newfoundland to provide variety of choice of radio service as economic conditions warrant. In the particular case referred to, the board was satisfied that the competing systems could meet the competition.


*MRS. JEANNE SAUVE  PAYMENTS FROM C.B.C.
Mr. Pigeon: What total amount did Mrs. Jeanne Sauve draw from the C.B.C. since her employment on certain programs of the C.B.C.?


John Watson MacNaught: The C.B.C. has advised me that it is not customary to have the corporation reveal the fees paid to participants of programs, because it could prejudice the corporation's interests which must meet competition.
[Text}


MINES CONVENTION
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 898*-Mr. Laiulippe:
1.	Was the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources represented at the convention of the Canadian institute of mines and metallurgy held recently at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal?
2.	Did the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources make any grant toward the organization of that convention?
3.	If officials of that department participated in that convention, what are their names, and in what capacity did they participate?

4.	On that occasion, was the department represented by Mr. R. F. Legett of the national research council?
[Stage Direction]
Answer: 1. Yes, the minister and his special assistant attended the annual dinner.
2.	No.
3.	Mr. J. L. Jenness, economic adviser, delegate; Mr. E. R. Weick, economic division, delegate; Mr. H. M. Babcock, economic division (was only one day at the convention); Mr. K. J. Christie, chief engineer of mines, resources division, delegate and member of the institute's committee of the award for bravery; Mr. A. T. Jordan, chief inspector of mines, resources division, delegate and member of the institute's committee of the Ryan trophy.
4.	No.

Mr. MacEwan: Did the Department of Transport, under the terms of tender 8B-6029, call for 16 separate items and, if so (a) was the contract awarded to the two lowest over-all tenderers and (b) for what reasons was the contract so awarded?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The Department of Transport under the terms of tender 8B-6029 called for 16 items, that is 10 different sizes of buoys, some of which were for delivery to two or three locations.
(a)	The contract was awarded to the lowest over-all tenderers and (b) the reasons for so awarding the contract are: (i) lowest over-all tenders meeting departmental specifications and (ii) acceptance of equipment which entailed lowest cost to the department.


TENDERS FOR POST OFFICE BOXES, AMOS, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	As new boxes must be installed in the Amos post office, and since the layout of the boxes must be changed, have new tenders been called for this work?
2.	If new tenders have been called, when is the work expected to commence?

Answer: 1. Yes.
2.	Before the end of this month.


INVESTIGATION OF AFFAIRS OF BLIND PERSONS
Mr. Mather: Is the government giving consideration to the appointment of a royal commission or special committee to investigate the affairs of blind persons in Canada?


Miss LaMarsh:: As this is a matter of government policy any announcement will be
Questions
made by the government at the appropriate time.


GREATER CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN WEST INDIES
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Does the Canadian government have an official delegate to the commonwealth parliamentary association's conference on parliamentary procedure which is taking, or has taken, place in London?
2.	Is Canada considering the possibilities of assuming protectoral responsibility for the Windward and Leeward islands, and for the British section of the Virgin islands?
3.	Is Canada considering the possibility of more intensive participation in the political life of the West Indies wth respect to finance, trade and defence?
4.	What is the status of Canada's present diplomatic relations with the Virgin islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and the Windward and Leeward islands?
5.	Over the past three years, what were the main Canadian imports and exports to and from these countries, and the values and quantities involved?
6.	Does Canada, at the present time, have special agreements in the matters of finance, trade, external affairs and defence, with these countries?
7.	Have the abovementioned countries made representations of any kind to Canada with a view to fuller Canadian participation in their political economic and social life?

Answer: 1. No. However, a representative of the Canadian section of the commonwealth parliamentary association follows the course offered by the conference on parliamentary procedure.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Canada maintains diplomatic relations with Trinidad and Tobago through a high commissioner's office which was established in Port of Spain soon after Trinidad became independent in 1962. Canada also maintains diplomatic relations with Jamaica through a high commissioner's office which was established in Kingston soon after this country became independent in 1962. Canada has no diplomatic relations with the Windward and Leeward islands, or with the British section of the Virgin islands.
5.	(See attached appendix)
6.	Two agreements are presently in force: (a) Canada, on July 6, 1925, signed in Ottawa an agreement which, among other things, deals with trade with Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and the Windward and Leeward islands; (b) Canada and the former West Indies Federation signed notes which were exchanged on October 18, 1958, implementing mutual statements of principles issued by the two countries to promote the cooperative economic development of the West Indies.
7.	No.
Questions

Appendix
5. Chief exports to Trinidad and Tobago, with their value and quantity.1
1961	1962 (thousands of	1963 dollars)Total exports	$18,398	$14,817	$16,213Main items Wheat flour	$2,306 (cwt.2 583868)	$2,472 (569834)	$3,040 (628937)Fish (not canned)	$683 (cwt. 36955)	$823 (40493)	$3,040 (44097)Wood	$378 (m.s.f.2 3991)	$469 (4898)	$679 (4587)Meat	$577 (cwt. 26281)	$598 (28273)	$646 (31092)Fish (not canned)	$669 (cwt. 17130)	$429 (10738)	$473 (12339)Newsprint	$393 (cwt. 63769)	$365 (59389)	$471 (71409)Knitware	$99 (lbs. 28262)	$257 (87392)	$414 (130981)Potatoes (not seed)	$179 (lbs. 9053491)	$296 (16387023)	$384 (17663123)Milk powder	$74 (cwt. 9408)	$133 (17043)	$379 (29796)Furniture and ornaments	$347 (not indicated)	$347 (not indicated)	$372 (not indicated)Cotton fabrics	$321 (lbs. 276389)	$408 (368809)	$357 (303874)Tn brackets, under each item, hundredweight (cwt). "Million square feet.	Chief imports from Trinidad	and Tobago with their value and quantity.1	1961	1962 (thousands of	1963 dollars)Total imports	$14,375	$14,100	$15,871Main items Crude petroleum	$4,895 (bbl.' 2982084)	$7,768 (3937433)	$7,179 (3475443)Raw sugar	$3,526 (cwt.2 933260)	$3,227 (906398)	$5,146 (617079)Molasses	$759 (gal. 5746916)	$491 (3575748)	$1,903 (8080542)Fuel oils	$2,975 (gal. 49855821)	$1,801 (23322850)	$384 (4334371)Coffee (green)	$143 (lbs. 708322)	$22 (76560)	$203 (780494)Rum	$436 (gal. of proof 95211)	$381 (78509)	$300 (65933)
Tn brackets, under each item, hundredweight (cwt). 'Barrel.

Questions
Chief exports to Jamaica as well as their value and quantity.1
	1961	1962	1963
	(in millions of dollars)		
Total exports	$19,077	$21,891	$22,271
Main items			
Uncanned fish	$3,298	$3,824	$4,294(cwt. 210012)	(226328)	(239284)Wheat flour	$2,782	$2,832	$2,681(cwt. 679165)	(643991)	(569059)Canned fish	$1,211	$468	$1,434(cwt. 42895)	(49338)	(57853)Material	$406	$667	$1,034(lbs. 366714)	(606280)	(787950)Motor vehicles and parts	$1,112	$1,309	$1,206(No. 551)	(No. 612)	(No. 464)Newsprint	$709	$775	$651(cwt. 112286)	(119640)	(105183)Tires and tubes	$273	$359	$648(No. 12842)	(No. 17428)	(No. 53805)Leather	$306	$365	$608(sq. ft. 73244)	(873039)	(1446632)Tobacco	$426	$487	$307(lbs. 597330)	(686930)	(429600)Malt	$260	$298	$261(cwt. 54671)	(59412)	(50062)Total imports	$38,511	$39,721	$51,524Main articles	$27,785	$29,813	$33,431Bauxite and alumina	(cwt. 8743492)	(9516855)	(33431331)Unrefined sugar	$8,838	$8,384	$15,859(cwt. 2343862)	(2324351)	(1792169)$500	$111	$433(lbs. 909915)	(190400)	(7594)Orange juice	$7	$27	$355(gal. 1986)	(9235)	(118502)Rum	$312	$239	$230(gal. of proof 121557)	(72935)	(69862)Fresh oranges of the	mandarin type	$18	$23	$129(lbs. 358270)	(361060)	(159264)
'Between brackets under each item. "Hundredweight.

Questions
The chief exports to the Windward and Leeward islands, and to the British section of the Virgin islands, their value and quantity.* 1
1961	1962 (thousands of dollars)	1963Total exports Main items	$4828	$5642	$6596Wheat flour	$1739	$1824	$1993(cwt." 439241)	(426579)	(425442)Fish, not canned	$823	$1012	$1187(cwt. 51085)	(55730)	(57172)Wood	$433	$450	$457(m.f.b.m.3 3208)	(3341)	(3120)Sugar	$-	$77	$292(lbs. -)	(1406773)	(3426625)Meat	$192	$191	$189(cwt. 8178)	(7246)	(7105)Fish, canned	$195	$188	$149(cwt. 5715)	(5221)	(4206)Footwear	$41	$71	$104(Pairs 21539)	(35255)	(51278)
Tn brackets under each item. "Hundredweight.
"Millions of feet board measure.
Chief Canadian imports from Windward and Leeward islands and British section of Virgin islands, their value and quantity.1
1961	1962 (thousands of dollars)	1963Total imports Main items	$1261	$1686	$2202Sugar	$842	$1223	$1671(cwt.2 235138)	(336683)	(229386)Molasses	$-	$-	$201Nutmeg and nutmeg flour	(gall. -)	(-)	(875200)$232	$194	$183Farinaceous matters	(lbs. 218535)	(265013)	(198213)$46	$87	$73(lbs. 400,000)	(660,000)	(525,000)Cocoabeans	$45	$29	$24Hn brackets under each item.	(lbs. 180,700)	(121,400)	(66,000)
"Hundredweight.


PROVISION OP ADDITIONAL HELICOPTER, PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
Mr. Howard: Has any study been made of the need to station an additional helicopter at Prince Rupert, B.C. and, if so, what are the results of that study and when will the additional helicopter be stationed there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


REPAIRS TO FEDERAL BUILDINGS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Coaies: What is the estimated cost of repairs to be carried out on federal buildings in Amherst, 
Springhill, Parrsboro, and Oxford, Nova Scotia, for the fiscal year 1964-65?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The estimated cost of repairs to be carried out during the 1964-65 fiscal year is $3,400, broken down as follows: Amherst, $100; Springhill, $100; Parrsboro, $600; Oxford, $2,600.


WHARVES AND BREAKWATERS, 3NVERNESS-RICHMOND, N.S.
Mr. Coaies: 1.	On what wharves or breakwaters in Invemess-
Richmond will repairs be effected during the fiscal year 1964-65, and what will be the estimated cost
of repairs on each facility?

2.	What new wharf or breakwater projects will be carried out in Invemess-Richmond during the fiscal year 1964-65 and what will be the estimated cost of each new facility?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. The following repair projects are expected to be carried out in Inverness-Richmond during the 1964-65 fiscal year: Babin's Cove, wharf repairs, $9,300; Cheticamp Point, harbour repairs, $3,000; Little Anse, breakwater repairs, $4,000; Little Ju-dique Ponds, breakwater repairs, $4,160; Pleasant Bay, harbour repairs, $1,600; St. Rose, approach repairs, $3,000; Arichat, wharf repairs, $5,100; Creignish, breakwater repairs, $15,000; Grand Etang, pier and skidway repairs, $14,000; Louisburg, wharf repairs, $16,000; Fourchu, wharf repairs, $5,100; Pond-ville, wharf repairs, $2,000; Rockdale, wharf repairs, $2,000; Margaree Harbour, breakwater reconstruction, $14,600; Margaree Harbour, harbour repairs, $30,000; Little Judique Harbour, repairs to harbour facilities, $52,000; Port Hood, wharf repairs, $85,000.
2. The following new projects are expected to be carried out: Meat Cove, groynes, $4,600; Port Hood, temporary wharf facilities, $7,000; Main-a-Dieu, wharf improvements (to complete), $2,500; Little Judique Ponds, harbour improvements (to complete), $7,000.


RURAL ROUTE CHANGES
Mr. Coates: How many new rural routes or additions to existing rural routes were approved by the Post Office Department for the years, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963?


Mr. Nicholson:: Fiscal year
1958-	59
1959-	60
1960-	61
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
New rural routes 75 89 66 69 49 51
Extensions
1,006
1,160
1,142
1,094
1,111


SALES TAX ON DRUGS
Mr. Knowles: For each of the last five years for which statistics are available, what was the total amount of sales tax collected by the federal government on (a) prescription drugs (b) all drugs other than prescription drugs?


George James McIlraith: This information is not available. Statistics relating to sales tax collected according to commodities are not maintained.


CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1. Is it the government's intention to erect a temporary bridge to replace the structure over Covehead bay in the Prince Edward Island National Park destroyed some months ago?
Order for Return
2.	What is the total length of the detour to travellers of the Gulf Shore highway necessitated by the loss of the Covehead bridge?
3.	When is it intended to construct a new permanent link?
4.	What will be the nature of the new bridge?
5.	When is it intended to construct a bridge across Rustico harbour to join Robinson's island with the western portion of the gulf shore highway?
6.	What type bridge is to be erected?


Mr. Laing:: 1. No.
2.	Total length 9J miles, which is 4J miles longer than the gulf shore route.
3.	Construction is to start this summer.
4.	The bridge will be a six span precast concrete deck structure having a 24'-0" roadway with two sidewalks, one 5'-0" wide and the other 3'-0" wide. The superstructure will be supported on five concrete piers and two abutments founded on steel piles. The overall length of the bridge will be 661'-4" out to out of abutments.
5 and 6. Final decisions have not yet been taken.


INVITATIONS TO EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Howard: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs been invited to attend any function or visit any place in the electoral district of Skeena for 1964, and, if so, with respect to each such invitation, by whom was the invitation given, for what func-ton or purpose, at what time or times, and has it been (a) accepted or (b) declined?


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: No.


Mr. Howard: Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare been invited to attend any function or visit any place in the electoral district of Skeena for 1964, and, if so, with respect to each such invitation, by whom was the invitation given, for what function or purpose, at what time or times, and has it been (a) accepted or (b) declined?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson): 1.	In the new international airports at Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Toronto (a) who has the concession for (i) restaurants (ii) lounges (b) if rented, was this on a tender basis and, if so, who else tendered and what were the amounts of each tender (c) who are the directors of the companies involved?
2.	Does T.C.A. have a contract with Aerocaterers Limited and, if so, when was it signed originally and who were the signing personnel for this contract, and any others since then?
3.	What is the expected revenue from all sources at each of the new airports at Edmonton, Winnipeg and Toronto?

Inquiries of the Ministry
4.	What Is total cost to date Including buildings and runways of the new airports at Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Toronto?
Return tabled.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that the matter comes under two departments I will direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the government is giving consideration to the complaints being received from members of the armed forces who are being compulsorily and mandatorily retired, particularly in connection with the question of income tax being imposed on the bulk sum in the year in which the payment is made.
Has the government given consideration to extending the payment over a period of years, or at least to permitting income tax to be paid on that basis rather than having the imposition made immediately the payment is made to a discharged member of the armed forces?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware I have not received complaints myself, but perhaps some of my colleagues have. I shall look into the matter, and if complaints have been received we will give consideration to the suggestion made by the right hon. gentleman.



PROPOSED VISIT BY MINISTER TO EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I am one of those people who firmly believe that NATO will remain strong and unified as it has been in the past, and thus contribute to the maintenance of stability both in Europe and the rest of the world. As far as our commitments are concerned, at the present time they run to the end of 1966, and we have already forecast in the white paper, if my hon. friend is familiar with it, that there will be renegotiation of commitments which will be in effect from that time.']
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him if the press reports are correct that he will be heading a trade delegation to the Soviet union later this year. May I further ask him if the matter of continued sales of wheat to that country will be on the agenda for discussion?


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I was as surprised as perhaps he was to read this report in the paper this morning. I do intend to make a trip to the Soviet union, and I hope to other countries in eastern Europe, but I have not laid any plans for this purpose and the story that appears in the paper is purely speculative. I


can assure the hon. gentleman, however, that if I have the opportunity of going I shall be discussing wheat before anything else.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence perhaps I may direct it to the parliamentary secretary. What is the total number of troops now under United Nations command in Cyprus, and have any United Kingdom troops been withdrawn as yet from the United Nations force and replaced by troops from other participating countries?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I shall take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
In view of NATO's rather uncertain future, following discussions now being held in Europe, will the minister take this opportunity to renegotiate the scope of his military contribution to that organization, as he advocated when he sat in opposition? [Text]


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those people who firmly believe that NATO will remain strong and unified as it has been in the past, and thus contribute to the maintenance of stability both in Europe and the rest of the world. As far as our commitments are concerned, at the present time they run to the end of 1966, and we have already forecast in the white paper, if my hon. friend is familiar with it, that there will be renegotiation of commitments which will be in effect from that time.



DOMINICAN REPUBLIC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister aware that a per-

son holding a Canadian passport has been deported from the Dominican Republic and, if so, what does his department intend to do in that respect?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of newspaper reports that the world's ten leading industrial nations have been wrestling in secret talks with various proposed alterations of the world's monetary system, would the minister inform the house whether a representative of the Department of Finance or the Bank of Canada has been participating in these talks? If so, has he any information he can give the house in connection with the government's attitude toward the proposals designed to increase monetary liquidity in the future through international co-operation?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. Talks have been going on for some time on this very important and complex question, and Canada has been participating in those talks. When we have something specific to report to the house I will be very glad to make a report, but I do not have anything further to add at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us who the representatives are who have been taking part in these discussions on Canada's behalf?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The official who has been participating is Mr. Plumptre, the assistant deputy minister of finance. I hope to participate myself at a meeting of this group in June.



INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE IN DOMESTIC MONETARY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. I am sorry that I did not give him notice of it, because he would have had the opportunity to meditate a little.
Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the alarming situation of our economy, does the minister consider making a few changes in his monetary policy so as to relieve poverty amidst plenty in Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I cannot accept the premise upon which the hon. member has based a question of this importance. I think it is fair to say that the economy of the country has not been stronger than it is now for many, many years.


Some hon. Members:: The devalued dollar.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: All the indices are going up. If the hon. member wishes to see it I will be glad to send him a copy of a speech I made a week ago on this subject.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give us the exact number of unemployed in Canada at the present time, which would prove, by the same token, whether or not prosperity is prevailing in the country?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Following the announcement that certain federal civil servants, more particularly the French Canadian group, have decided to form their own association which will be independent of the national organization, could the Prime Minister assure the house that the group will not be discriminated against by other associations of federal employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper in order to get a detailed answer?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. According to newspaper reports an order was made by the chief justice of Quebec granting bail to Mr. Banks. I wonder whether the terms of that recognizance

Inquiries of the Ministry include a condition which would prevent Mr. Banks from leaving Canada.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: have not been made aware of the minute details of the terms of the bond. I think this matter has been settled at the instance of counsel representing the attorney general of the province of Quebec. However, I shall be pleased to inquire into the matter.



LEGISLATION RESPECTING DISSEMINATION OF &quot;HATE&quot; LITERATURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Is the Minister of Justice in a position to advise the house whether the Department of Justice is now engaged in drafting the necessary legislation which will be presented to parliament to deal with the campaign of hate literature? If so, what is the nature of this legislation and when may it be expected to be introduced in the house?


Guy Favreau: With due deference, I doubt whether this is an urgent question within the meaning of your rulings, Mr. Speaker. However, I am pleased to answer the hon. gentleman to the effect that this matter is presently under active pursuance by officials of my department and myself, but I am not yet in a position to report to the government or to make a final submission.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. gentleman and ask him whether this report is justified: "The hon. member for York Centre reported that the Department of Justice is preparing effective legal measures to stop the dissemination of bigotry and racial hatred." Also:
The wheels of justice are moving again against these maniacs. Our bill will be presented to parliament after consultation with the proper authorities.
Are those statements in accordance with the facts?


