1966-02-21

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that seven objections have been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter 31, Statutes of Canada, 1964-65 with respect to the reports of the electoral boundaries commissions about the following ridings:
(a)	Saint-Henri-signed by the hon. member for Sainte-Anne and other hon. members;
(b)	Maisonneuve-signed by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont and other hon. members;
(c)	Ottawa-Carleton-signed by the hon. member for Russell and other hon. members;
(d)	Wentworth-signed by the hon. member for Wentworth and other hon. members.
(e)	Rimouski-signed by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue and other hon. members;
(f)	Beauharnois, Chambly, Laprairie, Lon-gueuil and Saint-Jean-signed by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-La-prairie and other hon. members;
(g)	All ridings in the province of Quebec-signed	by the hon. member for
Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie and other hon. members.
If the house will agree, I suggest that we again follow the procedure already used during this session so that the text of the objections, together with the names of the members who signed them in each case will be printed as appendices to Votes and Proceedings for this day. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



THE LATE HON. PAUL COMTOIS EXPRESSIONS OF SYMPATHY ON DEATH OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF QUEBEC

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house were deeply grieved this morning to learn of the tragic death of the Queen's
representative in the province of Quebec, Hon. Paul Comtois, made all the more tragic because of the shocking circumstances of his passing. I am sure all hon. members would wish their sympathy to be extended through you, Mr. Speaker, to Madame Comtois and the members of her family.
Many of us here knew Mr. Comtois, particularly during the years when he was a member of this house and Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys in the government of my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). He was a man of kindliness, courtesy and quiet effectiveness in his work, and he was liked and admired by all who knew him.
His public service to his community, to his province and to his country, particularly to the rural population of the province of Quebec, was long and varied; as an agronomist, as mayor for many years of his parish, general manager of the Quebec Farm Credit Union, member of parliament, cabinet minister, and since October 1961 lieutenant governor of his province.
It is always sad, Mr. Speaker, when a distinguished and fruitful career is suddenly ended. It is doubly sad when it ends in such tragic circumstances. So we lament the passing of a good man and an unselfish and devoted public servant.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Paul Comtois was, as the Prime Minister said, a man of unusual courtesy and kindness. He was a man of great dedication, a worthy representative not only as a minister of the crown but also as lieutenant-governor of his province.
I recall very well the first mention to him that his name might be considered. The ministers of the crown and members of the then opposition were on the way back from Quebec following the funeral of Hon. Onesime Gagnon, who had just passed away. When a lieutenant-governor dies the appointment of a successor cannot be delayed. The appointment must be immediate, otherwise the business of government within a province ends, there being no means whereby an administrator or enacting official can be appointed.
1496	COMMONS DEBATES	February 21. 1966
The Late Hon. Paul Comtois
I was naturally wondering who could fill this position in a manner that would bring honour to it. His name came to mind and I spoke with him. He immediately said he could not believe that he would be considered capable, or as possessing those qualities necessary in a lieutenant-governor. I indicated, as the Prime Minister just has, that no one had greater interest in the field of agriculture than did Hon. Paul Comtois combining also qualities of deep humanity, personal sympathy, understanding, loyalty and courage.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Paul Comtois was my friend. I have always had great admiration for him and held him in high regard.
His sudden and tragic death plunges us all in grief, and for his family, his province and his country, this is an irretrievable loss.