Mr. Speaker:: This is the first time I have had an opportunity, if it is the right opportunity, of applying one of my instructions. It seems to fit the case. Questions should not inquire whether statements made in newspapers are correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, with due deference to that ruling, I ask the minister whether legislation is being prepared to meet the situation, and whether it will be presented soon.


Guy Favreau: Well, I just gave an answer to the first part of that question. As to the

second part, I must answer that this will be government policy, to be announced in due course.



FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCIES IN HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. At the request of home builders of the province of Quebec in particular, does the government intend to amend the Bankruptcy Act in order to stem the present wave of fraudulent bankruptcies in the field of housing?


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the minister has a ready answer it seems to me this is a question for the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, the minister has his answer ready, Mr. Speaker.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to make that suggestion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I will discuss this matter at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the house whether he approves the statement made by Mr. Rene Levesque at St. Mary's College during the week end where he rejected co-operative federalism and advocated the status of associate state for Quebec?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This is a very important question, Mr. Speaker. It is the same old bunch.


Mr. Speaker:: Without ruling on the importance of the question, I would certainly say it is a very interesting matter. Nevertheless it is out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Can I raise this matter after ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the hon. member's question was not in order. He was simply asking for the opinion of one minister as to a statement made by a minister in another province on another matter.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is of great importance.


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: I wish to ask a question pertaining to the same matter. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would like to tell us whether the status of associate state for Quebec comes within the compass of co-operative federalism.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The status of Quebec and Canada should be well known to the hon. gentleman.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister now in a position to inform the house what export assistance will be made available to the cheese producers of Canada? I would remind him that he forecast such assistance in his statement on dairy policy on April 29.


Harry William Hays: I hope the stabilization board will be able to make an announcement tomorrow. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that we have about 46 million pounds of cheese in storage, and that there is a very brisk market for it.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: I wish to ask a supplementary question. With regard to his change in policy whereby the Minister of Agriculture has withdrawn the 30 cent subsidy paid by the government to the producers of cheese milk, will it now become compulsory and statutory that the cheese factories pay the cheese milk producers the 30 cents per hundredweight, since the government now proposes to pay the cheese factories a subsidy of 3.6 cents per pound for first grade Cheddar cheese?


Harry William Hays: The policy of the government has always been, through the stabilization board, to pay the 30 cents subsidy to the cheese factories. The payment is now no different except that we are paying 3.6 cents on solids. You get about nine pounds of cheese out of 100 pounds of milk, so this even represents a slight increase for first quality cheese.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I did not get an answer to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is entering into a debate with the minister.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the government making it compulsory for all civil servants, whether they are covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act or not, to complete applications for social insurance numbers?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisier of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the house that there will be no discrimination against those civil servants who do not wish to fill out applications?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CITIZENSHIP ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question is based on his reference in Toronto over the week end to the government's proposed amendment to the Citizenship Act, which of course was referred to in the speech from the throne. Can the Prime Minister tell us when this legislation will be introduced and what it will include to make all citizens in Canada equal?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I	am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot tell my hon. friend when it will be introduced. The government would like to get it before the house as quickly as possible, and when it is introduced I will then be able to report on the details of the legislation.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Because of the announcement by Premier Robarts of Ontario that an international conference will be called to discuss water levels on the great lakes, will the minister inform the house whether this government intends sending observers to these meetings?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker,
I noted in the press the announcement that Mr. Robarts had suggested that an international conference on lake levels be held. I also noticed with considerable interest that he suggested it would have to originate at the federal government level. We are at all times in discussion with our U.S. counterparts in

Inquiries of the Ministry the technical field on these matters. I believe that at the meeting of ministers with the United States secretaries which took place a week or ten days ago the matter was raised but was not discussed in any depth. I am quite certain that the United States government would be happy to discuss this with the Canadian government, and I am quite certain also that an exchange of facts in relation to their position and ours would be beneficial and no doubt will be undertaken.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have there been any direct talks between the Ontario government and the Canadian government on the subject?


Arthur Laing: Not with me, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether discussions did take place between the Canadian ministers and the United States ministers when that meeting took place? If so, what was the nature of the discussions; was any course determined on, or was the position such that Canada advanced no particular plan whatever, which apparently was the position when the minister reported to parliament when his estimates were before the house?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I might tell the right hon. gentleman that the matter was raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, very little discussion in depth took place at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the nature of the suggestion on the part of the Canadian government, if anything? The hon. gentleman was not so sure the other day. Was he present when these discussions took place between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the United States ministers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer that question. I took part in the discussion with Mr. Udall and other United States ministers, and having agreed that the problem was of course serious we decided what would be the best course to follow in order to bring about the kind of examination which has to be brought about by both countries.
The matter has been referred to technical officials on both sides so that suitable terms of reference can be agreed on for submission to the international joint commission, which as my right hon. friend knows is an international body and is the most appropriate body to make recommendations to the government on this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the federal government did not see fit to call a conference, would it consider sending repre-

sentatives to the conference which the premier of Ontario has stated will be called?
I think the Prime Minister would agree, would he not, that the action on the part of Mr. Robarts was, to use his expression, bold and imaginative?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will leave the adjectives to my right hon. friend; but while Mr. Robarts was making his statement the officials were already working on terms of reference for the international joint commission, and on the international joint commission both governments are already represented.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources have this information when his estimates were before the house, or did the Prime Minister keep it secret from him?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I was the minister who took part in the discussion, I thought it appropriate that I should reply, Mr. Speaker.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, was he aware that some preliminary meetings had taken place? So that I do not have to rise again I will ask a second question. In order that his words are not improperly received I will quote what the premier of Ontario said:
Ultimate responsibility would probably fall to the... federal government-
Would the minister, then, consider instituting such a conference?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I would think, answering the second question, that there will be an official appeal from the premier of Ontario to the government of Canada to initiate such negotiations with the United States. As to the first question, I would not say that meetings have taken place. I said that the matter had been raised by our Secretary of State for External Affairs in the discussions with the United States secretaries, but that not a great deal of discussion had taken place other than the reference to the I.J.C. and the technical studies that are under way.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a supplementary question that arises from an answer given by the Prime Minister, who stated that officials were busy preparing terms of reference concerning this matter. My question is, will these terms of reference contain a demand for a study of the Grand canal project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if that has a bearing on the lake levels it will of course be considered; if it does not, then it probably

would not be appropriate for this particular reference. But this matter is already under consideration by officials on both sides, and the provincial governments, and undoubtedly the state governments, will be kept informed of the discussions as they go on.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has he received a communication from the Quebec premier or from the minister of natural resources asking the federal government's co-operation concerning a study of the problem of the water level in Montreal harbour, the St. Lawrence river and Lac des Deux-Montagnes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having received such a communication, but I will be glad to look into the matter as soon as I get to my office.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from the association of Vancouver island municipalities urging the federal government to contribute as generously and rapidly as possible to the Alberni valley and west coast disaster fund; and if so, can he indicate to the house the nature of his reply to this telegram?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received that telegram just before lunch. I have not yet had a chance to look into it. I will do so immediately.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Lamb (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker I should like to direct my question to the minister of mines. Is he still considering the stockpiling of uranium? I gave the minister written notice of this question and I intend to receive an answer.


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, this was fully discussed last week on orders of the day.
11, 1984	3119
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS



CANADA PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in her absence I would direct it to the parliamentary secretary. Is it now possible to inform the house when the revised paper on the Canada pension plan will be available?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member for Middlesex West that a white paper will be made available at the appropriate time. The government is working on it right now and will make it available as early as possible. The most important new feature is as to survivors and disability benefits, and it would be improper to deal with this matter in a white paper until a constitutional amendment, which enables these benefits to be included in the plan, has been prepared.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Can he indicate when the proposal for an amendment to the constitution in connection with this matter will be presented to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the exact date. We have agreed on a formula of words and as soon as that formula is acceptable to all provinces we will be able to bring it before the house.



EFFECT OF INCREASED DELIVERIES ON LOW QUOTA POINTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on May 7 the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre asked a question of the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to the supplementary delivery quotas which had been established by the wheat board. The hon. member asked:
Will the heavy deliveries arising from these extra quotas, at points now on 8 bushel quotas, adversely affect the chances of points not yet on the 8 bushel quota receiving such a quota soon?
I can now answer the hon. gentleman's question. My answer is no; I am advised by the Canadian wheat board that preference for box cars will continue to be giT en the lower quota points.

National Defence Act PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS



REQUEST FOR MINIMUM WAGES FOR CAFETERIA AND OTHER EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or his assistant, although it may have to be referred to another authority. Would the minister advise the house whether arrangements are being made to bring the wage rates of cafeteria and other employees on parliament hill up to at least the minimum wage requirements of the province of Ontario?


Mr. E. J. Benson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hellyer for the second reading of Bill No. C-90, to amend the National Defence Act.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the time I have left to deal mainly with two suggestions resulting from the statement made last Friday by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) on the plan now being studied.
First, I think it should be pointed out that the people most directly affected do not seem too happy about the proposals set forth by the minister to compensate the members of the armed forces who will be discharged following the re-organization of the general staff and the armed forces.
Indeed, last week and Saturday in particular, newspapers reported some rather bitter comments made by members of the armed forces or their representatives.
When he replied to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) did not seem aware of the representations and of the fully justified objections made against those decisions.
I feel that those decisions are open to criticism on two counts.
With regard to the government's intention to fully assess the amount of the compensation paid to discharged personnel, I find somewhat strange the intention to tax those allowances paid to the personnel, because a tax is being levied as if it were an income. In this case, it is not an income, but a sum of money, an

allowance paid for a specific purpose. That aim is to ensure or facilitate the rehabilitation of military personnel.
It is easy to understand that those soldiers, seamen or airmen, who have served for a number of years in the armed forces, need special provisions to enable them to adjust to civilian life, when they could normally expect, under the terms of their enrolment, to serve the rest of their active life in the armed forces.
That makes me wonder why such a sharp distinction is made between the various ranks of military personnel. Thus, a general with 15 to 20 years' service in the armed forces can expect to get a compensation or gratuity that can amount to several thousands of dollars, whereas an ordinary soldier with the same length of service will receive only a small fraction of that amount.
Yet, would it not be reasonable to think that it would be much more difficult for a private, who perhaps has no trade and surely no savings and few business connections, to rehabilitate himself than it would be for a general who received a very high pay while serving in the armed forces?
Therefore, it seems to me that if the minister intends to pay certain gratuities to discharged personnel for rehabilitation purposes, no distinction should be made on the basis of rank. Both the private and the general gave their time and perhaps sacrificed another career to serve their country and, surely, if for some reason or a policy change they are forced to leave the armed forces and look for a civilian job, no distinction should be made because, after all, such distinctions are only factitious.
Consequently, I move on the one hand, that the compensation paid to officers and servicemen who are forced to retire be income tax free, and, on the other, that the amount of the compensation be allowed to vary according to the number of years of service but not according to the grade of the individual concerned. In addition, I suggest that the compensation be graduated according to the person who retires.
Finally, I believe that the government should take special steps, perhaps along the lines followed after the last world war, to enable retired members of the armed forces to take special courses or learn a trade to facilitate their rehabilitation.
Oftentimes, servicemen, in the army, the air force or the navy, learn a trade which is useless to them once they return to civilian life and, if we want to be really fair to them -and however stirring the minister's call- we must make all these benefits available to these men who are the innocent victims of a

policy change, a change that may be necessary but which is nevertheless a government policy change which vitally affects them as well as their families.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to close my remarks with these few words on the defensive role that Canada should play today. First of all, it should be a role proportionate to the means of our country.
Following the minister's statement it was reported in the press that as a result of these changes a saving of $10 billion was expected during the next ten years. I think that the minister should correct the wrong impression given by his remarks, because after considering them closely one realizes that it will not really be a saving but simply a transfer of certain sums from military personnel or the administration to development of military equipment.
I feel that our country should refrain from trying to play the part of a great power, and especially all parts at the same time. I submit that the efforts of our country should be restricted to the development of an efficient military technology which would give our country the opportunity to equip itself with modern weapons, and this could make all the difference between an obsolete and an adequate defence.
Mr. Speaker, today, the part played by the great powers cannot be determined by the population of a country or even by its resources. There are countries with a very large population which, however, are not great powers. There are some nations with huge natural wealth, which are not among the great powers. For instance, there are India and Brazil, with vast resources and a huge population, but undeveloped yet which do not count among the really great powers in today's accepted meaning of the words.
At the same time, there are some countries with a comparatively small population which, thanks to their very advanced technological achievements, rank among the great powers, like the United Kingdom, which is not among the most populated. There are also France and Germany, instances of highly industrialized nations, with a highly developed industrial potential and a very progressive military technology, which are able to play a key part in international relations.
After all, we just have to think that a country has only to discover a new means of destruction, perhaps a biological or chemical means of warfare, or some death ray, to become a great power. It is a good illustration of the need for Canada to penetrate further into the field of technological and military research.
National Defence Act
The minister will admit that, at this time, our country does not make a very marked effort in that direction, and that nothing in the minister's statement implies that the situation will soon be remedied. Because of its refusal to face the need of stressing military research this country will only be a second class nation as long as no decision is taken to the contrary.
I think the minister should show some courage, go ahead and correct that alarming situation.
Mr. Speaker, it would seem that Canada should further direct its efforts towards the setting up of a mobile peace force which would immediately be trained jointly with other nations and put at the disposal of the United Nations organization.
There is, I think, a field where Canada can play a most efficient part, best suited to its way of thinking and its history.
I know that the Prime Minister raised the question. He spoke of negotiations which had started, or were about to start with certain countries to work out this peace force. Well, we would like to have more specific information in this respect. Would the minister tell us how the project could take shape from a military point of view and be integrated in the defence effort of this country.
Speaking about that peace force, I cannot help but think of the situation now prevailing on Cyprus. I believe that if there is now a need to establish a peace force, it is in order to prevent a situation such as the one that occurred and is developing now on the island.
We would have a great many questions to ask the Minister of National Defence regarding the situation of our troops on the island of Cyprus. For instance, we should like to know whether the Canadian contingent is there under the auspices of the United Nations? That question comes to mind, because we do not know to whom the commander in chief of the Canadian force is really responsible.
Moreover, we do not know whether the countries which promised to send a contingent to set up that force will soon keep their promise, because of all the countries which promised to send forces, only Canada has fully carried out its commitment. Up to now, the other countries which had committed themselves to increase the strength of the force have only sent token forces, so that only Canadian and British soldiers make up this peace keeping force.
The conclusion must be reached that instead of being a United Nations force, this force is jointly administered by Canada and

National Defence Act
the United Kingdom, whereas the government, and more particularly the Prime Minister, had informed the house of quite definite and specific commitments in this regard. In fact, the Prime Minister stated that this contingent would not be sent to Cyprus, unless it really and effectively constituted a force under the control of the United Nations.
We are led to ask that question by the fact that the United Nations are not responsible for the expenses of the contingent, since Canada itself will assume that burden.
In addition, I think that the minister should give us the assurance that every arrangement has been taken for the security of the Canadian troops now in Cyprus. And still again I blame the government, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) for refusing to disclose the security arrangements essential for our Canadian troops as well as instructions which have been given to them.
I believe that the Canadian people are concerned about the security of our troops in Cyprus, and they wonder also as to the part they are playing there now and will be playing in future.
I am of the opinion that Canada was willing to send a peace force to Cyprus provided its real mission would be to restore peace under the auspices of the United Nations. Up to now, we have not received any assurance from the Minister of National Defence or other ministers in that respect. That is why I say that the minister should take this opportunity, when the whole matter of our defence can be considered, to explain to us the role played by our troops in Cyprus, and especially the security measures taken to ensure their survival and welfare.
In my opinion, if the minister wants to tackle resolutely the problems which we, on this side of the house, have pointed out to him, and if he really wants to give us adequate answers, he will show that he is a great Minister of National Defence, a role he would like to assume and I wish him well. But, up to now he has not proven he could play such a role. So we will be waiting very impatiently for his answers before the end of this debate.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity offered by the debate on setting up a special defence committee to make a few observations.
Some time ago, the minister announced some rather drastic reforms concerning the Canadian armed forces. He informed the house that General Walsh had been appointed chief of the general staff. In this connection, I

would like to ask the minister if he is considering giving a special status to General Allard, whose services are highly appreciated within the Canadian armed forces. General Allard could definitely assume greater responsibilities than those he now has, and he would have a part to play if he were associated with General Walsh and jointly in charge of the Canadian armed forces general staff.
Mr. Speaker, I think my suggestion is constructive since it is very difficult for only one man to have complete responsibility over the general staff of Canadian forces. I think that if the minister and the government placed their reliance in General Allard, he could work in co-operation with General Walsh. In fact, those two highly qualified men could do a better job in the interest of the Canadian armed forces.
On many occasions we heard the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), now Minister without Portfolio, discuss before us the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean. Several hon. members on this side of the house also spoke on that matter and if I refer to pages 249 and 250 of Hansard of January 22, 1960, I find a plea made by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville asking that the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean be put on the same footing as the Kingston Royal Military College and asking that it be given a complete four-year course.
Mr. Speaker, the present government has now been in office over a year. That pledge to establish a four-year course was made by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville specially during the last election, and I am wondering what the government is doing in that field.
I wonder what the government proposes to do, if it intends to ignore the oft-repeated request made by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. Besides, as I said a little earlier, the hon. member spoke about that during the last election campaign. I wonder what the minister proposes to do. Why did he not tell the house that the course would be complete and on the same footing as the one in Kingston? Has the minister lost faith in the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, Minister without Portfolio? Does the minister want us, on this side of the house, to rise every day to alert public opinion and indirectly force the government to act?
In my opinion, it is important that the minister tell us what he proposes to do and if he intends to put that college on the same footing as the one in Kingston. Besides, the government has received numerous requests from members belonging to our group, from

Saint-Jean-Baptiste societies and organizations in the province of Quebec, and even in other provinces, to the effect that the course given at the St. Johns Royal Military College should be complete like the one given in Kingston.
This would not exclude the possibility of exchanging students, that is French speaking students could go to Kingston and English speaking students could continue their course at the St. Johns Royal Military College. I believe such a policy would contribute greatly towards national unity.
Mr. Speaker, according to newspaper reports published recently, many Canadian servicemen have made requests to appear before the Laurendeau-Dunton commission in order to state their grievances. The minister announced that he would allow military personnel to submit briefs to the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism provided that it be done behind closed doors so as to avoid political controversy.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that according to the press Professor Arsene Lau-ziere, of the Royal Military College in Kingston, stated that there exists some discrimination against French Canadians at present with respect to promotions within the Canadian army. I feel that such a charge on the part of a professor at the college in Kingston is very serious, because it raises doubts in the minds of Canadians and contributes to disunity in our country.
It is all very well to allow servicemen to explain their grievances to the royal commission on biculturalism, but this does not settle the problem in my opinion, since this investigation may last a year or two and the government will not in the least be bound by the commission's recommendations.
In view of the serious charges made by an official of Kingston Military College and others, I ask the minister whether an investigation could be made within the armed forces, so as to clear up the situation and check whether this professor's statements are true. The minister cannot overlook the serious charges which have been raised. It seems to me that even if the government allows servicemen to explain their grievances to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, it will not be bound to take action. The only way would be a royal commission which would call witnesses and take action to correct the situation, if there is really discrimination in the armed forces. That is the only way-and there is no other, Mr. Speaker-to remove any doubt in the minds of the Canadian people.
National Defence Act
Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to have the opinion of the minister on that matter.
On the other hand, I have always been concerned about something which has respect to the Canadian forces in NATO. I should like to know whether food and material for the Canadian forces in NATO come from Canada or are supplied by the United States and England. I was told that it was very difficult, in view of the small number of Canadian soldiers now in Europe, as compared to American and English forces, to organize a system to supply the Canadian armed forces with provisions coming from Canada. But I wonder if it would not be possible for the Canadian government to come to an agreement with the United States and England in order to get some compensation. For instance, we might have a special quota; Canada might sell to the United States and England a certain amount of farm products.
The minister knows that we have farm surpluses in Canada at the present time. Canadian farmers-especially those in eastern Canada-are faced with a serious crisis which jeopardizes the Canadian economy because if the citizens of a part of Canada do not have an adequate yearly income, by the same token, the other part of Canada suffers therefrom.
I wonder if it would not be possible to review our agreements completely, so that we Canadians will not be left holding the bag, and so that we will obtain some compensation on the part of the American and British governments.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are presently worried about the situation now developing in Cyprus and about the fate of their troops. We do not know whether Canadian troops will remain three months, three years or five years in Cyprus; the way things are going, these troops will likely have to stay there at least five years. We hope the government will ask authorization from parliament, after the three months' period has expired, to see whether it will agree to extend the stay of Canadian troops in Cyprus.
There appears to be some confusion at this time. What is most unfair, in my opinion, and what completely destroys the authority of the United Nations, is that the Canadian people are obliged to pay the entire cost of their troops' stay in Cyprus. Normally, this expense should be divided among all the member countries of the United Nations. There are some countries, for instance, France and Russia, which, in the past, refused to pay their contribution to the United Nations.

National Defence Act
Those same countries have exactly the
same right to vote as those who carry out their commitments, such as Canada and the United States.
It is absolutely necessary, at the very next session of the United Nations, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) call upon the secretary general of the United Nations to urge the United Nations, that the cost of the Canadian troops on Cyprus should be paid by them and not only by the Canadian people.
The Canadian people are prepared to do their share for peace, but they do not want, in other words, to be taken in as regards every conflict throughout the world. We have done more than our share to assist the United Nations financially. It is only fair and reasonable that the government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, should take a definite stand at the next session of the United Nations.
Normally, the next session of the United Nations should begin in September, but because of the American elections, it will be postponed until November. I hope that the Canadian government will take a definite position in that matter. We are prepared to do our share but we do not want to bleed ourselves white only to be laughed at. We have obligations at home. Unemployment here is startling. In Canada we have 600,000 unemployed. We are prepared to co-operate for peace, but with logic and common sense.
I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a few questions concerning our Canadian troops on Cyprus. I have it on good authority, from a trustworthy informant, as it was given to me by the very friends of the minister.
I ask the minister the following question.
The most alarming rumours are circulating in Cyprus and in well-informed diplomatic and military circles, with regard to the relations, between General Gyani and a Greek personality in the Cypriot cabinet on the one hand, and Mr. Tuomioja and his assistant, Mr. Millar, on the other hand, which might, according to some reports, in the long run compromise the success of the peace operation and more particularly the position of the force. Those rumours, of which I was informed by a reliable source, left me in the deepest state of alarm. Yet, I would hesitate to give full particulars- though my information is rather specific- before the minister tells us whether my authority is authentic and reliable.
I would like to know, for instance, whether the rumours with regard to the personal relations of General Gyani are well-founded. What is the background of

Mr. Millar, and in what way does he assist Mr. Tuomioja? Are the U.N. authorities and the Canadian government fully aware of the situation and of the possible influence the Canadian contingent might wield to make peace prevail?
Second, could I be told whether the Turk-ish-Cypriot authorities were warned by the U.N. command, according to the terms of reference conferred by Mr. U Thant, of the large scale operations launched by Greek Cypriots against the fort of St. Hilarion? Because, according to other well-founded rumours, the Turkish authorities had not been advised as they should have been, and, knowing that those operations could not have escaped the supervision of the Canadian military personnel, they are said to have tried to shift the blame onto the Canadian soldiers.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these allegations are quite serious. It would be most important for the minister to examine this situation and obtain the required information, in order to clear this up before the house and to reassure the people of this country who, as I said, have accepted to send a Canadian contingent to Cyprus and, furthermore, who are paying the full cost thereof.
In closing my remarks, I am asking the minister again: How is the Canadian contingent in Cyprus supplied with food and equipment? It would be most important that the Canadian farmers should not be the losers, and I would be very happy if the minister could consider these suggestions in order to make a report to the house, in the interest of the Canadian taxpayer.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: am very sorry I was not able to be here last Friday when an introductory statement was made on the second reading of this bill. But I am certain, Mr. Speaker, you will realize that when a member of this house is 3,000 miles away from his home city and only takes some two days off in three months to revisit his family and constituents, he is not abusing his position as a member of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, it would be just in those days I took to return to the city of Vancouver that the questions as to the reappointment of the defence committee and second reading of this particular bill came up.
I have only had a few moments in which to glance over the introductory statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) and other statements last Friday, but even so I feel I would like to take a few minutes in which to make some comments.

First, I should like to express my bitter disappointment at the long delay in reappointing the special committee on defence. When this committee brought in its report at the close of the last session there were some 13 important matters which were taken to be of such major seriousness that the committee felt it should be reappointed at an early date in order to deal with them. Had the committee been reappointed early in the present session it could have been investigating these most important matters. We have lost two valuable months. In addition, had the committee been reappointed earlier, the white paper brought down by the Minister of National Defence could have been referred to it immediately for consideration, and by now it could have been the subject of a month's study. I do not know why the committee was not reappointed immediately, especially in view of the importance attached last session to its early establishment. I can only express the hope that the delay was not due to a deliberate act of government policy. I do not think it was the deliberate intention of the Minister of National Defence to delay it. But somebody did, and I only hope that whoever held it up did not do so with the intent of preventing the committee from having sufficient time in which to do the necessary job of studying Canada's defence policy now and in the future. I may say, though, that I am a little suspicious.
I am also disappointed, in view of the agreement that the appointment of the committee last Friday would go without debate but that there would be opportunity during the discussion of this bill for a broad and comprehensive debate on any aspect of defence, that the Minister of National Defence did not give more information to the house -than he did last Friday. It appears he did what is normally the correct thing to do, that is, he stayed strictly within the principles of the bill before us. But because of the understanding that there would be an opportunity for a broad discussion on defence I had hoped he would have gone into greater detail about some of the most important questions which face us. First, I think he should have given the house an explanation for changes made in government policy since the end of last session. This was not done and I think it was unfair to members of the House of Commons, who should not have to rely upon what appears in newspapers when they see explanations of these matters. Surely, the house should be told in detail the reasons for any changes in government policy made between the end of last session and the time the minister made his speech the other day. I will return to this in a moment.
National Defence Act
I wish now to make mention of the bill before us and the statement by the minister, which I read in the newspapers, about the proposals being made on behalf of those who will be leaving the service because of integration of staff or other changes in policy. As I read the statement of the minister it was based wholly on the making of a cash payment the extent of which was to depend upon the period of service-ten months, and so on-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Plus a waiving of the pension penalty.


Harold Edward Winch: Plus certain waivers. I wish to express my extreme regret that this was the only plan considered, or at least that it was the only one proposed. I am in receipt of communications from men in the forces who may be affected. I have heard from one air force base in particular. I am told that after consideration of this matter those who think they might be affected are not so much concerned with receiving a settlement of perhaps ten months' pay on discharge as they are with being readapted into civilian life. In other words, Mr. Speaker, according to the letters sent to me by those in the forces at the present time, they would have preferred an option to this effect, that on their discharge the Department of National Defence or any other department that might be brought into it would see that they receive training in order to readapt them into civilian life, as well as being compensated, of course, on being discharged from the forces for their maintenance during training.
This point in particular was brought to my attention, that the taxpayers of Canada have over the years paid thousands of dollars to train men in individual trades in the navy, the air force and the army. Therefore they have a basic understanding and a thorough knowledge of those trades for military purposes. They say, "Why could we not, then, have the department give us on discharge, or pay for us to undertake, the additional training so we may adapt to civilian occupations what Canada has paid for us to learn for military purposes?" If I had received only one letter on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I would not have raised it, but I have received a number of letters from two of the bases which think they will be affected. According to my information, the majority of men would prefer this kind of treatment on discharge to the $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 or $8,000 they will receive by way of gratuity.
As this information comes from the armed services perhaps there is still time for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) to give consideration to this additional approach to caring for those in our armed forces whose

National Defence Act
services may no longer be required in June, at the end of the year, or next year. I think it is a suggestion that is most worthy of consideration by the minister, and is most worthy, Mr. Speaker, coming from these men in the armed forces who say this is what they would prefer; that is, being retrained instead of getting something which may last them for a year or, as was pointed out to me, they may invest it stupidly in a small business, go broke and have nothing. Therefore I hope the minister will consider this proposition put forward by the men themselves, of training for readaptation from military service into civilian occupation.
Now, sir, may I spend a little time on the general principles of defence. I will not deal with this subject in detail because, as I said, I have not had time to go through everything that was said last Friday. I believe the Minister of National Defence did a disservice to this House of Commons in his statement of Friday in not bringing us up to date on the Canadian position, in view of the dissertations and discussions of recent weeks relative to NATO, particularly in regard to Canada's position in NATO relating to all the conflict which, if the newspapers are correct, is now developing. I refer in particular to the position of France toward NATO in view of the de Gaulle policy. If the newspapers are correct, the position taken in the past two or three weeks due to the de Gaulle policy is this: He has pulled out his naval officers because he is not satisfied, and we read of the additional emphasis he is putting on his being the power-this is the only basis upon which you can put his policy-in Europe. In view of this, the house was entitled to know last Friday, not in the future, what the position is, in view of the discussions and dissertations in Europe of the last few weeks, particularly with regard to NATO. We are entitled to know what is the view of the Minister of National Defence and the government on this matter. In particular I think we should have had a detailed answer as to why we are still maintaining air force squadrons in France.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is-I have said it before and I repeat it-absolutely and positively ridiculous and asinine to have a government policy whereby France has its air force to some extent in Germany so they can have nuclear warheads, while we maintain squadrons in France that cannot be similarly equipped. I am against nuclear weapons, but on this facet of the question I cannot understand the stupidity of government thinking, and I cannot understand why the Canadian taxpayer should have to pay to maintain those

squadrons in France when France is challenging the very basis of NATO and the cooperative influence and control of NATO. To my mind this just does not make sense. It has not yet been explained; perhaps it will be explained in the defence committee when it meets.
Also, Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks in particular statements have been made by statesmen of the world to the effect that if there is a war in the future-and thank heavens there seems to be a diminution of that possibility-manned bombers are going to play a smaller and smaller part and have a lesser degree of impact. Almost everything I read suggests that the only threat would be from
I.C.B.M.'s. That being the case, why does the government continue its present policy? Why does the Minister of National Defence outline in his white paper the policies that are outlined about the expenditures of money by the Canadian taxpayer for his department on something that is utterly useless in the event of war? From all I have read they are still a long way from getting a defence against the I.C.B.M.; but even if the United States is successful in the breakthrough, it is a matter that involves billions of dollars, not only in the breakthrough but in setting up the defensive apparatus. This is something completely out of the field of operation of Canada in any way whatsoever now or in the future. Is there not a better way in which Canadian money could be spent on peace, rather than spending it on our Bomarcs and Voodoos? Is there not an explanation due, not only with regard to present expenditures but also past expenditures? Many of us are still waiting and are intrigued to find out why it was that the former government bought the planes we now have for our squadrons in France and Germany. I understand that we were the only country which bought them to be equipped with nuclear warheads. Now that the CF-104's are in France we have to put in the dual system.
Not long ago I asked a question as to what was the cost of making the change-over, but I could not get this information from the associate minister. Who is paying for this? Who is responsible for the stupidity of ordering planes to be equipped in this fashion, in view of the policy of the French government at that time? Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the Conservatives, who knew about it at that time. I think the house should have been told about this.
The important matter now is what the policy of this government is today. In my estimation the white paper does not disclose basic, fundamental, futuristic government defence policy. The government is still living in the world of the past, perhaps a little

bit of the present, but not at all of the future. That is why it is interesting to us at this time to note that since the last election we have not heard any more of the previous Liberal policy, and more particularly the policy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Under his interpretation of that policy the government had a commitment to fulfil, because of past Conservative policy; but he promised to renegotiate the Canadian position with regard to nuclear warheads. The Minister of National Defence shakes his head. Does the Minister of National Defence deny that that was the statement and the challenge that was made in the last election by the Liberal party and the Prime Minister? It was broadcast across Canada that there would be such a renegotiation, and that it was his desire to negotiate Canada out of the nuclear business. I have not read or heard of any move by the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence to renegotiate themselves out of the nuclear business or to renegotiate our position in NATO. I cannot remember seeing or hearing anything to that effect.
I understand from the press that when the defence committee filed its report at the end of the last session there was only one major point on which the minister disagreed with the committee, and that concerned our brigade in Europe and the Honest John nuclear rocket. I have seen no explanation yet of the minister's disagreement on that point. No statement has been made by the minister as to exactly what is the position of our brigade in Europe. Is it a mobile brigade with conventional weapons and high mobility, or is it to be concentrated around poor Honest John? The Minister of National Defence must know that the tactics of conventional warfare are concentration and mobility. The tactics of nuclear warfare are those of dispersal. Yet our brigade in Europe is concentrated around Honest John, which the defence committee had an opportunity of seeing last fall.
Surely Canada is not going to take the initiative in starting a nuclear war. Therefore, in a conventional war we are concentrating on Honest John, which of course would not be used. If an enemy were to start a nuclear war, then instead of the tactic of dispersal we have the tactic of concentration. These are some of the questions which we think should have been answered by this time.
Quite apart from our brigade in Europe, our squadrons in France and the position Canada is now taking with regard to NATO, with what could lead to a breakup, there is also the question of our naval policy. I have not heard one word yet about our naval policy, except with regard to the building of three
National Defence Act
submarines. Just what the three submarines are going to do, I do not know. These are some of the matters about which I think we should have heard. I doubt whether we will hear about them for a long time, because this will most likely be the last opportunity for some time to have a discussion in the house on defence matters. We can only express the hope that when the committee meets, and meets three months or at the least two months late, there can be the fullest possible information made available, that witnesses and experts will be called and that the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence will have time to sit in on the deliberations of the committee-because I do not see how these matters can be discussed unless we know the government's views and policies, and are told how they reached their decisions.
At risk of repeating some of the matters which might have been raised on Friday, I should like to close my remarks by expressing my disappointment that our defence committee has lost two months of opportunity. I regret very much that we have not heard more of the fundamental and future policy of the government, especially with regard to what I consider, and what I think the people of Canada consider, the commitment made by the government to get out of the nuclear role. Because it has no place for Canada at all.
The place for Canada is that outlined by our party years ago, and I am mighty glad to see that the Prime Minister is now moving towards it, namely that of a United Nations peace force. There again, sir, I am disappointed. For the past three years two Scandinavian countries have been working on this matter and have reached the point where their legislation is ready. I was very happy to read in the press that the Prime Minister is going to invite countries to a conference to discuss this matter. But we, Mr. Speaker, should have been in the lead, and we would have been in the lead had this government and the previous one listened to the good advice it received from this party in years past.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I notice that the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) has a few comments to make. I do not know if the hon. member for Lake St. John would give him the floor but, if he does, I will recognize the minister.


Marcel Lessard: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

National Defence Act


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associaie Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate this afternoon-I know that most members want to see the defence committee set up as soon as possible-but, during the debate, I heard several comments to which I should like to reply, and I must say that the points brought up were rather disappointing. I was particularly surprised at the stand taken by my colleagues, especially the hon. member for Pon-tiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon), when they dealt with the royal commission on bilingualism and bicul-turalism in relation to the armed forces. In my opinion, there was quite a bit of misunderstanding about that question. It is a fact established by custom and tradition that members of the armed forces do not take part in debates on public or political matters. As a matter of fact, there was only in the house-


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I put a question in order to clear up the matter? Is it not rather a question of prohibiting members of the armed forces from taking part in discussions on political matters?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker. Under the regulations, members of the armed forces are prohibited from taking part in public discussions on controversial matters. Besides, in the house itself, some members of the armed forces were rather strongly criticized for having expressed their personal opinion at a certain time of their career on controversial public matters.
When the royal commission on bilingualism decided to investigate in the Department of National Defence, we saw fit to maintain this tradition, while allowing members of the armed forces to appear before the Lauren-deau-Dunton commission, but behind closed doors. Certain persons seem to think that members of the armed forces are being denied a right and that they are considered as second class citizens. I do not see it that way. In my opinion, they are granted a privilege in being able to give evidence in that manner. Many members of the armed forces are given the opportunity to appear freely before a royal commission, secure from any reprisals; they can thus state exactly their problems, as regards bilingualism and biculturalism, in the Department of National Defence. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission will thus be in a position to hear members of the armed forces on this important subject.
Now, I think that it would be absolutely illogical and premature to conduct another investigation as it has been suggested. I think that the Laurendeau-Dunton commission


should necessarily be given the opportunity to hear all representations on bilingualism within the Department of National Defence.
My hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm referred, a while ago, to what he had read in a newspaper. I am not ready to confirm or accept the newspaper report according to which Mr. Lauziere freely suggested that discrimination existed within the armed forces, and even if he said it, I would not dare justify nor set up a new inquiry into that question of discrimination. If there is any, it certainly did not start this year, it must date back to some time already. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission is making a serious effort, and so is the government, to study the question of bilingualism not only in the country but also within the Department of National Defence. We in the department want to help as much as possible our members to testify freely; we want to give the Laurendeau-Dunton commission all the information and help it needs to reach the proper conclusions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I would like to direct only one question to the minister; after that, I shall ask him no more questions.
Since the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism only plays a passive role- it hears only grievances-and the government does not have to implement its recommendations-that commission may sit for one or two years-and in view of the serious charges made, could the minister, in the public interest, ask the officials of the Department of National Defence to conduct an inquiry in order to verify the accuracy of those statements?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I have been explaining that for the last few minutes. It is true, as stated by the hon. member, that the government does not have to implement the recommendations of the royal commission. I can say this, however. The government fully intends to see that there is no discrimination within the armed forces or the Department of National Defence. Still, I do not feel it is necessary to carry out another investigation, which would be premature and might prejudice the work of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission.
I should like to point out to my hon. friend that what we are trying to do within the Department of National Defence, has not been done for a long time and is a conscientious effort. We want all Canadians, both English speaking and French speaking, to be treated equally. I admit that there may be certain difficulties within the department but it would not necessarily be intentional discrimination. It may be, for instance, that French Canadian servicemen, because they do not feel quite at

home in an English environment or community, cannot be fully efficient. There may be problems of that nature, and we evidently have the intention of getting to the core of the matter so as to correct the situation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to direct a last question to the minister. According to statistics, a mere 2 per cent of high-ranking navy, air force or army officers, who earn $7,000 or more, are French Canadians.
Could the minister say whether that is due to the French Canadians themselves or whether that can be explained by other factors?
For instance, m view of General Allard's competence, could he not hold rank higher than or at least equal to General Walsh?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, these questions are exactly those which are to be studied by the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. That is why I maintain that it is useless to carry an investigation within an investigation. This is precisely the point.
Now my hon. friend speaks of General Allard and General Walsh. There is also General Bernatchez. My hon. friend has only mentioned two French Canadian generals but there are others. Even if I do not have the particulars before me, I am convinced that the percentage of French Canadians with senior ranks is much higher than the 2 per cent mentioned by my hon. friend. I think that it is exactly the type of question which will be looked into by the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. Therefore, I see no point in our carrying out another investigation.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) mentioned the establishment of a four year course at the St. Johns Royal Military College. I must say it is not the first time he or I speak of that. It is true that the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville is particularly anxious to have a four year course set up at that institution. Indeed, many other members are also interested in that question.
Moreover, I told my hon. friend some time ago that a thorough study is being carried out in that connection following representations made by the Knights of Columbus, and various other people and organizations. A rather thorough study is being conducted within the Department of National Defence. I was given to understand that this study should be completed in about ten days.
There would no doubt be certain advantages in extending to four years the course given at the St. Johns Royal Military College. However, there are also some disadvantages. According to the experience I was able to acquire in the past year, I feel that the present system involves a decided advantage,
National Defence Act
since it allows our future officers to get acquainted with their English speaking colleagues so as to get to know each other much better, because after all, those young men will be called upon to work together in the future.
Under the present system, after two years at St. Johns Royal Military College, junior officers are sent to Kingston where they meet their colleagues from other parts of the country. At that time, a state of mind is created which I feel is most useful. Besides, I went personally to the Royal Military College at Kingston where I spoke to young cadet officers who had come there from the military college at St. Johns. I noticed then that they were absolutely delighted to acquire that new experience.
As a matter of fact, I think that it is quite normal, because these young cadet officers during their career might come in contact with one another, and it is important that this may start as soon as possible during their military training. It is a great advantage to be able to exchange cadet officers between military colleges.
Now, as I said to my hon. friend, a report will be submitted very shortly as to whether or not there should be a full four year course at the military college at St. Johns.