We mourn his passing. We who knew him in the House of Commons knew something of the depth of his humanity. The Prime Minister's tribute is not merely a formal one but represents the feelings of all who were honoured to know him in life.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party join with members of all parties in this house in expressing their deep regret at the unfortunate tragedy which has caused the death of the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, Hon. Paul Comtois. He had the distinction of serving in this house as a minister of the crown and more recently as the Queen's representative in Quebec. It is unfortunate that his career should have been cut off in so tragic a manner.
During almost every week in Canada there are fires which take the lives of men, women and children. It is only when some exalted personage has lost his life in such a tragedy that it is brought home to us just how many of these fires there are, and how many lives are lost. I hope this tragedy will have some effect on the public. I hope there will be greater demand for more stringent application of fire regulations throughout Canada, because of these tragic losses that happen so frequently and so unnecessarily.
Mr. Speaker, the members of this party would like to convey through you, sir, their deepest sympathy to Madame Comtois, her family, and to his former colleagues in this house on the loss of a good friend and a distinguished Canadian.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Paul Comtois was favourably known in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada because of his numerous activities in the interest of his fellow-citizens. He had everyone's esteem and all were his friends. In the province of Quebec, he discharged the duties of lieutenant-governor admirably well and to everyone's satisfaction.
We, in this corner of the house, offer our condolences to the members of the family of the former lieutenant-governor of Quebec. The tragedy which occurred in Quebec last night will remain present in our memories for a long time.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, both personally and on behalf of the members of the Social Credit party, may I say that we join with the other members of this house in expressing our sorrow and regret at the passing of the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec.
We regret that a public official of his stature and calibre should be removed from the scene of duty in such unfortunate circumstances. To Madame Comtois, his widow, to the members of his family, to the government and people of Quebec, we extend our sincere sympathy and join with all hon. members in expressing our sorrow at the loss of a lieutenant governor who has served the Canadian people so well.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-127, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (grounds for dissolution).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The main purpose of this bill is to provide that following a general election parliament shall continue for a period of four years except where the government has been defeated on a general vote of non-confidence.
I gave a fuller explanation in my remarks during the debate on the address on January 31, as reported at page 448 and subsequent pages of Hansard.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
February 21, 1966



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Steven Otto (York East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-128, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (provision for retired persons).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Steven Otto: I need not explain to you, Mr. Speaker, or to anyone in this house the extreme hardship which is faced by old people who are living on their present pensions.


Mr. Knowles:: How did you vote?


Steven Otto: The purpose of this bill is to entitle all pensioners to take advantage of the Canada Pension Plan and to get the benefit of the plan immediately.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. David Lewis (York South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-129, to amend the Criminal Code (modernization of law of picketing).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this a proposed amendment to section 366 of the Criminal Code which is intended to make peaceful picketing by any numbers lawful, and to make clear that picketers may also seek to persuade others to assist them in their cause in the case of a strike, rather than merely conveying information.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Howard: Since September 1, 1965, has any person, group or organization invited the Prime Minister to visit the electoral district of Skeena and, if so, what is the name and address of each such person, group or organization, and the date of each invitation?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Yes. Skeena
Liberal Association, through the association President, Ivor Donald, Kitimat, B.C., on September 22, 1965.
Questions


B.C.-YUKON INDIAN ADVISORY COUNCIL
Mr. Howard: 1.	Is there, under the auspices of the federal government, a B.C.-Yukon Indian advisory council?
2.	What is the name and address of each member of the said council?
3.	Upon what date was each such member appointed or elected to the said council and what is his tenure of office?
4.	What method was used to determine the membership of the council and if the method involved consultation, what is the name and address of each person, group or organization that was consulted?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Yes.
2.	Mr. Phillip Paul, South Saanich Indian Reserve, Brentwood Bay, B.C. Mr. James Gos-nell, Gitlakdamix Indian Reserve, Aiyansh, B.C. Mr. George Manuel, Neskainlith Indian Reserve, Chase, B.C. Mr. James Antoine, Box 540, Vanderhoof, B.C. Chief Richard Mallo-way, Chilliwack River Road, R.R. 2, Sardis, B.C. Mrs. Clara Tizya, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. Mr. Guy Williams, 194 Hastings, Vancouver, 4, B.C. Mr. Gus Gottfriedson, Box 27, Kamloops, B.C. Mrs. Laura Williams, Box 61, Harrison Mills, B.C.
3.	Elections for the representatives were completed on May 31, 1965, and the term of office is for three years.
4.	For the purpose of forming the council, five zones were designated in the province of British Columbia with one representative to be elected by the band councils in each zone. The Yukon Territory was also designated as a zone with one representative elected by the Band councils in the Territory. In addition, each of the two major Indian associations in British Columbia was asked to appoint a representative to the council. The ninth member of the council is chosen by the Indian homemakers' clubs in the province.