Some question has been raised about the militia, and the reasons why we did not wait for the defence committee to sit before making decisions with regard to the militia. As hon. members know, the department had arranged a certain schedule and under that schedule it was decided that we should try to arrive at a reorganized militia in which the numbers would be somewhere around 30,000. It was after taking that decision that the Suttie commission was instituted, and I can report to the house that the results of the Suttie commission's efforts so far have been most gratifying. They have been able to travel throughout the length and breadth of the country to all areas where militia units have been established. They have made a very thorough and complete study of the problems involved in the militia and, according to schedule, I understand they are to bring down a report by the middle or end of June.


Mr. Smith:: Would the minister permit a question on the point he is dealing with before five o'clock? Why did we not wait for Brigadier Suttie's report before a decision was made as to the size of the militia?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Because the size of the militia has a lot to do, as has the rest of the departmental reorganization, with measures of econ-

Water Resources
omy, the question of budgeting and the requirements that will be needed, and it is on this basis that the number was established. We wanted to effect savings, and we also kept in mind what would be required in the field of the militia, and as a fairly rounded number that particular number was chosen.
The Suttie commission will be making its report by the end of June and I feel very confident that it will be most helpful.
The members of the special national defence committee can even now look into the question of the militia. They can come up with suggestions of their own, and I can assure hon. members that these will be seriously considered along with the recommendations made by the Suttie commission. However, I think hon. members realize that if we are going to make some headway there has to be some time limit, and if the committee intends to study this particular question we would hope that it would be able to bring forward a report or suggestions as soon as possible.
There is also the question of the committee not having been set up earlier. I can assure hon. members that if the committee was not set up it was not because national defence was reluctant in any way, shape or form with regard to setting up the defence committee again. On the contrary, both the minister and myself were rather pleased with the way the committee worked last year and we were happy to have it sit again this year. If it was not possible to set it up sooner I want to inform the house it was not because of any reluctance on the part of national defence.
I wonder whether I might call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



WATER RESOURCES


Paul Raymond Martineau: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the undertaking of adequate and complete studies to determine the engineering and economic feasibilities of the grand canal proposal and to initiating such negotiations as may be necessary with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and with the government of the United States to ensure their fullest co-operation in this project and that in particular the government consider:
(1)	The problems concerned with the regulation and conservation of the water levels, water flow and water quality on the great lakes, the St.

Lawrence river, the Ottawa river, lake Nipissing and the French river which are a matter of increasingly serious and frequently expressed international, national and provincial concern, particularly with regard to the prevailing low water levels on the great lakes and on the Ottawa river, making as one result only the practical extension of new navigation facilities on the Ottawa difficult to accomplish.
(2)	The hazards to some of these waters created by increasing industrialization and the resulting increasing demands for withdrawals and consumptive use, particularly on the great lakes-St. Lawrence system.
(3)	The effect upon the standard of living of the many and increasing millions of people involved in one way or another with the above bodies of water and the corrective measures of a positive nature that can be undertaken.
(4)	The proposal that certain substantial and renewable sources of fresh water be collected by cross channels on the James bay watershed and then be diverted southward by the Ottawa and great lakes by step-pumping developed in economic stages as needs increased making use of the large potential of unharnessed hydro power in that area.
(5)	Ways and means to facilitate the early construction of the Ottawa river seaway.
(6)	Ways and means to derive the largest possible benefits of a long term nature that may result from the implementation of the Grand canal proposal, such benefits including the revenue from the sale of water to those who would withdraw or consumptively use it, revenue from new hydro power development for the proposed Canadian power grid, new opportunities for northern forest development, new low cost navigation facilities from Montreal to James bay.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before us has been moved for the purpose of requesting and, in fact, imploring the government to take the necessary action at this time to alleviate a serious and continually deteriorating situation. I have spoken about the low level of water in our great reservoirs of fresh water, the great lakes, and perhaps to a lesser extent in the St. Lawrence river system. The present motion asks for three things. I have been turning them over in my mind and I cannot see one valid reason why the government should hesitate a single second to accept the motion.
One of the things I am asking is that the government initiate a feasibility survey on a project known as the diversion project. The second request is that the government institute talks and consultations with the other governments concerned. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that once again the federal government has abdicated its responsibility in a matter which is crucial to the Canadian people. These consultations are so urgently needed that it has taken another jurisdiction, the government of Ontario, to initiate action that the federal government has failed to take.
I am asking for consultations first of all with the jurisdictions that are masters of the resource in question, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and for consultations with the

United States government, whose country is vitally interested in this question.
Finally, the motion asks that the whole matter of water levels on the great lakes, and one project in particular, be referred to the international joint commission. These are simple enough requests. The need is apparent enough, and the negligence of the government has been too apparent. This is an appeal to the government to study the problem of water-water required for increased consumption by the increasing millions of people who are directly interested, living on the shores of the great lakes and within a radius of some hundreds of miles of those bodies of water.
It is also an appeal to the government to show its interest in the development of our natural resources, in the development of cheap, abundant, hydroelectric power which is necessary for expanding our industrial society, and which is also necessary to service the pumping stations that are envisaged by the program the motion outlines. Finally, it is an appeal to the government to look into the existing needs in Canada for more navigable routes to make cheap methods of transportation available to the government and the people of Canada, which would come from an intelligent interest on the part of the government and then action, if action is warranted, to put this plan into execution. I may add that it is also an appeal to the government to aid northern development by favouring the project which is the subject of my motion.
The era of inexhaustible water supplies is fast fading. When I was thinking today of the low water levels on the great lakes I was reminded of the story which I read not very long ago concerning a situation which had developed on the Missouri river in the United States. It is a story told by Mark Twain, the story of an old riverboat captain navigating down the Missouri when the water levels were very low and he was being continually trapped in the sand. At one stage of his journey he saw an old cabin on the side of the river, and someone was outside it dipping water out of the river for his own private uses. The captain excitedly yelled to him, "Put that drop of water back into the river. We need it to navigate." The situation has not reached that stage yet, but the story illustrates in a practical way what the need is and what the need will be as time goes on.
I cannot accept the theory of the minister of northern affairs (Mr. Laing) who has said, "Well, why worry about low water levels today when perhaps next year the levels will be much higher"? Over the long term the story has been one of fast fading water resources, because of mismanagement in the
Water Resources
past and of the present tremendously increasing consumption of water. We shall never again live in an era when we will have too much water, and it behoves us to share it on an acceptable basis with others who perhaps have a greater need of it.
President Eisenhower made a statement with respect to water supplies in 1955, and if it was true then it is much truer today. He said:
If we are to continue to advance agriculturally and industrially, we must make the best use of every drop of water which falls on our soil or can be extracted from the oceans.
Even by 1955 those who had studied the situation saw we would have to convert water into a manageable resource. Today the situation has become more dramatic. Day after day the government is asked to provide some relief, but all it can say is, "Let us pray for rain." That kind of statement denotes a sorry lack of planning, and the absence of a serious approach to a serious situation.
But if the government has done nothing about this situation, fortunately others have. In the forefront of those who have given some study to the problem I would place Mr. Thomas Kierans of Sudbury, who has engineered and fathered a very comprehensive plan known as the Grand canal proposition which, to the minds of more and more informed people, is becoming a practical way of solving the chronic problem of low water levels on the great lakes and providing many other benefits as well.
I have in front of me a model, prepared by Mr. Kierans, showing an outline of the Grand canal proposal, and I may explain that the word "Grand" is an abbreviation of the words "great replenishment and northern development" canal. This is the project which I am asking the government to consider. Some people may say that it is an utopian project and cannot be accomplished in our day.
Even if that were so-and I think I can prove it is not so-the essence of government is, surely, planning and the administration should at least not refuse to consider the proposal. They say it is utopian. But what alternative method is there of providing a benefit which is indispensible to millions of people. In the United States, consideration has been given to the project. We have read of the request made by Senator Hart that the government of the United States should institute talks on this subject-a request which brought out in a dramatic way the great need that exists. Only last week the government of the province of Ontario took action in this regard and increasingly this project is coming to the fore. It has been described as a challenging and an imaginative plan. Moreover, I can add, it

Water Resources
is a realistic one. Yet the government throws up its hands and assumes that what we are facing today is an act of God with which we cannot interfere. This has been made clear many times by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) as well as by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) who admitted that at the joint ministerial meeting held recently no constructive proposal was put forward to deal with this problem.
I should like in the few minutes which remain to me to outline some of the elements of the plan. First, the need for replenishment concerns not only the great lakes but the Ottawa river system and the St. Lawrence river system. This plan envisages making available new run-off water from a suitable portion of the James bay watershed. It is a multiple purpose plan, controllable and expandable, providing a substantial new inflow of water. Depending how far it is completed, it can provide an inflow into the great lakes of between 4,000 and 75,000 cubic feet of water per second. If we consider the benefits which derive from the plan, the cost is relatively modest and from an engineering point of view it has already been accepted by experts in the fields of engineering, hydroelectric development, navigation and so on. Rigid specifications provide long term benefits for large sections of northern Ontario and Quebec. The plan would also provide cheap hydro power by means of a reversible pumped water storage reservoir system. The specification also includes provision for a new, positive international and interstate joint policy in order to manage the level, flow and quality of the water entering the great lakes. It provides for new inflows from the James bay watershed. It provides for a self-liquidating project as a result of payments made by those who will most benefit from the diversion. It means stepped-up development in northern Ontario and Quebec. It means recovered water, not head water run-off-in other words, the water resource affected is one which today serves no useful purpose and which is unlikely to serve any useful purpose in the foreseeable future. The route follows the shortest and lowest elevation to the great lakes, with low cost cut-throughs throughout.
With regard to the administrative authority to be set up-and this is important, because we know that the resource itself comes under provincial jurisdiction-the establishment of an international authority between Canada and the United States is envisaged, as well as a federal-provincial authority including Quebec and Ontario. It has already been stated that the feasibility of the project is

established from an engineering point of view. From an economic viewpoint, the cost, as I have mentioned, is not likely to be excessive in relation to the benefits brought about as a result of the increased availability of water. Part of the cost will be recovered out of revenues resulting from increased hydroelectric power. A further element of the cost will be recovered from royalty payments by those using the water. Finally, revenue will accrue from the new navigational possibilities which are envisaged. Further-and this is one of the most attractive features of the whole plan-it provides an effective and plausible means of making the Ottawa river a navigable stream open to deep sea shipping throughout its entire length. I say this because the increased flow of water will raise the level of the Ottawa river to a point at which the amount of dredging and canal work necessary to make the river navigational would be greatly decreased.
These are some of the reasons why I urge the government to give this project the consideration I believe it deserves. I should like, if I may, to table with the consent of the house the specifications which relate to it. These specifications contain an outline of the proposal and a map showing where the diversion will actually take place, traversing as it does the Abitibi region, the Harricanaw, the Timiskaming region, the whole of the Ottawa river system, lake Nipissing, the Mattawa river, French river and, finally, Georgian bay. It also includes definite engineering specifications with regard to some of the problems of a physical nature which are created by the project. Second, the cost of the project is dealt with and, third, the benefits to be obtained are outlined.
I should like to table these documents, the outline and specifications of the Grand canal proposal, as an exhibit. I think the government can still redeem itself. It is not too late. It is never too late. It can redeem itself by accepting this motion and getting busy- by getting its officials to study this plan and meet with those who have already given it the best of their thought and energy, thereby evolving a long term project which would provide immense benefit to all Canadians, particularly those who live in eastern Canada, including northern Ontario and Quebec, and to residents of the Ottawa valley who have for generations been asking that something be done with this majestic river which flows through the very heart of the capital and which now remains unused.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member if the papers to which he refers are official documents?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would not say they are official. They were prepared by Mr. Thomas Kierans. They are official inasmuch as they relate to this grand canal proposal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then the hon. member may table them with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: I am intrigued by the motion put forward by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau). One of the questions which appeared shortly after the Christmas recess in my name was question No. 20, which asked:
What studies have been conducted of the proposals authored by Thomas W. Kierans and O.K.H. Kierans for a great replenishment and northern development canal?
As appears on page 512 of Hansard of March 4, 1964, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) gave this answer:
This proposal, often referred to as the grand canal, was described by Mr. T. W. Kierans before the standing committee on mines, forests and waters on 11 April, 1960. While no detailed studies were undertaken, preliminary examination indicated that it was physically possible but not now economically feasible.
As the water resources of each province are administered by and belong to that province, subject to certain federal responsibilities, e.g. regarding international waters, fisheries and navigation, any feasibility study of a diversion scheme such as this should be undertaken in co-operation with the provinces concerned.
This answer is general in its nature. I have been interested in this subject because of the constituency which I represent, and I was able to obtain certain further information.
Hon. members will remember I have had questions on the order paper such as the one which was answered on April 15, 1964, question No. 623, relating to water levels in lake Ontario and specifically asking the government what have been the causes of the present low water level of lake Ontario. This is a matter of some concern to anybody living in the Thousand islands area. Indeed, we speak of the city where I reside as the Thousand islands city, and I have heard it suggested by some of the people-


An hon. Member:: Where is that?


John Ross Matheson: The city of Brockville. The concern of some of the residents, in the sense of their interest in the water, is that if water levels continue to decline as has been experienced this past year, we might be the city of three thousand islands. This is a real possibility, because we have many
Water Resources
shoals and rocks throughout this St. Lawrence system which, of course, could seriously impede navigation.
I have a personal interest in water levels. I live in a house that is a good deal older than 100 years, and the eight of us in our house are serviced by a well. It might interest hon. members to know that the principal well driller, Ralph Miller of Hallecks, told me that 100-foot wells are no longer adequate now and that there is a fear that many existing wells may have , to be constructed 60 feet deeper because of a sharply lowering water table. This year we have had a poor year because we did not have snow and we have not had sufficient rain. I have observed in my own farm pond, which is stocked with bullheads, that the water level at the present time is about two feet lower than it was a year ago. A series of articles have been published in the principal newspaper in our area regarding this question. The Recorder and Times of March 25, 1964 describes the situation in these words:
Water levels of the St. Lawrence river are at their lowest ebb in 30 years and the situation is causing concern to municipal officials from Iroquois to Gananoque, as well as to shoreline residents whose boathouses and docks are being affected.
When we look at the over-all picture, the
situation is becoming rather serious. We have docks that are now many feet above normal position. We have seen a drop in water level of four feet to six feet, and in some areas it has been even more than this. Prescott has been complaining for three weeks of dirty water in the town water supplies; this was on March 25. The situation has been drawn to my attention by Thomas C. Cossitt in letters, and a series of letters have been written to our press; and then, commencing in the month of April we see there has been a steady improvement. The Recorder and Times of April 6 tells us:
Fears had been expressed that navigation might be hindered by the low water now prevailing in the St. Lawrence system. Water levels up and down the stream are two to four feet below normal, but seaway experts said the usual April rains now due should do much to alleviate the situation.
We have not yet had enough rain, but we find the low water problem is substantially easing. In regard to this motion, Mr. Speaker,
I point out that there has been a good deal of debate recently on the subject of water. This is helpful and it is an emphasis that certainly, as a representative of Leeds, I am very happy to see. On the south my riding is bounded by the St. Lawrence river in the area between Kingston and Prescott, and on the north it is bounded by the Rideau system.
I have had the opportunity on two occasions to navigate in my boat the Rideau canal from Kingston to Ottawa, Ottawa to Montreal and

Water Resources
on to Beauharnois and back again, so I am familiar with the points raised by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue when he referred to particular navigation problems as they relate to the Ottawa river.
I think there is a good deal of logic and sense in what was said by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Turner) when he spoke on May 4, as reported at page 2912 of Hansard. He said:
-given the engineering feasibility, at any point in time, any kind of engineering solution can become economically practicable-
I know, sir, that when I first travelled the Rideau I was amazed at what Colonel By had done 150 years or so ago with respect to these waters. He was able to provide navigation from the Ottawa river to the St. Lawrence river. More particularly, when you ascend or descend the magnificent Carillon locks on the Ottawa you appreciate what really can be done by modern engineering. In the standing committee on external affairs we have had the chance to listen to experts talking about the relative merits of power sites such as Mica, Downie, Luxor, Bull river, Dorr, and we see whether it is in Montana, Washington or British Columbia we can do almost anything we set our minds to do, in an engineering way. Almost anything can be done; the real test is, does it make sense at a particular time? Of course, in determining this we have to recognize this other fact, that no great scheme, engineering or economic, can possibly come to fruition unless there has been a great deal of research and thoughtful consideration given to it long years in advance.
I take considerable satisfaction in the fact that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on May 5 said that he intends to refer the whole matter of water levels to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. I ask hon. members of the house to consider whether the hon. member's motion is not too specific in its content. After all, what he is asking us to do is follow six specific recommendations. I think we should have been happier had these recommendations been much more general in character. In particular, he would have the water flowing into the Ottawa river in preference to Georgian bay.
When we look at this gigantic scheme we realize how many different considerations are involved. I must say I have been very much impressed by the presentations of Mr. Tom Kierans and the conversations I have had with him. I think he has made a real impression on any hon. member who has taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the James bay diversion scheme.

Mr. Speaker, I should like hon. members to have some idea of the chronology of these Kierans presentations to the government. I ask the hon. member to note that on January 25, 1960, Mr. Tom Kierans of Sudbury outlined to the then minister of northern affairs and national resources a proposal for the transfer of James bay water to the great lakes via the Harricanaw, Ottawa and French rivers.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


John Ross Matheson: Certainly.


Paul Raymond Martineau: If this project has already been referred to and studied by the committee on mines, forests and waters, why does the hon. member now propose that it be studied again?


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that the proposal put forward to the preceding government in the correspondence was given cursory consideration by the government of the day, of which the hon. member had the honour to be a minister and apparently the scheme presented by Mr. Kierans was considered to be physically possible but economically unpractical. This is the answer given by the hon. member's own government to the specific proposal presented. They said that James bay water must be lifted more than 1,100 feet vertically to enter the Ottawa river headwaters. I am not going to go into detail, Mr. Speaker, because there are other hon. members who would like to participate in this debate, but second, they pointed out that:
Imported water must he virtually free of salines.
Imported water is water which would be used for consumptive purposes elsewhere.
This would require salinity reduction equipment or construction of barrier dams in James bay to create freshwater areas. Any barrier dam near the Moose river outlet must incorporate navigation locks for entry to the port of Moosonee.
Then they came to the third conclusion, that
___the Harricanaw river lies almost entirely within Quebec, which would have to give its consent to such proposed use.
We have had recent experience with another province to appreciate how jealous it can be of its primary jurisdiction over national resources. Then they determined, fourth, that:
Additional storage may be required to avoid waste of diverted water under high natural great lakes inflow conditions.
They came to the conclusion that:
Sale of water to the United States is unlikely to be continuousas I believe was envisaged in the proposal by Mr. Kierans-

-particularly during cycles of high natural inflow.
Then, sixth, they came to the conclusion that:
Navigation benefits are limited by the short open season on James bay and in Hudson strait.
Then they decided that:
A diversion of 25,000 cubic feet per second would increase present lake Ontario inflow only by perhaps 12 per cent-
-and that this 12 per cent figure would not appear to be adequate to improve materially pollution conditions which have been existing at Toronto for some time. Then finally the Conservative government of the day came to the conclusion that-
-any water sold to the United States would not be available for use on lakes Erie and Ontario and on the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers.
These were the conclusions respecting the first proposal. Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, the same Mr. Kierans, under date of March 21, 1960, submitted an amended plan which proposed the collection of the water from the several rivers and its transportation to the Harricanaw river by a series of dams and canals, rather than the use of James bay water for diversion. That proposal was studied, and I will not take up the time of the house with it because any hon. member can acquaint himself with the conclusions arrived at by the former government. However, I must say that notwithstanding these adverse conclusions I have much sympathy for the general ideas set out in this project and I think it is absolutely necessary that we now start to think carefully in this general direction.
I am sorry that the hon. member has brought before this house a motion so specific and detailed that it is almost impossible for many of us to agree with it. If not-


Mr. Fisher:: Oh, come on.


John Ross Matheson: I hear an interjection from the head of the lakes, but if we take the six specific recommendations contained in this motion, we find general agreement on some and disagreement on others. I find it difficult to understand for example why the fourth proposal, that certain substantial and renewable sources of fresh water be collected by cross channels on the James bay watershed and then be diverted southward by the Ottawa and great lakes by step-pumping developed in economic stages as needs increased, making use of the large potential of unharnessed hydro power in that area, is made with specific preference to the Geor-gion bay route.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?
Water Resources


John Ross Matheson: Yes of course.


Paul Raymond Martineau: If I were willing to withdraw the objectionable parts of the motion, would the hon. member, speaking for the government, be prepared to accept those he finds acceptable?


John Ross Matheson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I cannot presume to speak for the government; I am simply giving a few views of my own.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Give us your own opinion then.


John Ross Matheson: I do not want to prevent other people from contributing to the debate, but even after the extensive debate which we have had on the subject of water in recent days I am pleased that the hon. member has had the foresight to bring this resource problem to the attention of the house. I am glad we are focusing attention on what these two Kierans brothers have been thinking and worrying about these many years.
I care a great deal about this matter, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me that we have a tremendous resource in our system of waters. As we listen in the standing committee on external affairs, to the tremendous projects which are envisaged for the west coast, I think we have to think again about the grand canal. This is inevitably going to come to pass in time. I do not fully comprehend the exact recommendations contained in the motion of the hon. member nor do I know precisely what is desirable, but the government must certainly apply its mind to the problem. In this regard I rejoice in the fact that the minister of northern affairs has had the courage and the wisdom to send this to the committee for study. I hope this is only the beginning, because from what I can discover the examination by the former government has been rather casual.
I think it would be selfish towards other members, Mr. Speaker, to continue my remarks for long. This amazing recommendation takes a watershed away from its original course to James bay and redirects it to the great lakes and it really matters little whether it goes into Georgian bay via lake Nipissing and the French river or whether, as is now suggested, it goes into the Ottawa river, because these are mere details. The scheme- and it is a gigantic one-is to change the course of a mighty watershed.
In this regard I was impressed by an editorial by Richard J. Needham which comments upon a statement made by the minister of northern affairs in the house a few days ago, to the effect that we had better pray for rain. That is not such a silly suggestion as one may think. I was reminded

Water Resources
by the brilliant dialogue between God and Job, which is to be found in the thirty eighth chapter. God speaks down from the heavens and says to Job:
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?...Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth...
and here shall thy proud waves to stayed?
And further on, not viewing a reply, God said to Job:
Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
Which I have reserved against the time of trouble-
Even in my county of Leeds this spring we have discovered that we need snow as well as a good deal of frost and rain, and the people in my part of the country are praying for water because we feel no one else can raise the level of the waters.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to pray for the government.


John Ross Matheson: The minister of northern affairs apparently believes in the efficacy of prayer. Then God said to Job:
Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters...or a way for the lightning of thunder: [DOT] [DOT] *
-Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven-
The likelihood is that we are going to be doing generally what has been outlined by the hon. member, if not right away then certainly before very long. We have to do it. It is perfectly clear that we cannot simply hold for ourselves the rich resources of water. After all, it cannot be regarded on a local or even a national basis; broader considerations arise. In a sense it is a case of making ourselves partners of the Creator himself, and the changing of a watershed is an exciting challenge which I think lies ahead.
We all have much sympathy for the proposition that the government of Canada has now to think in terms of broad, bold schemes. There are great difficulties in the Kierans plan. What are we going to do about salt water? If that problem is solved, then what are we going to do about navigation? Certainly the cost at the moment is prohibitive judging from every government study undertaken heretofore, but as the parliamentary secretary indicated what is prohibitive now may not be prohibitive two or perhaps 20 years from now. I hope that the government will be stimulated and encouraged in this matter by the committee to which this question will be referred, thus providing the necessary impetus to sound and enlightened policy with respect to our rich resource of water.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we support this motion. It is very easy to cavil and make the kind of petty qualifications made by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), but I do not think that in this sense the detail is significant in relation to the wonderful scope of the plan. We seem to need physically big projects in Canada to capture the imagination. I can think of the South Saskatchewan dam, the Passamaquoddy project and the Chignecto project, the latter two still being in the visionary stage. The St. Lawrence seaway certainly aroused support, agitation and irritation for almost a century before it was brought to completion. The disappointment with the results of the St. Lawrence seaway, I suggest, should not make us hesitate about finding out more about this great scheme of Mr. Kierans'. I have had the pleasure of listening to Mr. Kierans and talking to him in Ottawa, as I recall some time when the former government was in power. I remember meeting him in a committee room. It is not fair to say that this is a bold, new idea. It is a bold idea, but he has been pushing it very strongly and getting increasing support.
Some of the questions I should like to ask about this project really do not relate so much to the details of the motion. The last part of the motion indicates great navigational possibilities, particularly in the Ottawa river. This has never appealed to me as much as the idea of the waterpower to come. In my own riding there is a diversion, for example, from the Hudson bay watershed into the great lakes watershed. I refer to the Ogoki diversion, which attracted me. I have tried to find out if there were any drawbacks to the Ogoki diversion. The difficulty is that there are few people living up in that area. The Indians to whom I have talked really have had no complaints. The fringe of civilization and exploitation has not really moved much over that watershed, in so far as the lake Superior littoral is concerned. It is not quite the same when you get into Cochrane, Timmins and Tim-iskaming areas. Even there, it seems to me we need to think a bit about what will be the final consequences of the program when it is finally achieved in terms of the effect on the watershed itself. Surely, there will be consequences for the Hudson bay littoral.
When you get a distance-the distance changes-from 150 to 300 miles north of the actual height of land from the great lakes into the Hudson bay system, you begin to run out of forested areas that are worth while. Any member who has flown over the James bay-Hudson bay regions knows that as you get towards the coast you fly over a

low, swamp, muskeg-kind of spruceland. One thing I should like to know in connection with this scheme, if it has an effect upon the actual amount of water available, is whether there is any possibility-this may be a century ahead-of resurrecting or converting some of the muskeg land by means of drainage into something that will be more productive.
If I go over to the lake side of the watershed, I find we are talking about water tables. How much are the water tables down because of bad conservation practices, bad forestry practices? We have denuded so much of the land and have done so little about putting the land back into forest cover. This is something we do not know, but it seems to me it is tied into the motion presented by the hon. member and it is quite relevant. One of the things of which we do not have a picture at the moment, although it comes out very strongly and particularly from the Chicago area, is the need for water to handle pollution possibilities. It is not only the human needs, the direct human needs and industrial needs, but it is almost the need to have an extra flushing in these heavily concentrated areas where population and industry is so great.
In the last decade the inhabitants of the central United States have come more and more to make northern Ontario and, increasingly northern Quebec, into their summer recreational dormitory. This has increased the interest and led to the building of more roads. It is something else that needs to be looked at. What will be the effect of a great project like this upon the recreational use of this land that lies north of the height of land? In the main, I think we can only count basically, and I do not mean this as any insult to the claybelt, in terms of natural resources from this great area affected by this scheme, on minerals and on forests. In so far as the minerals are concerned, that is in the lap of the prospectors and science. I suggest that nothing this project does is likely to have any ill effect upon mineral development. I would think that potentially it would have a good effect upon the forest development and forest improvement in that part of the country.
One of the matters that seems to me needs to be taken into account is the approach to this basis of a cost-benefit analysis. I suppose the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) would probably make a good contribution to any such discussion, since he is coauthor of one of the synoptic works in that field. It is quite apparent that this scheme will not be undertaken unless there are social benefits of such a magnitude that they cannot
Water Resources
fail to be overriding of what must be a staggering capital expenditure in order to develop something that is at least once, and in many cases twice, removed from really creating jobs or creating industry. I think one of the things we need is such a cost-benefit analysis.
The question of how this idea should be treated from now on is getting complicated by the water shortage that is so much in people's minds now. If we have a bad summer like we had back in 1956 and 1936, where we had forest fires raging over much of this whole watershed and to the south, the sense of urgency will be increased and complicated even more. One of the difficulties comes when you get this sense of urgency. Politicians begin to blame each other and they put a bit of forced draft under their arguments. We are already having a bit of this welling up from those people in the Ontario legislature, as to water level talks, navigation and the whole question of dredging. It seems to me that in such a situation there might be an unnaturalness to any committee hearing, at least in this house at the present time, given the information we have. This is one of the reasons I would appreciate and my colleagues would appreciate, seeing the working of this even more. We would appreciate some kind of crash program by the government to look at this plan as quickly and as urgently as possible, then get on to the question of whether or not it is feasible.
It will not do any good at all to make the Kierans plan a club to beat the Liberal government on the head, or the Robarts government at Queen's park. There may be a tendency to do this. I am sceptical about it. I wonder whether it is worth while developing an interprovincial plan like this when, by the time we get around to it they will probably have confederation in a state where it will be a case of having negotiations between the sovereign state of Ontario and the sovereign state of Quebec. I tend to be pessimistic about the tendencies and capabilities of this particular government in that particular field. But there is no reason at all why they should not come up with something fairly quickly in the form of a good analysis that we can examine.
The answer that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) got does not surprise or shock me. I refer to that dreary thing he read out. He asked the question whether the matter had been examined and he got all the usual civil service jargon. As every member of the house who has been around at all knows, every department is loaded with

Water Resources
capable civil servants, that is, they are capable at knocking down something imaginative. They always talk about the staggering costs, the fantastic costs.
The hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue (Mr. Martineau) is not asking for anything that involves staggering costs. He is asking for a thorough consideration and survey. I think we should have it immediately, and the sooner we have it under the initiative of the government the sooner we will get away from what is rapidly developing into a situation where politicians are blaming each other for the low water levels, and we even have the rather fantastic invocation of the deity by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) and the hon. member for Leeds.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a few minutes of the time of the house to second the motion moved by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau). I agree with the hon. member to ask the government to make the studies needed to carry out that project which these days becomes more and more important and takes up a lot of space in the newspapers, in view of the fact that the water level in the great lakes is becoming more and more alarming and that there is, so it seems, a way to solve that problem.
In view of the fact that I had the opportunity to discuss that matter for a few minutes last Thursday night, I will say no more about it today in order to enable the government to accept the hon. member's motion.
Mr. Speaker, I learned that, in 1960, Mr. Thomas Kierans, an engineer, made a special survey of a canal in connection with the Harricanaw river to feed fresh water into the great lakes. In fact, he appeared before the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, to which he submitted a very fine piece of work. I wish to commend him for undertaking such a survey, to which he has given much time, in spite of his limited financial means. Such an undertaking involves expenses that only governments can afford.
That is why I support this motion calling on the government to consider this project, in order to remedy the present situation.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote the conclusion drawn in 1960 by the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. Here it is:
The committee heard with interest from witnesses of the proposed Harricanaw river development project, but it feels that there has been insufficient basic engineering evidence presented to come to any conclusion on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence may have been insufficient. The evidence presented by Mr. Kierans may have been incomplete, but I think it rather strange that the government should not have undertaken at that time, that is in 1960, the necessary work that would have enabled them to come to conclusive evidence in that respect.
Everybody knows that the problem of water, from all points of view, in the great lakes and along the St. Lawrence river is becoming increasingly alarming. Personally, I have no doubt whatsoever as to the physical possibility to build the required works so as to solve this problem very quickly.
Therefore, like the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, I ask the government to undertake the studies required for the implementation of that project as soon as possible.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, the first time I ever came across the Harricanaw river was on a blue goose hunting expedition to Hannah bay at the south end of James bay which is the mouth of the Harricanaw, and while it is known the world over that the mouths of the Harricanaw and Moose rivers at the south end of James bay are the centre of wild goose hunting for the entire world, I never expected to find the Harricanaw river a wild goose in this House of Commons. I have travelled the length of the Harricanaw river and the Turgeon river which is its main tributary to the west. I have crossed the Abitibi lakes more than once. I have been from the headwaters of the Ottawa down to Mattawa, across to lake Nipissing and down the French river frequently.
But to come into the house and advance the suggestion that we should divert the Harricanaw river in order to raise the level of the great lakes is similar to a man with a leaking garden hose who goes down to city hall and screams that the water mains underneath the streets should be ripped up and replaced by larger pipes in order to put more water into the hose so he will be able to water his lawn, despite the fact that he has a leak in the hose. There is plenty of water in the great lakes now if man did not squander it; and if man would plug the leak that exists at Sarnia at the present time there would be no need to go into a multimillion dollar wild goose chase such as the diversion of the Harricanaw and Turgeon rivers, using the Abitibi lakes as a storage basin, and diverting some of the flow out of the Ottawa river into the Mattawa and lake Nipissing.
The great lakes are now at an all time low level for many reasons, the chief of which is lack of precipitation in the last two years.

We all know that the Lord has blessed this continent with many things and certainly one of them is fresh water in abundance; but it is ridiculous that we are allowing fresh water to run wild without checking it for the needs of mankind.
We noticed the other day that the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), in commenting on the water levels of the great lakes, remarked that the water level in lake Superior is regulated by a control dam. I would point out that the control dam at lake Superior was built after negotiations between a Liberal government of Canada and the United States government, and it has kept lake Superior waters in check and under control for more than 50 years. It was a Liberal government that initiated with the United States and made possible the erection of dams at Cornwall and Iroquois, Ontario, to control the waters of lake Ontario, and it will be a Liberal government that will be able to negotiate satisfactory arrangements with the United States to control the levels of lakes Huron and Michigan at Sarnia.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no need of the government wasting manpower and millions of dollars in research studies and investigation of the Harricanaw diversion plan when it can spend much less money and perfect an earth filled dam at Sarnia to control the water levels of the great lakes year after year. A government which has found it possible to erect these dams-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Churchill, allowances and isolation pay of civil servants; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, application of the availability test for unemployment insurance benefits; the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, delay in changes in maintenance of way operations in the maritimes by Canadian National Railways.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m. 20220-199
National Defence Act NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hellyer for the second reading of Bill No. C-90, to amend the National Defence Act.
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate and during the question period today reference was made to the special benefits that the government is contemplating paying to servicemen who are to be retired before reaching the normal retirement age, and I thought perhaps it might be useful to say a few words on that subject this evening.
As hon. members will recall, in the process of integrating the armed forces it is estimated that we would have to cut back the number of servicemen by about 10,000, and we estimate that it would be possible to effect this reduction in a period of two years.
In order to do this most effectively and to achieve the objective that we have set ourselves in national defence, it is contemplated that this retirement should be made compulsory and through selection. I would like to make it quite clear to the house that this is in no way any reflection whatever on the personnel who are to be retired. On the contrary, all of the people who will eventually be retired compulsorily are people who have served the services with devotion and loyalty for many years, and it would be wrong for the house or the country to read into these releases any other meaning than that which is true, and that is that it is in order to reorganize our national defence.
The reason for the release of such a large number is because there will no longer be employment under the new career structure of a reorganized national defence for the people who are being released. It is because of the good services that have been rendered by these people, and because the government fully appreciates the difficulties these servicemen will encounter in trying to readjust to civilian occupation, and in order to help them to rehabilitate themselves in civilian life, that the government has decided to pay them a special cash benefit, which would be paid in one lump sum.
This special cash benefit is of course in addition to any normal leave that may have been accumulated and, as hon. members know, this leave is paid in the form of cash. It is also in addition to the pension to which a serviceman would normally be entitled, and in addition to any transportation benefits which he would normally receive.

National Defence Act
It is important to realize that the special benefit envisaged here is not applicable to people who are released for misconduct, or inefficiency, nor would it be made available to people who want voluntarily to leave the service. It was suggested during the course of the debate that what we should do is pay this special benefit to those who would willingly and voluntarily leave the service, but I do not think I have to expand very much on the reasons why this is not being done. There are obvious reasons, but the main one is that what we are trying to do is to select the people we feel will be necessary within the services, and also select those who unfortunately will no longer have employment under the reorganized department.
As hon. members know, this special cash benefit will increase with the length of service, up to a maximum of the equivalent of 10 months pay for those with 15J and more years of service, and it will be reduced progressively as normal retirement age is approached. I believe hon. members will realize the reason for this. Someone who is about a year from the normal retirement age would already have some idea of what he is going to do once he is retired. His plans are firmer than those of the man who is about five years from retirement age, and it is for this reason that the special benefit is progressively reduced as normal retirement age is approached.
Further, as hon. members know, this cash benefit is subject to income tax. During the question period this afternoon a question was asked as to whether representations were made by the servicemen with reference to the imposition of income tax on this benefit. I have not had any official representations by the servicemen in this respect, but I, like other hon. members, have seen the reports in the press and it is not impossible that the press is reflecting the thinking of the servicemen. However, it might be useful to remind the house that this cash benefit is indeed a revenue and, according to our principles of taxation, it is taxable. Another point is that the serviceman, if he had remained in the service until his retirement age, would have been obliged to pay the full tax on the amount of money he would have received. Under these arrangements the tax is calculated on the basis of 85 per cent of the tax rate established by reference to normal service income. So a man compulsorily retired will pay a lower tax rate for the benefit than he would have paid had he stayed in the services.
I appreciate this is a delicate problem. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in the answer he gave this afternoon said the matter would

be looked into and that the suggestion having to do with staging payments over a period of time would also be examined. I presume a statement will be made on this subject in due course. Included in the plan, there is also as hon. members know, the waiving of the present provision in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act which provides for a 5 per cent reduction in annuities for those servicemen who have less than 20 years of service but more than 10, with a maximum of 30 per cent. This penalty was imposed on servicemen in order to encourage them to stay in the services until their normal retirement age was attained and it was felt by the department that it would be most unfair to continue the penalty in circumstances where a man was compulsorily retired. The other provision in the benefit plan is that an unreduced gratuity would be paid to officers holding short service commissions. This is, in essence, what is contemplated.
We have seen in the papers some references to the special benefit plan being as a kind of "golden bowler". There are not many references of that kind. Others started calling it a silver stetson, and recently these particular benefits have been described as a straw hat. I rather like to think of this benefit plan as being just an ordinary fedora. While it is more substantial than a straw hat it is less spectacular than a golden bowler. It is adequate and it does only what it is meant to do, that is, to try to help servicemen who will be compulsorily retired rehabilitate themselves in civilian life.


Sydney John Smith: Before the minister leaves that point, may I ask him whether any consideration has been given to allowing service personnel who are likely to be affected by these reductions to take advantage of the Veterans Land Act? In other words, has consideration been given to allowing them to buying their homes earlier in anticipation of retirement. There is a limit at the present time.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In the Department of National Defence we did not look into this particular aspect of the matter. However, I will be happy to look into the suggestion, which appears to be a very good one.
In his speech this afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) referred to letters he had received from members of the services and suggested that perhaps the government itself might train service people before sending them out into civilian life. It is an interesting suggestion. He continued to say, if I understood him correctly, that it would appear as though servicemen would prefer training of this type to the cash benefits which are contemplated.