WILLOW COVE, N.S.-EXPENDITURE ON DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the total cost of federal participation in the development of Willow Cove, Queens county, Nova Scotia?
2.	How much of the above amount was spent on wharves or breakwater construction?
3.	How much of the above amount was spent on dredging Willow Cove?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Transport as follows: In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned:
1.	The total cost to date is $554,000.
2.	$46,000.
Questions

February 21, 1966
3.	$508,000.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned: The Atlantic Development Board has been authorized to provide financial assistance from the Atlantic development fund in the amount of $150,000 for site preparation including cribwork and retaining wall at Willow Cove, Queens county, Nova Scotia. No contracts have been awarded and no money spent.


AIR TRANSPORT OCCUPANCY RATES
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the occupancy rate of Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Air Lines seats on domestic flights during 1963. 1964 and 1965?
2.	Is consideration being given by Air Canada to reduce fares for persons 12 to 21 years of age?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. (a) The management of Air Canada advises as follows: The occupancy rate, i.e., passenger load factor for Air Canada on domestic flights: 1963, 60.9 per cent; 1964, 63.2 per cent; 1965, 65.8 per cent, (b) The Air Transport Board advises as follows: The over-all occupancy rates (i.e., passenger load factors) for Canadian Pacific Air Lines' domestic services, calculated from data filed with the board by C.P.A., i.e., passenger miles divided by available seat miles, were as follows: 1963, 61.7 per cent; 1964, 61.9 per cent; 1965 (Jan.-Oct.), 60.9 per cent.
2.	Air Canada is not considering, at this time, reduced fares for persons 12 to 21 years of age.


BONDED STORAGE, HALIFAX AIRPORT
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has Air Canada or any agency of government or the government itself, given any consideration to the provision of suitable "bonded" storage space at the Halifax international airport?
2.	If so, what has been the result of such considerations?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue and Transport as follows. In so far as the customs and excise division is concerned:
1.	No.
2.	N. A.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
1 and 2. Air freight and express arriving at Halifax "In Bond" is either transferred to "bonded" storage in the city or delivered to the customer on a "standing order" issued by the city customs. The customer is thus per-

mitted to take immediate delivery of his goods at the airport and file his entry at a later time with the city customs office.
The volume of "bonded" cargo at present being received at Halifax airport does not require immediate expansion of facilities available but the matter is being kept under review.
For passengers and their baggage, of course, the complete "international arrivals" section of the terminal is in effect a "bonded" area where goods or persons arriving are cleared through customs control.


COMMISSION ON BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM
Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the cost to date of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism?
2.	What was the cost of the last series of meetings held by this commission?
3.	What is the final estimated cost of this commission?


John Ross Matheson: I am informed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism as follows: 1. Expenditures to date (as of December 31, 1965) $3,538,523.70.
2.	The cost of the last series of meetings of the commission (Ottawa, January 12, 13 and 14, 1966) was $3,183.70.
3.	No final estimates are possible at this time.


MARITIME MARSHLANDS OFFICE, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total staff of the M.M.R.A. office at Amherst, N.S.?
2.	How many additional individuals will join the staff as a regional office under ARDA?
3.	Will there be any significant change in the type of program developed through this office and, if so, what?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	33.
2. 8.
3.	The establishment of an Atlantic regional office of rural development and the joining of the programs and agreements under the Maritime Marshland and Rehabilitation Act and under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act will result in: (1) The integration of the present M.M.R.A. organization and staff within the regional rural development office. (2) Provide for a closer working relationship with the provincial authorities which will result in expediting the planning, approval and implementation of programs and projects.
February 21, 1966

The programs under the two acts will be joined together to effectively complement one another in the regional rural development program.


FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Allard: 1.	What was the value of foreign investments in Canada in 1963, 1964 and 1965 and what were their sources?
2.	For 1963, 1964 and 1965, what was the value of loans obtained on foreign financial markets by municipal and provincial governments and the federal government and commercial enterprises, and on what foreign markets were such loans made?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Foreign long-term investments in Canada at the end of 1962 had a book value of $24,729 million of which 77 per cent was owned by residents of the United States, 14 per cent by residents of the United Kingdom and 9 per cent by residents of other countries.
Value of loans obtained on Country
Federal government and
federal guaranteed	U.S.A.
Provincial direct and
provincial guaranteed	U.S.A.
Municipal direct and
municipal guaranteed	U.S.A.
Corporate bonds	U.S.A.
Notes:
(1)	Source of information: Bank of Canada Statistical Summary-January 1966.
(2)	The amounts shown represent gross new issues denominated in foreign currencies, which closely approximate loans obtained on foreign financial markets.
(3)	1965 data covers period ending November 30, 1965.
(4)	1965 data covers period ending September 30, 1965.


ASSISTANCE TO WORKSHOPS FOR MENTALLY RETARDED
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 245
Mr. Brand:: 1.	Does the government plan to introduce legislation this session to provide capital and operational assistance to sheltered workshops for the mentally handicapped throughout Canada?
Questions
Later comprehensive estimates have not been completed. During the two-year period 1963-1964-$415 million, $69 million and $51 million flowed into Canada from the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries respectively for direct investment in foreign controlled concerns, and $1,327 million for the net acquisition of portfolio Canadian stocks and bonds by residents of the United States against which there were outflows of $128 million and $5 million for the net repurchases of such securities from the United Kingdom and other overseas countries respectively. The increase in the value of foreign-owned investments in Canada would be larger because of retained earnings.
In the first nine months of 1965 the net inflows from all countries for direct investment and for the acquisition of Canadian securities amounted to $290 million and $428 million respectively.
2.	See statement attached.
foreign financial markets'* 1 2' <2>
Market	1963	1964	1965
Private	-($'000 Canadian)-		
placement	135,135	-	-Various	330,000	416,000	270,000""Various	42,000	152,000	47,000'*'Various	309,000	300,000	422,000'3 4'2. If so, will	provision	be made for	all levels of
mental retardation, or will the legislation be limited to those who with training may achieve normal or near normal levels of production?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as follows: 1. Operational assistance is already being provided to a number of sheltered workshops for the mentally handicapped under the federal-provincial vocational rehabilitation and vocational training programs. Various ways by which additional assistance may be provided to sheltered workshops have been suggested and are being considered. Any decisions of government policy will be announced, when appropriate, in the normal way.
2.	Not applicable.

February 21, 1960
Questions


REPLY RESPECTING WHALE RIVER INDIANS
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources receive a letter dated January 21, 1966, from one V. Skerl relating to one Josie Tokalook, one Kenny White, and two Indian people from Whale River and, if so, what reply, by direct quotation therefrom, was given?


Arthur Laing: Yes; Mrs. V. Skerl was informed that: Josie Tookalook is an Eskimo living at Great Whale River in the province of Quebec. He was charged with an offence under the Criminal Code. As you know the responsibility for the enforcement of the Criminal Code rests with the province. In accordance with the practice throughout Canada Mr. Tookalook's case was heard in the provincial court. This procedure is also followed throughout Canada with regard to any case involving infraction of the Criminal Code by an Indian person. There is no change of jurisdiction involved. This has always been the practice. Kenny White is not of Indian status and I am unable, therefore, to pass any comment. Rednose and Lucassi-Two cases from Great Whale area "These two cases involve mental illness and the arrangements made for their protection are the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I have referred your letter to my colleague the Honourable Allan J. MacEachen for attention."