Harold Edward Winch: Those who wrote to me-and they come from two service stations-said that after discussion among themselves they would prefer such training. But I speak only of those who wrote to me.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I think the suggestion is an interesting one, but I am not sure what would have happened if instead of paying a cash benefit the government had decided to organize instead a training plan for the servicemen who are to be retired. I do not think it would be easy for the government to enter into this field. We feel that if the government provides cash benefits, the decision as to the best utilization of the money is left to the individuals concerned. If a man wished to receive training he might use part of the money to obtain tuition at a university or other place where training could be obtained or, if he preferred, he might invest the money in a business of some kind. I know the hon. member for Vancouver East does not seem to think much of the judgment of servicemen in the field of business. However, I think these people are old enough, now, to decide just what they wish to do with their money and we feel we have chosen the most equitable way of dealing with the situation.
I do not think I can resume my seat without making reference to the observations of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). In his speech the other day the hon. member referred to me, I think, as "part of the gold dust twins". I was going to say "half" but that would not be strictly accurate. He said that as part of the gold dust twins I would inevitably pay my compliments to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). I am happy to see that the hon. gentleman has noticed how well the minister and I get along, and in order that the prediction of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre might prove to have been well founded, I am happy to tell him that I honestly and truly feel that my colleague the Minister of National Defence is doing a wonderful job both for the government and for the country, and I am happy to be able to help him.


Mr. MacRae:: May I ask the minister a question at this point? He mentioned there would be a 10 per cent reduction in the establishment of the forces over the next two years. How many of these will be compulsory retirements and how many will be as a result of normal attrition?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It is difficult, if not impossible, to say just now how many men would be compulsorily retired, but I imagine it will 20220-199J
National Defence Act
be a relatively small number. The majority of the reduction would be done by normal attrition.


John Chester MacRae: Will the retirement provisions apply to all ranks, in the case of the army, say, right from private to lieutenant colonel or colonel, and correspondingly in the case of the other services? Will that be the situation?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, the retirement provisions would be right across the board.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have only one question to direct to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin), following a question I put to him this afternoon. In which way does the Canadian government intend to supply with provisions and material the Canadian forces now in Cyprus? I appreciate that it is difficult to supply them with provisions directly from Canada, but is there any agreement between Great Britain and the United States or any formula to make possible a compensation to our Canadian farmers, some agreement between Great Britain and the United States which would be to the advantage of the farmer in this field?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the NATO
procedure for supplies in Cyprus is mainly through Great Britain where there is a system beneficial to us, because it is less expensive to take in supplies over there than if we ourselves had to ship all our goods to Europe or Cyprus. Now, as far as the whole system of exchange is concerned, whether for food or other things, we try to maintain a financial balance. The hon. member suggested that we should include Canadian supplies. I can assure him that if it is possible, we shall try to do that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he has any estimate as to the number of civilian personnel who will be affected by this reorganization, and what provision is being made for them?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I have no definite figure in mind as to the number of civilians who will be released. However, the number is not comparable to what is estimated to be the reduction in the military field.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, could I have permission to ask a question? In view of the fact that the associate minister mentioned my proposal of this afternoon with regard to training, and raised certain difficulties in connection with that proposal, could I ask him whether he has considered the fact that.

National Defence Act
the proposal I put forward, at the request of a number of men in the armed services, deals with exactly the same provision made by Canada for our veterans on their discharge at the end of the second world war and the Korean war. The principle put into effect then is the same as that contained in the suggestion which I asked him to consider. Has the associate minister thought of that fact?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, I had not thought of that fact. However, I did tell the hon. member that we would look into the possibility of utilizing his suggestion.
[Translation^


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Will the members of the women's army corps also be forced to go on retirement or will they be asked to resign in some cases? For instance, in the case of the St. Sylvester radar station, where the members of the of the women's corps are no longer needed, will they be allowed to get transferred to another branch or will they be forced to retire?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the women's corps are subject, I believe, to the same regulations as the men.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has been kind enough to answer all the questions put to him, I should like to take part in the debate and make a few remarks.
First of all, I should like to congratulate the minister on the positive aspect of his aim in military matters. Having said this, I must warn him that my further remarks will not necessarily be flattering, because unfortunately, I found in his white paper some negative points that I shall attempt to denounce in a few minutes.
With regard to the military policy he intends to apply in Canada, the minister, in his white paper, stated his intention to carry out several recommendations submitted by the defence committee in its report tabled a few days before the end of the session last year, that is in December 1963.
The integration of armed forces under a single command seems to have been the main concern of the department. That decision is probably the one which has received up to now and will receive the greatest support from all hon. members, even if a few have expressed certain doubts as to the timing of this integration.
I think that most of us agree that this integration of armed forces is essential. I also think that this integration is supported by
[Mr. Winch.)
most Canadians and more especially by the members of the armed forces concerned.
It is evident that this development was essential to avoid a waste of manpower and of the huge sums required for the administration of the national defence.
One of the main reasons for integrating the armed forces is to prevent military leaders from exerting too great an influence on the minister who must answer to the country for the phenomenal amounts voted each year for that purpose.
I do not think such integration creates a precedent since recently, England, which is often quoted here as an example to follow, has broken with century old traditions to bring all the armed forces under the authority of a single minister. Mr. Speaker, efficiency dictated such action.
It would seem that, left to themselves, the military have or at least had, with the best intentions in the world, the tendency to build up an empire and try to impose their views on the various governments which follow each other at the head of the country.
It is therefore urgent, in the light of developments, that civil authorities regain control of expenses this government has to make or justify before the Canadian people.
Bill No. C-90 suggests the establishment of a chief of the defence staff position. I believe that, after this bill is passed by the house, the man entrusted with this responsibility will have a very important part to play in the future of Canadian military forces.
It is therefore most necessary that he should submit to general instructions to be given to him by the government through the minister who, for his part, is held responsible to the people by the bill he submits every year at the time of the budget.
Mr. Speaker, the integration of armed forces will not occur without any trouble. Some people's toes will have to be trod on and we must expect, from some parts of the country, criticism against this measure. However, I believe that it is necessary for us Canadians to support this measure, which was moved almost unanimously by the house and has the support of a great majority of Canadians.
In the past, and especially since the end of the war, the forces have had perhaps somewhat exaggerated appropriations of public funds. I believe that when the minister decided, as proposed in the white paper, to freeze for a few years the expenses of the military budget, he definitely took a step in the direction intended by the majority among us, and I think he will necessarily have to go further.

The minister claims that such a decision will bring a reduction in the budget generally voted for the country's defence. Of course, such a reduction will be in proportion to the development which will take place in the other sectors; it will amount to almost $1.5 billion, but it will not be a reduction on present expenditures. A study of the budget shows that the Canadian people will not benefit by a reduction in the amount of taxes levied during the year, because the estimated expenditures will be the same for that military defence, or rather that so-called defence, since, after all, being realistic, all of us in this house, must vote a more than reasonable portion of the national budget for a defence against aggressors that seem to be rather hypothetical.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we really wish to come back to reality, we will have to reduce further the percentage of the amounts appropriated annually for national defence. In fact, if we analyse the amounts spent annually by countries similar to our own in the world, we realize that most of them, even the members of NATO, that alliance to which we belong, spend an amount representing some 8 per cent of the national budget. Now, if we consider that, in our case, the amount provided represents some 25 per cent, that is one quarter of the national budget, it is clear that we have much to do before we come closer to the standards now used by other countries that do not have the ambition to pass themselves off as something they are not.
I think that at present the Canadian people have to pay a bill imposed on them by governments which did not take into account the fact that Canada has a population of only 19 million, and that accordingly it could not afford to spend more than it was justified to, in a field which is not necessarily related to progress or to the Canadian economy.
The integration of the armed forces is apparently something which will mean a saving for the country, but unfortunately, it will bring about a reduction of our military personnel.
When the minister announced last fall that he might close certain radar stations, certain army or air force bases, certain radar bases in the north, some hon. members protested that decision which affected them personally in their riding.
I was thus able to realize to what extent we, in Canada, just like the people of the United States, but in a larger proportion, had an economy based on military industries. If we consider all the reductions now being made in the various governments
National Defence Act
throughout the world, we see that all sensible people are worried about the present trend to disarmament. People wonder what will happen when we stop looking after the needs of the thousands of men now in the forces, which contributed to the employment of thousands of industrial workers who produced their equipment.
We are led to ask on what basis exactly we have built our economy.
When we think of the war years 1939-45, we realize that we, in Canada, did build up an industrial economy resting on the needs created by a war waged on the European continent. When, from 1939 to 1945, we used part of our potential in the construction field for destructive purposes, we failed to consider that after that war we would have to build up and erect a system which would enable us to live and create a peacetime economy.
When we refer to the figures prevailing in post-war period, we realize that until 1950, the annual amount voted by the government to cover military expenditures was more or less the same until 1950-52.
At the time, expenditures in the defence budget stood at around $350 million annually. Suddenly, due to certain fears, we deemed it advisable to increase that amount to $1.5 billion from 1955 on. And each year, almost without fail, we made the mistake of voting that sum of $1.5, because we had to make an impression, through such an expenditure which was way beyond our means, and play a role which did not suit us on the international scene. I do not think anybody was impressed.
We were thereby proving to other countries which were older than we were that, to a certain extent, we were irresponsible in the circumstances since we were mortgaging the future of a country which has such a tremendous need of its credit, its potential.
When we consider Canada's share in the cost of international organizations, we realize that the part we play is always out of proportion to our capabilities. We have tremendous potentialities, but they are still undeveloped. They will remain so for some time to come, probably for decades. I feel, therefore, that it would be wise at this time to determine our position and to ask ourselves what amount we Canadians should reasonably appropriate for those peace keeping operations in which our role is very minor. Up to now Canada has never been called upon to decide whether or not there would be a war.
The only part it has played was to decide whether it would participate or not. Unfortunately too often, certain authorities have

National Defence Act
decided that we would participate without previously asking the agreement of Canadians to bear the expenses.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider what is going on at the international level, we realize that within the framework of NATO, for example, now holding a conference of ministers from which Canada is practically absent, the voice of our country therein is not predominant, we have tried once again to play a part which was not ours. Let us compare Canada with its 19 million inhabitants with France which has 50 million and Germany which has 60 million. If we realize, on the other hand, that we are more than 3,000 miles away from that military field, we must honestly admit that our part in the circumstances is extremely limited.
This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) criticized the attitude of France and of its president, General de Gaulle, towards NATO, especially France's decision to withdraw temporarily its support to NATO. Mr. Speaker, I feel that to blame France in that specific case is a mistake because we Canadians are hardly in a position to judge the circumstances which prevail at the present time on the European continent. We must recognize that Europe has been rebuilt, that it is powerful and that it wants to play its own role, without being controlled or directed by another power located about
1,000	miles from its territory, a power we all know, the United States. We must admit that, up until now, NATO has been the tool or instrument of the United States and that only the Americans have been able to impose their views concerning the decisions and the action taken. If France now intends to assert itself and to speak out against decisions which, to a certain degree, are taken unilaterally by the United States, she has the right to do so, and we would be ill-advised to criticize the position she has decided to take.
I believe that NATO's role in future years will be just as important as it was in the past but it will be determined by the countries concerned, that is Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and the neighbouring countries, in accordance with their military needs.
Everybody admits that the military situation is changing. Mr. Speaker, we must admit it and, as I suggested to the minister this afternoon, we should take advantage of this opportunity to renegotiate immediately, even before it expires, the agreement we signed, so that after 1966 we will be able to make changes in this field, as we ought to, that is our role will be symbolical and psychological rather than practical. I mean that if we admit that the CF-104 squadron, for instance, which is now based in Europe, will be outmoded within

five years, we will have to admit that, after that date, Canada will not have much to say in this field and will have to submit to the decisions taken by the authorities of those countries directly concerned by the European military problem.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to deal with another problem, Cyprus. I shall have a few questions to raise, especially the part played by Canada in the U.N. force. We decided, probably with a certain haste due to circumstances, to send a military force to try and maintain peace on the island where there is now a kind of civil war. I feel that as a French Canadian, I have a few questions to ask. I did not do it at the time that decision was taken, because I did not want that point to be questioned. But I wonder now why it was decided that it would be a group of French speaking Canadians that would try and maintain peace on Cyprus when the majority of French Canadians are accused of being incompetent to hold high positions in industry and the federal civil service. How is it that it was deemed advisable to send French Canadians to Cyprus to try and maintain peace on that island which was under British control for perhaps centuries, an island where the languages usually spoken are Greek, Turkish and English and where practically not a single word of French is spoken. How is it that French Canadians of the 22nd regiment were selected?
Please note, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Minister of National Defence, that I am not against it. On the contrary I am proud, to a certain extent, of the fact that French Canadians were asked to carry out a task that was recognized by everyone in this house as a very delicate one. But since it was admitted that French Canadians could play a delicate and difficult part in a land utterly unknown to them, how is it then that there are in Canada Canadians who refuse to acknowledge the fact that French Canadians can actually contribute to the building and development of this Canada of ours?
And at this stage I should like to call earnestly for an acknowledgement of the part played by the French Canadian group in this Canadian force. I am against those who want Quebec to secede from confederation because I feel that French Canadians are able to play a role not only on Cyprus island but also in Canada, not only in Quebec but also in Vancouver and in Halifax.
I think we have a right to aspire to play that role. We have the competent men required. It was recognized that we had competent men in the military field, and I think that some day Canadians, whatever part of the country they come from, will have to

agree that we also have the right and the capability to fully assume that role in every field.
Having said that Mr. Speaker, I feel that, as Canadians, we must accept that all Canadians, from Halifax to Vancouver, be treated on an equal footing so that wherever they carry on their activities they may benefit from all the advantages they are entitled to. As a matter of fact, since we have proved that we were able to play a part on the Dieppe beaches, the Normandy coast and even on the island of Cyprus, I believe that we have the right to demand that we be allowed to play our part in any sphere of activity, be it economic, social, political or cultural, on our own soil.
Reference was made this afternoon to the special defence committee. That committee was set up last year and it was my privilege to be one of its members. However, like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), I deplore the fact that it was not set up again sooner during the present session.
Certain circumstances have probably prevented the leader of the house or the Minister of National Defence from bringing forward that project, but I feel the house has thereby lost a certain opportunity, because during the last two months we could have examined more thoroughly the government's defence policy and especially the white paper tabled by the minister.
Furthermore, we could probably have made an even more useful contribution to the present debate, because, personally, I have no feeling of animosity towards the previous administration or the present government. They did what they considered to be the right thing; they are doing what they think is the proper thing to do now, and I am of the opinion that time alone will tell whether they were right or not.
There is one very special case I should like to bring to the attention of the house tonight. It concerns certain soldiers who will be discharged soon or who have already been discharged. As a matter of fact, I have already submitted some of those cases to the Associate Minister of National Defence, and that has made me wonder about the efficiency of the training and technological courses being given in our military camps.
The case of certain servicemen who returned to civilian life after five years of service was called to my attention. After exerting their efforts in a particular field in which they had acquired a practical and technological experience, after leaving the army, navy or air force, they were deprived of the right to use their knowledge in civilian life,
National Defence Act
because the military training they had received did not meet the requirements of the various departments throughout the country. Besides, the minister is well aware of what I am talking about, because I told him recently about the problem of young men who had left the navy after five years of service. They had worked as electricians, operators of boilers and stationary engineers, they had obtained some certificates attesting that they were qualified to practise their trade. But after their discharge, they were not even accepted as apprentices in their trade. After having spent five years to learn a certain trade, these young people could not, after their discharge, exercise the trade which they had learned while they were in the navy or other divisions of the Canadian armed forces.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a certain anomaly which the Department of National Defence should undertake to correct immediately, in order that those young people may take advantage of their knowledge acquired during their service on their return to civilian life. In fact, when these young people complete their military service, they should be able to obtain evidence of the skills they have acquired which will allow them to practise the trade they learned, exactly as their fellow citizens practise a trade or a profession in civilian life.
When we invite our young people to join the navy, the army or the air force, we lure them with all the benefits involved in acquiring technical knowledge which will be useful to them later on. Now, I believe that if we wish this propaganda, this publicity to be true to reality, arrangements should be made with the provincial authorities in order that knowledge and skills acquired be recognized by the various departments, so that these Canadian citizens may honourably earn their living, when they are pensioned off or when they end their service in the Canadian forces.
Mr. Speaker, evidently, I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that the special committee on defence did last year a very good job, and I think we can admit, without bias, that the group forming the committee which was established last Friday will also proceed in the same direction.
Of course, this committee should study several areas, but I believe that in the light of the study made last year, a very particular point on which its members should dwell is the economic repercussions which disarmament may have in future, since we today recognize it as a need.
Disarmament is advocated by many organizations, by several groups, economic, social as

National Defence Act
well as political, and I believe that the committee should pay a great deal of attention to the economic results of future disarmament on the Canadian economy in particular. May this disarmament come as soon as possible.
The committee should thoroughly consider this matter in order to submit definite recommendations to the government so that it may establish the necessary machinery which would prevent disarmament from becoming the source of economic changes which would create a crisis such as the one we knew in the thirties.
If you study the statistics published by the United States, you come to the conclusion that Canadians will just have to consider that particular point. As a matter of fact, I read recently a report on that subject and I must tell you that it is disquieting to note that the American experts cannot see at the present time what solutions could prevent disarmament from plunging the country in economic chaos, which would probably push the United States, and certainly Canada, indirectly, in a crisis which surely nobody wants.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is spending huge sums for national defence. Sometimes, in our constituencies, people are asking for what purpose exactly such sums are spent. When people are giving us sound arguments, we find it very difficult to justify the spending of a billion and a half figuring in the national defence budget.
As a very influential person put it, not only should we consider the possibility of "freezing" the national defence budget at its present amount, but we should even consider reducing it and use the money thus saved in a more profitable field.
We want to spend a billion and a half to defend ourselves against a hypothetical enemy. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Canadian people would welcome the spending of part of that money in the field of national health, where a true danger exists, where we are threatened by two enemies, cancer and heart disease.
When we consider the amounts allocated every year to research and case-finding in connection with these two illnesses, we come to the conclusion that we have lost completely the sense of responsibilities and values.
I think that if we apportioned a larger amount to research, to the detecting of those two plagues, and to methods of fighting them, the Canadian people would readily agree to pay the taxes required to pay for research in those two areas because it would bring a

solution to a problem which is not hypothetical but really factual, since recently, a colleague of ours was struck down by one of those two diseases.
I think that in that field, Canada could make a much more valuable contribution which would be readily accepted by everybody since it would be valuable, not only for Canada, but also for all nations in the world which could benefit from it.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I think that when the committee on defence resumes its discussions on military problems in Canada, it should necessarily take into consideration those two points I just mentioned and some others which may have been pointed out by previous speakers.
I feel sure that if we give careful consideration to those matters, we will while playing a part in the military field, do our share to safeguard peace, because it is in that direction that we should channel our efforts.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with what I had in mind to say tonight, I should like to make a few comments on what the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) said here some half hour or more ago. To begin with, I should like to say I have no objection to the gold bowler concept, as it is called in the United Kingdom, of giving a certain amount of lump sum compensation to servicemen retired before their normal time of retirement arrives. However, I think two mistakes are being made in regard to this, and I would like to put them before the two ministers for consideration.
In the first place it is grossly unfair to charge income tax on these lump sum payments. The minister mentioned something tonight about some amelioration so far as that is concerned, but I honestly believe income tax should not at all be charged on these lump sum payments. The fact that they are lump sum payments connotes that they are paid to people to compensate them for the lack of leave and pension they would have earned if they had gone on to their normal retirement time.
If the two ministers have undue difficulty with their colleague in the finance department and in the treasury board, I would suggest that the very least that could be done would be to spread these lump sum payments over three or four years so far as income tax purposes are concerned, so that the income tax would not be assessed all in one year, or even two years.

The other point I would like to make in connection with this is that from my experience in the Department of National Defence I found there were always a considerable number of people who wished to retire before their time was up because opportunities had presented themselves in civilian life. I believe there is a considerable number of people in the armed forces in that situation at the present time, and I think they should be allowed to retire and be given the same pension benefits as though they were compulsorily retired. In this way the department would find it unnecessary to retire as many people compulsorily as otherwise would be the case, and also the general morale of the armed services and of the personnel in them would be considerably better than if the plan which is proposed is carried through.
I know, of course, that quite often people in the services who want to retire are people who the authorities consider are occupying key positions, and that it would impair the efficiency of the services if they were let out. But we must always remember that nobody is indispensable in the armed services, just as this applies anywhere else. I believe these people who are prepared to leave voluntarily at present, even though it is thought they are occupying key positions which it would be difficult to fill, should be let go. This would ease the situation considerably and produce better results than the plan that is evidently in prospect.
To address myself to the bill which is under consideration, Mr. Speaker, my remarks on it will be relatively brief, for the very good reason that the bill provides really only one thing, and that is the legal basis on which unification of command in the armed services can take place. It provides for the abolition of the positions of chief of staff of each of the services, and the substitution of a defence chief of staff for the present three individual chiefs.
I believe that the minister's remarks in this debate on Friday, together with the white paper which he previously issued, confused two quite different things, namely unification of command and integration of the armed services. The point was made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on Friday-and I think it needs to be reiterated and emphasized-that these are two quite different things; but the minister's speech and the white paper tend to blend and confuse them, and thus make for confusion in the minds of the general public and of members of this house.
There are probably very few students of military affairs at present who will not agree that in war, at least, unification of command is desirable if not essential. The reason for
National Defence Act
this is that in the future most military operations are likely to be of a combined character, in other words, an army-air force operation, an army-navy operation, a navy-air force operation, or an operation involving all three services. This being the situation there is no question but that unification of command is something which should be put into effect.
Actually this was started several years ago right here in the Canadian services. For several years now we have had a unified naval-air force command on the Atlantic coast, and a similar one on the Pacific coast-the maritime command-in which the admiral in each case was the maritime commander of that coast and the air force officer was his deputy commander, and they operated a combined force of ships and aircraft. Undoubtedly this is the pattern of the future. This is the sort of thing which we are going to have more and more of, and I do not think anybody can seriously quarrel with or complain about the proposition of unified command. It is chiefly a matter of whether or not it is put into operation effectively.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point that unification of command does not necessarily mean integration of the services. These are two quite different things. The United Kingdom and various other countries have instituted unification of their commands, but they have not instituted integration of their services. I hope that in his future statements with regard to this matter, perhaps in his remarks when he closes the debate, the minister will make it clear that these are two different things, not try to give the impression he did at the very beginning of his remarks on Friday that this change which is proposed-and I read from Hansard at page 3065-
-is the first and perhaps the most important move in the integration of the armed forces under a single defence staff.
That statement may be correct but it gives rise to a wrong impression and it tends to confuse people's minds on this subject.
As to integration itself, I think the chief difficulty is that we have had no hard information with regard to the integration of the armed forces on the basis of which we could determine what is being planned, or come to any reasonable judgment with regard to the matter. We have not been told what the word means. The word "integration" has been used to a considerable extent by the minister and it appears in the white paper but its meaning has not been defined, and what the hon. gentleman intends to do with regard to integration has not even been hinted at so far. At the present time, then, we are debating this particular matter in a vacuum. I think this vacuum should be filled as soon as possible

National Defence Act
in order that we may have an actual idea of where we are going as far as the integration of the services is concerned.
No doubt integration of the armed forces of the navy, the army and the air force can and should take place. It has been going on, in fact, to a certain extent for a number of years. I presume what the minister has in mind is a considerable speeding up of a process which has been in effect in certain areas for a long time. For example, the dental needs of the three armed forces have always been met by the Canadian army dental corps. The medical services and the chaplain services were integrated several years ago. The pay scales of the three services were put on the same basis some time ago; the supply of food to all three services has been looked after by the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps. These are all examples of what has taken place already in the field of integration of armed service administration. I should like to sound a word of warning in connection with this matter. I think considerable care needs to be exercised to ensure that what has always been the objective, as far as the integration of armed service administration is concerned, is met. The integration of the medical services and the integration of the chaplain services did not meet our expectations in this regard. In other words we did not secure the savings in manpower and, thus, the general savings, which it was hoped these moves would bring about. However, I do not think there is any doubt but that the integration of these administrative functions is highly desirable. It ought to be put into effect and it should be put into effect as rapidly as possible.
However, I am afraid, from what I have seen in newspapers and from my impressions of conversations with members of the general public, that most people in Canada have an idea that integration of the services means that all servicemen will be in one vast organization-that they will all wear the same uniform, that they will all be interchangeable and that the whole military organization as we have known it will disappear. This idea is, of course, a highly erroneous one. It is not practicable and it is not possible. Individual units in our armed services at the present time are highly specialized. If we are to have an effective military organization, they must remain so. It is impossible, for example, to move an artillery officer to the command of a destroyer or to move an army service corps officer and make him the flying officer of a transport plane. All the units which exist at the present time in the army, the air force and the navy will, in effect, have to continue being the same type of units as they are at the present time. This is something
[Mr. HarknessJ
that should be made clear to the general public. I have run into this idea time after time, talking to people in casual conversations as I go about this country. This idea, as the minister I know recognizes, is not a practical one, and the sooner the general public can forget this impression of what integration may mean, the better.
I really have nothing else I wish to say in regard to the bill under consideration but I should like to make a few comments in connection with the white paper. The white paper put out just before Easter deals chiefly with broad generalities. It ends by saying, on page 30:
In this paper no attempt has been made to set down hard and fast rules for future policy and development. Flexibility, not rigidity, has been the keynote. The paper is a charter, a guide, not a detailed and final blueprint. The policy outlined in it is not immutable. It can be altered or adapted to meet the requirements of changing circumstances, national and international.
I think it was very wise of the minister to put in that broad escape clause. But the point I want to make is that this white paper, regardless of the escape clause, raises far more questions than it answers. It deals, as I said, with broad generalizations and it gives us none of the definite information we need in order to exercise sound judgment on the plans the government has in mind. In fact it does not disclose what the policy is to be. It is so broad in its approach that it really does not mean very much at all. I am sorry to have to say this, but I think it can be characterized largely as what might be called a publicity stunt designed to present a good image of the minister and of the government to the Canadian people. Rather than being a real white paper giving us clear answers with regard to defence policy it is simply a piece of publicity. The first half of the white paper, approximately the first 15 pages, deals with the objectives of defence policy and the historical development of policy since 1945, together with an exposition of the international situation which determines the threat we may have to meet. I defy anyone in this house or in this country to find anything in those 15 pages that I did not say myself during the period when I was minister of defence or that my predecessor General Pearkes did not say. Those 15 pages are a straight restatement of what one might call the basic facts of defence, as they have been recognized by everybody who has had to deal with them or study them during the last ten or 15 years.


Mr. Churchill:: They stole them from you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the situation, and any idea that this is something new is

totally without foundation. These pages deal with broad defence policy and there is nothing in them which has not been said time and time again. In fact, I got so tired of saying it in speech after speech that it became difficult to keep on reiterating it. But people did not seem to grasp it, and I suppose the greatest proof that they did not grasp it is that when this statement of defence policy came out a great many people hailed it as new, and there was nothing new in it at all.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget the horses
on the payroll.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not at this time, because I have not time to do it, going into the broad questions of defence policy which are by and large dealt with in the first 15 pages of this report. However, there are a few things in the last 15 pages of the report particularly on which I would like to comment briefly. For this purpose I will take the sheet which the minister issued with the report and which is called "Highlights, white paper, 1964". I have not too much time, Mr. Speaker, so I will deal with this very briefly. The first thing mentioned here is the ten year plan, and then in brackets it says "First such long term defence plan". I defy anybody in this house to go through that white paper and see any reference to a ten year defence plan. It is just not there; there is no ten year defence plan, and there is not even a ten year defence plan mentioned in the white paper. Nevertheless the minister puts this out for the use of the newspaper people, of course. The first item on it is, as I have said, "Ten year plan (first such long term defence plan)". If the minister has a ten year defence plan, let him give it to the House of Commons; let him give it to the country. We have not heard of any ten year defence plan; we do not know of any single item in it. As a matter of fact, this is one of my chief criticisms. The minister has done a lot of things of which I approve and with which I agree, but one of my chief criticisms is the sort of business along this line. He tries to sell this like a ten-ring circus and gives a totally false impression to the people of Canada in regard to defence measures, which in my opinion are much too serious to be dealt with in that way.
The next is flexibility, and the next is mobility. If the minister will go back and read the speeches I and my predecessor made in this house time after time, to say nothing of those made throughout the country, he will see that flexibility and mobility have been stressed year after year after year. It has been the objective of defence policy and 20220-200$
National Defence Act
the objective of equipment policies to give the greatest degree of mobility and flexibility to our armed forces.
The minister mentions integration and the unification of our forces. I have dealt with that. The next is "Deputy minister's powers increased". This, if course, has reference to the Glassco commission report. I think some of the recommendations of the Glassco commission in this regard are extremely sound, and the sooner they are put into effect perhaps the more effective and efficient will be the Department of National Defence. I have no quarrel with that item. The next thing we see here is "Management system for defence programming to be introduced". If we look at page 20 of the white paper we see the following statement in this regard:
It is intended to introduce into the Department of National Defence a management system for planning and controlling major defence programs at the departmental level. This system will display various components of the long term defence program in suitable detail over a significant time period. The system will provide a means of expressing various force structures, weapons systems, logistic arrangements and other military activities in terms of their immediate and long term costs.
I have read that paragraph at least a dozen times now. I have had many years of experience in regard to these military matters, and it does not mean a thing to me. It is the greatest gobbledegook I have ever read. I think it is a disgrace that nonsense of that sort should be put into a white paper and presented to people as though it were a reasonable thing. If anybody in this chamber can get any real sense out of that paragraph, I would like to see them and I would like to have them explain it to me, because I think I have had perhaps as much experience as anybody here in regard to these things, and that paragraph just means nothing and is nonsense of the worst kind.
I would hope that in future statements and future white papers the minister would be wise enough to eschew things along that line, a bunch of words that means nothing and which it is hoped will impress the uninitiated; and perhaps it does, but certainly anybody who knows anything about the subject will look at it and the sort of expletive that will come to one's mind is not that which can be used in this chamber.
The next thing I see here is "Many Glassco commission recommendations to be implemented". That is fine, but which are they? We do not know which are to be implemented and which are not. The white paper does not tell us, and the minister has never told us, which of the Glassco recommendations as far as defence is concerned are going to be put into effect. That is the sort of hard information we should be given here, instead of

National Defence Act
these broad general statements which do not mean anything. The next is "Future air squadrons to be in direct support of ground forces". What is that, except a pious hope, Mr. Speaker? I think anybody would subscribe to the fact that this would be desirable, but in the white paper or in anything the minister has said at any time there is absolutely nothing to back this up as to when it might happen, if it will happen, and so on. It is just a statement such as saying, "I am against sin". Everybody agrees with that, but what does it mean?
Next is "Air truck fleet being extended; sea lift being augmented". If the air truck fleet is being extended, this is a highly desirable move and I commend the minister and the government for it. I understand from the newspapers they have given orders for another 12, I think it is, Hercules air transports. We bought four of them several years ago for the purpose of experimenting with them, evaluating them and seeing what use they would be. They proved extremely successful. Of course, the idea was that the number of these Hercules aircraft would be increased if We found them satisfactory, and I am glad this is being done. I would hope that more Caribou aircraft would also be purchased along that line.
Now we have the sea lift being augmented. Looking back into this matter it seems that what the minister has in mind is to buy some of what we might call cargo vessels or the equipment in order to carry army personnel from point A to point B, or something along this line. I would hope this would receive a very careful second look and going over, because I think it would be a complete waste of money. You can, as the first and second world wars demonstrated, always hire civilian sea transport for transportation purposes, and for us to spend defence dollars on ships which would be very, very costly in comparison with ordinary cargo ships, in order to have the capability of lifting a certain number of personnel by sea from one point to another would, I think, be a very, very bad waste of defence dollars and I hope nothing along that line will be done.
The next thing here is "A study under way to determine best, cost-effective anti-submarine equipment for future". That is fine. Studies are always good; I have nothing against studies. But a study is no substitute for ships actually in being or under construction. This is the only thing the minister has to substitute for the frigate program which he destroyed and for the ships which he has taken out of commission or has sold as scrap or put into mothballs. All he has to substitute for all these ships which have now disappeared, and the future ones which

will not be delivered to the navy when it was planned that they would be delivered, is just a study of the program. As I said, that is not good enough. The actual effectiveness of the navy has been severely cut down and their future effectiveness, as far as we know at the present time, is going to be almost destroyed in the course of time because no program for the rebuilding of ships has been put into effect or is even far enough along so that the minister can make a promise about it, let alone anything else. They are a few of the matters in the white paper, although I do not wish to comment on them at this time.
I should like to end by saying that my chief criticism of the minister and the government from the defence point of view is that the defence capability of this country is being steadily reduced. Nothing is definitely going ahead to replace the equipment which is being laid up or taken out of commission. What this amounts to is really a unilateral decision on our part to reduce the contribution which we had agreed to make to the north Atlantic alliance, and is also a diminution of our ability to meet any commitments which the United Nations may make upon us. This is my main criticism as far as defence is concerned. The minister has been knocking off this, slashing away at that, decommissioning something else, and putting nothing in their place except a lot of big promises. After a year in office it is now time for big promises to come to an end and for the minister to tell us definitely that certain things are going to be done, and to state our program and policy. To date we have had nothing except promises.


Mr.   Reg. Canielon@Kindersley: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) it was quite apparent that he was dealing with specifics. It is not my intention this evening to do that. However, before actually launching into what I have to say, may I say that I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) on the constructive aspects of his speech, but the drivel he produced in the middle of it was beneath his dignity as a member, and I found it very difficult to listen to. Surely he does not think that that kind of inflammatory talk will improve relations between the two founding races. Surely he knows that the Royal 22nd regiment was a stand-by battalion and was designated to perform any task such as that of Cyprus which might arise. If it had not been sent on that task I am sure that he, as a French Canadian, would have been one of the first who would have most vociferously objected to the fact that it had been bypassed.

On Friday afternoon, near the beginning of his address, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) said, in essence, that he could see no savings in the suggestion of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), although the minister claims there are. The budget tells us that we spent on defence in the year 1963-64, last year, the enormous sum of $1,699 million. It is true that some economies are shown for the year 196465, and I give the minister full credit for introducing them. But his expenditures in the year 1963-64 were $99 million more than the previous year, 1962-63. This year he will save a bit more than this-actually $109 million. Without intending to be sacrilegious, this seems a case of "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away".
In fact, in spite of all the ballyhoo of the minister's white paper, the cuts in defence spending for 1964-65 do little more than return us to the level of Conservative spending. The previous government did its task in keeping defence expenditures down to what I think was a legitimate level, and it was very much misunderstood in some parts of Canada as a consequence of its sensible attitude. It was the Conservative government which, in attempting to keep expenditures to the minimum, cancelled that absurdly expensive scheme for the Avro Arrow plane. That is past history now, but I do not think we should forget it. It was something like a $700 million "lemon"; a plane which we were led to believe could fly for only 15 minutes on its fuel supply and whose cancellation brought to an end the remarkable profitmaking of a firm which had parleyed in a few short years a small investment into assets of many millions, mostly acquired from business done with the taxpayers of this country. If anything needed to be done it was this cancellation; and it was the previous prime minister of this country, the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who had the courage to do it.
It was the leader of this party too who had the courage and the good sense to refuse the Bomarcs, those nuclear weapons which are rapidly being outdated and which the military mind wanted, but which I am quite sure the average citizen did not. Let us not be so foolish as to say that there was a commitment to accept them. Surely none of us has so soon forgotten how at Nassau President Kennedy in a few short words cancelled the development program which his country was undertaking for Britain on an air-to-air missile, and forced Britain to take Polaris submarine missiles instead, thus making useless in a minute a plane which had cost her millions of pounds to develop or, if you like,
National Defence Act
tens of millions of dollars. Mr. Kennedy did not hesitate to put his country's national interest first, ahead of a so-called commitment made earlier but which he felt time and changing circumstances had modified and eliminated.
So it is with us. Surely we are not so securely tied to the tail of the American kite, no matter how friendly it flies, that we cannot put our own national interest first. Time and circumstances had changed the Bomarc from a possibly valuable weapon to one which would be useless, a weapon program which the United States secretary of defence, so he said, would not have introduced and would not spend a nickel on, if he had to do it over again. But the Liberal government installed them, and by so doing put us unwillingly into the nuclear club. We did not have to accept them and we should not have accepted them.
This saving is only a small part of what should be done to reduce our national expenditure on defence. We cannot, as other hon. members have said, afford to spend approximately 25 per cent of our total budget on defence when we have deficits of the order of $455 million forecast for the coming year. I should like to quote in this regard from the budget white paper, page 91, under the heading "defence expenditures". It says:
Expenditures of the Department of National Defence and defence expenditures of the Department of Defence Production are again in the largest category of government budgetary expenditure. The total of $1,699 million for 1963-64 is approximately 25 per cent of the aggregate budgetary expenditures of the government for the year and is $99 million more than the total of $1,600 million for 1962-63 when they were 24 per cent of total expenditures.
In a growing and developing country which desperately needs large amounts of capital for use in productive ways, particularly when we have a finance minister who is clearly antagonistic to the use of foreign funds, we cannot divert to useless and non-productive defence expenditures the huge sum of, in round figures, $1,700 million annually.
There is no use saying we cannot reduce our defence budget. It can be done, and it should be done. In addition, it seems to me that much of our present military establishment is based on concepts of how war was fought in the second great war. Even the modifications which the defence minister is proposing seem to be based on the same premise. Such beliefs are as out of date as the Spanish galleon of the great armada when it met Drake's sloops in the English channel or, to use a more modern illustration, as the Maginot line was to the German panzer columns. An imaginative approach to defence

National Defence Act
problems will enable us to phase out much that is no longer vital and concentrate where it seems more worth while.
I believe the minister is trying, but I suggest he has not been imaginative enough. In a couple of years, we should be able to bring our defence expenditures to a more reasonable proportion of our total spending and so eliminate our deficits. This will be possible if, of course, conditions do not change in the world to such a degree as to require more elaborate and expensive defence expenditures, a condition to which we are always subject. Even more important is the fact that by making reductions in our defence spending we will be giving a lead to other and greater nations. We will be adding our little bit to a growing tendency toward disarmament and so to the alleviation of tension in the cold war. It is an appropriate time to take such action.
May I quote from an editorial in the Journal of the United Nations for March-April, 1964 headed "Disarmament has Begun". I quote:
A remarkable thing has happened. After failing, in years of discussion in disarmament conferences, to agree on how to start disarming, the two superpowers have begun to disarm without an agreement. As U Thant has commented, the United States and the Soviet union "seem to have come to the conclusion that no progress towards ending the arms race will be made unless and until they slow down themselves."
Within three weeks of assuming office President Johnson announced that 33 U.S. military bases, seven of them abroad, would be closed down or put on a stand-by basis, and that more cuts were coming. Shortly afterwards, Chairman Khrushchev, announced a reduction in the 1964 Soviet military budget of $600 million. A few weeks after that Johnson cut the new U.S. military budget by $1 billion, and announced a 25 per cent reduction in the production of fissionable materials, with the closing down of four plutonium piles. Earlier, the Soviets had put out feelers to call off, or slacken, the race to the moon.
In this kind of international climate, it seems to me Canada could do her bit to accelerate disarmament. As the months pass it becomes clearer and clearer that the policy of the leader of my party of preparation of the weapon systems for nuclear arms, but refusal of the arms unless or until an emergency arose, was the sensible, intelligent decision. Indeed, it was a decision which would have made it easy for us to give the lead in banning the bomb and leading in and encouraging disarmament. I urge this government, this government with its almost fatal tendency to rush into precipitate action without full consideration of the consequences, to consider this greatest of all ambitions, a peaceful world. I urge them to accelerate economies in defence and to couple these economies with a reorientation of our whole defence policy so that we may once again lead the world towards peace.
[Mr. Cantelon.l


John Chester MacRae: should like to enter this debate very briefly, as I am deeply interested in the subject of defence and would like to make one or two observations. First, I wish to congratulate the minister upon the introduction of the resolution to again set up the defence committee. Perhaps I would not be amiss at this particular point if I congratulated the chairman of that committee during the past session, who is now the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve); the vice chairman, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and also the members of the staff of the House of Commons who served that committee. I feel the committee did an exceptionally fine job, a vital job, during the last session and much is due to these gentlemen.
I dm making one criticism at this point of the setting up of the committee. I feel this move has been made too late in the session. Of course, Mr. Speaker, any committee is only valuable, and can only be valuable, if it is given a job to do. I contrast the committees that we have in this parliament with those in the United States where so much of the work that is done in the congress and in the senate is done by committees. The committee chairmen are considered to be the most important members of the congress and senate. Before I leave last year's committee, I should like to say I feel that not only did it do a valuable job, but it was a credit to the House of Commons.
There were 24 members on this committee who, first of all, had an opportunity of listening to experts in the field of defence. They heard the chiefs of staff for air, navy and army, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. They heard some who were experts and some who were not experts. Later, the members of the committee had an opportunity to go to NORAD headquarters at Colorado Springs and to North Bay to see the installations there for the air defence of North America. In addition, committee members had an opportunity of going to Europe to talk to the leaders of Great Britain in the field of defence, including the Hon. Peter Thorneycroft, and the leaders of France, West Germany, Denmark and at supreme headquarters of the allied powers in Europe, as well as NATO headquarters. I feel that the members of that committee came back with an excellent knowledge of the problems of this country in defence, as well as the problems of the whole world in this particular field.
On Friday, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity of spending a day in camp Gage-town. This particular military establishment is the largest and finest in the commonwealth. It contains over 420 square miles of training

area and, at its peak in the summer, has
12,000	troops. A new city has been built beside the camp to serve those who are stationed there. I feel that the area commander of New Brunswick and the brigade commander of the camp are to be commended, because they brought in 150 citizens of New Brunswick who watched the training and observed the troops in action. We had an opportunity of seeing field firing by the Royal Canadian Dragoons, the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and the Black Watch. They are all fine units of Brigadier Wilson-Smith's brigade. We had an opportunity to examine how a camp of this size functions.
In the months of July and August of this year we expect 12,000 troops in that area. I was suggesting to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) earlier, and possibly he thought I was joking, that it would be a good thing if during the summer-if we are in session here, and we quite likely will be-an opportunity could be provided for members of the House of Commons to go to camp Gage-town to watch the Canadian army at its best in its training. Perhaps hon. members would gain some knowledge of how the defence dollar is being used and would come back with an appreciation of this.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) discussed the reduction in the armed forces as a result of this integration policy. This is a subject in which the men and women of the armed forces are deeply interested. I have not had an opportunity of discussing this reduction to any great extent with members of the permanent forces. However, I do know that members of the militia in this country are very unhappy indeed.
We know that a few years ago the previous Conservative administration was bitterly criticized because the role of the militia was changed. It was said that instead of having their machine guns, mortars and other weapons they were given sand buckets and stirrup pumps. What has happened to the militia today is that for the most part they are being almost wiped out. I would tell my personal friend, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), and the associate minister, that the militia of the country are deeply concerned about what is happening to them.
I noticed the other day that the minister mentioned there was a need for more recruits, even with a reduction in the total strength. He said that there was no better career for a young man in this country than to enter the armed forces. That, of course, is very true. One of the roles of the militia has been to be a feeder for the permanent forces.
National Defence Act
It has been in the past and I think it can be again in the future a base for the mobilization of the armed forces if we do find ourselves in another war. Let us hope, of course, that we will never find ourselves in a nuclear war under any circumstances, but if we did the militia could again play its part there.
Recently I put some questions on the order paper directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin). I asked whether he could advise how many civilian employees would be released as a result of integration. The minister gave an answer, which I accepted of course because I thought it was reasonable, that this could not be determined at this particular time. But I would ask the associate minister to give this matter some thought and to see if he cannot allay the fears of the civilians who work for the Department of National Defence. There are a great many men and women, some
40,000	altogether I believe, who are concerned in this particular instance.
We cannot put illustrations on Hansard. I sometimes wonder, though, whether it would not be a good idea. I am going to send to the Minister of National Defence a cartoon done by Chambers. Perhaps he has seen it. It shows a kilted soldier waving his claymore -he is a very rugged fellow indeed-while three others are trying to remove his kilt. Standing to one side is the Minister of National Defence holding a uniform and at the top are the words: "Some things are better left alone, Mr. Hellyer". Perhaps the minister has seen the cartoon, but if he has not I will send it to him. It is one that is really worth framing.
There is a point I should like to bring up. I raised this matter when we were in Europe last fall and I make no apology for raising it at this particular time because I am deeply interested in the dependants of the men who serve in the armed forces-the women and children. I am concerned about the matter of education. We know only too well, of course, that in this country we have 10 systems of education and the children who feel the brunt of this more than any others are the youngsters whose fathers are in the armed forces.
I suggested to Colonel Dick, in Soest last year that it would be a very fine thing for the army to have special classes in the summer months so that the more gifted children could advance more rapidly than by simply remaining in their ordinary grades. I have another suggestion in this regard. I have noticed that at camp Gagetown a high school teacher will have youngsters in his class who have gone to school in half a dozen or more of the provinces. I remember one teacher

National Defence Act
who took only 15 or 20 minutes for lunch and spent the rest of the lunch period working with students who perhaps had never had the subject he was teaching at all-in this case it was French-or had had a very sketchy education in the subject.
Possibly I have not made myself entirely clear but I can explain the matter more fully to the minister personally. I believe that special classes would be an exceptionally fine thing for these students at Soest, Zwei-briicken and other schools overseas in order to help these youngsters who in many cases suffer from the point of view of education because their fathers serve in the armed forces.
There is another matter I should like to raise at this time. It has to do with a rather strange subject known as "Nudets". I put a number of questions on the order paper earlier in the session reading as follows:
1.	Are there any units of the nuclear detection and reporting system-
That is abbreviated to "Nudets"-
__presently being constructed in Canada and, if
so, who is constructing these units and at what locations are they being constructed?
2.	What is the cost...?
3.	What is their purpose?
The answers were:
1.	No units are presently being constructed.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The Nudet reporting posts are designed to determine the location at ground zero of a nuclear explosion, the height of the burst and approximate yield of the weapon.
Then I asked a second question in these words:
Have any discussions been held with the Pentagon relative to the construction in Canada of units of the nuclear detection and reporting system and, if so, what conclusion was reached as a result of these discussions?
Here was the answer:
Discussions have been held between Canadian and United States officials on matters of mutual concern relating to civil defence on a confidential basis. In consequence, the publication of any results of such discussion would require the consent of both the Canadian and United States governments.
The result was that I was given practically no information at all. So many times when questions are asked on the order paper or on the orders of the day the person asking the question already knows the answer. In this particular case I knew the answer and it does not agree with the one I was given. I wish to quote very briefly from the Saturday Evening Post of December 7, 1963 which contained an article by Stewart Alsop, a highly reputable writer. He said:
As a gentle reminder of the weirdness of the world we live in, and a small warning against excessive complacency it seems worth while having a look at a peculiar product of our times
[Mr. MacRae.l
called Nudets. Nudets is Pentagonese for nuclear detection and reporting system. The Nudets system is being built by the General Electric Company at an estimated cost of $25 million at 52 sites in the United States and southern Canada.
Perhaps the minister can see what I am driving at. Here we are told in one place that they are being built in Canada and in another place we are told that they are not being built in Canada. Perhaps the minister is right but if he is I do not feel it is proper that articles like this should go unchallenged by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian government when we are brought into the picture, if in fact such is not the case.
I have only one very brief point to make before I sit down. This year of 1964 is an anniversary year in many ways for those who have served in Canada's forces in the past. It is 50 years ago that world war I began; it is 25 years since the beginning of world war II, and 100,000 men have given their lives in defence of this country. If it should happen that we should go to war again, let us hope that our forces are completely and fully equipped. War is no longer a feasible or sensible method of settling international disputes.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with provisional standing order 3 9A, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is that this house do now adjourn. The hon. member for Churchill.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I directed a question to the Secretary of State and asked him, in view of the drastic reductions which have been announced with respect to northern allowances and isolation pay, due to the rising costs of living and the drastic reduction in take home pay for many of the civil servants in the north, would he consider a full investigation and possible reconsideration of this action.
I regret that the Secretary of State is not in his place this evening. However, I would sincerely hope that the Acting Secretary of

State would be able to give the house some answers with respect to this very important question. It is a very important subject and is of great concern to the civil servants and the members of the armed forces who may be affected.
During a recent visit to northern Manitoba I was contacted by a number of civil servants and some members of the armed forces who complained bitterly about this announcement. Some of these people have been advised that as of October there will be a drastic reduction in their take home pay, in some cases as much as $60 to $95 per month.
Many of these people have been in the area for a year or more, but in some cases less than a year. I believe they went there with the understanding that these allowances could be expected for the duration of their tour of duty. The ones who have been there a year have now gained a considerable experience of working with the people in the area, and are becoming very valuable to their departments. If reconsideration is not given to this policy, then I suppose it becomes a matter that these civil servants, and possibly members of the armed forces, will be entitled to ask for a transfer, just at a time when the money that has been spent on them to date in northern allowances and isolation pay is producing results.
If there had been a significant lowering of the cost of living, a move of this nature could be understood and would probably be justified. However, we all know the cost of living has gone up, but their take home pay is to be reduced. With regard to the cost of living I would like to refer very briefly to an article in the Montreal Star of April 9 which says:
Higher clothing, transportation and housing costs helped increase the country's cost of living index from 134.5 to 134.6 in March, the bureau of statistics reported yesterday.
The index, based on 1949 prices of 100, was 1.9 per cent higher than in March of last year.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, there were certain stipulations and requirements for the receiving of northern allowance. I do not know all the details but I believe various departments had different requirements. In some cases civil servants in places north of the 55th parallel that had no road connections with the outside world, and in some places which did not have rail line service, automatically became eligible for isolation pay or northern allowance. With respect to the people who have complained to me, the situation in their case has changed very little, and in some cases not at all.
Most of the places along the Hudson bay line in northern Manitoba and other places such as the mining town of Lynn Lake have
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion no road connection, even though they do have rail connection. I may say that under the provisions of the roads to resources program and in co-operation with the government of Manitoba a road will shortly be built to Thompson, Manitoba, where many of these civil servants are located. However, that road has not, as yet, been built. Indeed, I think that in any case this is a factor which should not be taken wholly into consideration because in many of these areas which are now getting the benefit of road connections the cost of living has increased; rents have gone up in many cases. For these reasons I shall be interested to hear someone on the treasury benches explain why this policy has been adopted and made known to civil servants. There are in effect northern allowances, rates of isolation pay, and cost of living rates. These reductions, apparently, have taken effect with regard to isolation pay and I should like to hear-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired.


George James McIlraith: The general question raised by the hon. member is of wide interest and I understand his concern about it. I must say, from the observations he has made, that there is obviously considerable need of explanation, because the point is not well understood. There are some 453 posts involved where isolation, remoteness allowances, are granted in addition to regular pay. The general increase in the cost of living does not have any effect because this is taken care of in the salary adjustments which are made from time to time. We are dealing here with an additional item paid by reason of remoteness. With respect to some of the isolated posts there has been no change at all in the allowance paid. In respect to others, the allowance has been increased, and there are some with respect to which allowances have been reduced. It is obviously those cases where the allowances have been reduced which have been brought to the attention of the hon. member.
The present method of determining isolation and remoteness allowances was developed in 1958 as a result of a survey started in 1956 to correct unsatisfactory situations which had been found to exist under the former regulations. What is being done now is to carry out an adjustment within the regulations on exactly the same basis, using exactly the same tests as applied when they were originally set up in 1958. The points considered to determine the allowances in

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion this elaborate rating system include remoteness, transportation, population, medical services, climatic conditions, entertainment available, schools, the availability of religious services and the provision of water and electricity, as well as the supply of goods available for purchase. These are taken into account in an elaborate point rating system and it is the review of these factors which has brought about a change in the allowances paid. Changes in transportation facilities or, in one or two cases, of telecommunications services and other services have resulted in an alteration in the rates and as a result some posts receive lower allowances -although, as I said, some will receive higher allowances while others will remain at the same level. There is more which could be said but since my time has expired I shall probably have to keep it until another occasion.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, May 8, as reported in Hansard at page 3059, I sought to put to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) this question:
In view of many complaints regarding the onerous application of the availability test for unemployment insurance benefit, has the minister had discussions about this matter with the unemployment insurance commission? Is any relaxation of the application of this test in prospect?
The Chair felt there was not sufficient urgency to this question for me to expect an answer to it on orders of the day. I may say that I do not mind waiting until tonight, but I hope the answer will be a good one. I regret that the Minister of Labour is not here, but if the parliamentary secretary comes up with a good answer, we will give him full marks for it.
I am sure all hon. members of the house are aware of what has happened. Persons who are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, and in some cases those who have not yet started to draw them, find themselves called upon to answer certain questions. In particular they are asked what kinds of employment they would take and what rates of pay they would accept. Many of these persons, trying to be helpful, will list certain occupations they would take and certain rates of pay for which they would settle, and a little while later they find they receive a notice from the unemployment insurance commission to the effect that they have restricted their availability for employment and therefore unemployment insurance benefit is either cut off or denied them. That is a simple and direct clarification of what I meant by the
[Mr. McIIraith.)

phrase "onerous application of the availability test for unemployment insurance benefit". It has been drawn to the attention of the government several times during the course of this session, and in the view of many of us who have received complaints from insured workers about this matter, this test should be relaxed. I hope that the answer is a favourable one; that the minister has had discussions about this matter with the unemployment insurance commission, and that we can anticipate a relaxation of this test at an early date.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has re-read his question so I think it is unnecessary for me to repeat it. Suffice it to say that up to that moment the minister had not had discussions which would lead to the relaxation of this test as suggested by the hon. member. However, that is not to say that the hon. member's representations will not be considered. But in defence of the officials of the commission I think I should say a few words. The applicable section of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 54(2)(a), provides:
An insured person is disqualified from receiving benefits in respect of every day that he fails to prove that he was capable of and available for work.
The hon. member will note here that the onus of proving availability is on the claimant. In doing so he must show that he is genuinely ready and willing to accept suitable employment immediately; that is, at the time he applies. Also, there must be a reasonable expectancy of obtaining the kind of employment that he is, by his own admission, willing to accept. I am sure my hon. friend does not quarrel with this as an insurance principle.
The hon. member is no doubt aware, also, that there is a wide misconception that unemployment insurance benefits are a matter of right based solely on having established the fact that premiums have been paid. Because of this misconception the commission often finds that a claimant will, in the initial application, indicate that he or she is not interested in obtaining employment. Such person will subsequently change the statement, although having been given a copy of it at the time. It will be on record and the officer must, of course, take cognizance of that fact.
Over the last four years the number of enforcement officers has been appreciably increased, I believe something like 70 in number. The net result has therefore been that a closer check has been made and the administration of the act tightened up. We have no doubt come across a number of people who are really not available for work, and as

a consequence they have been disqualified. If the hon. member has any specific case-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I have.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -which he wishes to bring to the attention of myself or the minister or the commissioner, then we will be pleased to look into them to determine whether there has been any unfairness in the administration of the act.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 8 I posed a question to the Minister of Transport. I do not see him in his seat tonight and I understand he is out of town and unable to be present. However, I assume he has a stand-in. This question was with reference to the plans of the C.N.R. to revise its maintenance of way methods in the maritime area. These new methods are scheduled to commence on June 1. On Friday last I suggested that this will cause great disruption and hardship among the employees, with ultimate unemployment for a large number. The minister stated in his reply that the new methods they are planning to put into effect will not result in any decrease in employment until such time as there are retirements of existing employees who may not be replaced. But ultimately there is going to be unemployment as a result of this, and that is a play on words by the minister.
I followed up this question by asking the minister whether he was aware that many of these employees of the C.N.R. would be uprooted from their homes and would have to be moved to other areas, as a result of which great disruption would be caused. He advised me that he would refer the matter to the management of the C.N.R.
This is not the first time this question has been brought up. The junior member for Queens brought it to the attention of the minister on April 7 and the hon. member for Pictou mentioned it as well. Again the matter was going to be drawn to the attention of the C.N.R. The hon. member for Cape Breton South also brought the subject to the attention of the minister and suggested that any revision in the maintenance of way methods be delayed until at least the railway committee met or the estimates were studied; and the minister said that he would bring the question to the attention of the C.N.R. On Friday, as I said, he was again going to bring my question to the attention of the 'C.N.R.
11, 1964	3157
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
However, Mr. Speaker, we are not getting any information. I understand from the union officials that this is going to affect 32 section foremen who will be reduced to the position of sectionmen, and then ultimately 74 section-men positions will be abolished. Not only that, but it will lengthen the sections which are to be maintained, and therein arises a safety factor. I hope that this matter is going to be looked into. It affects railwaymen from Sydney to Centreville, New Brunswick. This is a rather urgent and serious matter and I am hoping for some other type of reply than the one we have been receiving.
So we find, Mr. Speaker, that the C.N.R. continues drastically to reduce their working force in the maritimes, putting more men on the unemployment roles. The claim is always that they are economizing and at the same time increasing their efficiency. I suggest that the C.N.R. is top-heavy with economists, so-called specialists, and even inspectors to inspect the inspectors, and I suggest that this is a false economy. There is an old Chinese proverb which goes something like this: "There is no economy in going to bed early to save candles if the result be twins". I suggest that the "twins" in this case are the increased unemployment which will result. I appeal to the minister, or whoever represents him tonight-and I realize it is impossible for him to be here-to make immediate representation to Mr. Donald Gordon, the president of the C.N.R., to take another look at this question and to delay the implementation of the proposed revision at least, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South has requested and suggested, until the railway committee has a chance to study this matter.
We are finding cut-backs not only on the Canadian National but in the Departments of National Defence, Northern Affairs, Transport, Public Works, and so on. As a result, we have
increased unemployment. I hope the representative of the minister here tonight will have something more encouraging for the men who are going to be so drastically affected.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the minister is out of town tonight on official duty. Last Friday the minister assured the hon. member that he would bring his statement to the attention of the management of the Canadian National.


Robert Muir: He keeps saying that.


Jean-Charles Cantin: It must be remembered that the Canadian National is a crown company and the minister will not interfere with its

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion administration. However, a report has now come to the minister and the management advises that because of improvements that have been made in recent years to the railroad structure, the railway has for some time been studying the possible reorganization of railroad maintenance forces and procedure. This proposal will be extended to all regions and not restricted to the Atlantic region.
The management goes on to say that, generally speaking, this reorganization, which contemplates the extension of territories cur-

rently worked by track forces, decreasing the number of gangs and increasing the size of some crews, will ultimately result in a reduction of staff requirements. However, in the Atlantic region, the hon. member will be glad to know it is not contemplated that this will cause any lay-offs of employees, as it is the intention to reduce the forces over a period of time through normal attrition.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Tuesday, May 12, 1964