* SAFETY FEATURES IN AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Grafftey: 1.	For the protection of the Canadian public has any governmental authority in Canada drafted a code of minimum safety standards relating to safety features which must be included in cars at the production level and for the use of the public in general?
2.	What governmental authority in Canada, if any, exercises active control over the automobile industry relating to the safer production of cars and relative to the inclusion of scientifically proven safety features as standard equipment in all cars produced in or imported into Canada?
3.	If such a governmental authority exists, in what manner has it exercised its authority in the past ten years?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is in three parts.
1.	In so far as the government of Canada is concerned there is an automotive vehicle safety code being developed which will be made up of sections dealing with the human
[Miss LaMarsh.)
factor, the vehicle and the environment. Preparation of the code has been assigned to the Canadian government specifications board, which will undertake this work in co-operation with officials of provincial governments and interested industrial, professional, technical, safety and research organizations. It is proposed to give a high priority to the vehicle section, but the sections dealing with the human and environmental factors will be proceeded with simultaneously.
The code will contain information on characteristics of drivers and roads which are related to accident frequency. The vehicle section will contain information, including standards to govern safety features, which is intended to reduce the number of accidents and to reduce the severity of injuries when accidents do occur. It is anticipated that the code will influence the development of safer automobiles. It could also serve as the basis for achieving uniformity of vehicle legislation and regulations.
2.	None.
3.	Not applicable.


* SAFETY FEATURES IN MOTOR CARS
Mr. Grafftey: 1.	Has the government any statistics indicating the number of deaths and injuries caused by rear-end collisions and the propulsion of tools, jacks, etc., from the trunk into the back seat of the car and, if so, have any steps been taken to eliminate the use of cardboard or similar material to separate the trunk from the back seat in any 1966 model cars produced or imported into Canada?
2.	Has the government determined whether all currently popular 1966 hardtop model cars produced in or imported into Canada have been so engineered that three-point shoulder harnesses can be properly installed and moored to the frame of the car and, if not, what government agency is responsible for the safety inspection of such cars?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	The Dominion Bureau of Statistics report that statistics of this nature are not available.
2.	The government has not determined whether all currently popular 1966 hardtop model cars produced in or imported into Canada have been so engineered that three-point shoulder harnesses can be properly installed and moored to the frame of the car. However, one Canadian manufacturer does provide anchorage points and the system used by this manufacturer could be adapted to any "hardtop." There is no federal government agency charged specifically with the responsibility of inspection of cars for safety.
February 21, 1966


APPLICATION OF SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
Mr. Godin: What products, manufactured in Canada, are affected by the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: All building materials manufactured or produced in Canada are subject to the 11 per cent sales tax with the exception of those listed in schedule III of the Excise Tax Act, i.e., crushed stone, crushed gravel, sand, gravel, rubble and field stone. The goods listed in section 29(2b) of the act are not subject to sales tax on the manufacturer's sale price but sales tax applies only with respect to the materials used in their manufacture or production. In addition, bona fide public hospitals and provincial government departments may purchase taxable building materials for their own use and not for resale without payment of sales tax. Under sections 47 and 47A of the act, certain institutions, such as homes for the aged, educational institutions and organizations operating public libraries, may obtain refund of the sales tax paid on materials used in the construction of their buildings.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON CRIME
Mr. Allard: Does the government intend to create a royal commission on organized crime and on its causes?
[Translation1


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: No.
[English1


ASSISTANCE FOR SHELTERED WORKSHOPS
Mr. Rapp: Is it the intention of the government to propose legislation during this session of parliament which would provide assistance for capital and operational costs for sheltered workshops for the mentally handicapped?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as follows: Operational assistance is already being provided to a number of sheltered workshops for the mentally handicapped under the federal-provincial vocational rehabilitation and vocational training programs. The government is giving consideration to various ways by which additional assistance may be provided to rehabilitation for the mentally and physically disabled. Any decisions of government policy will be announced, when appropriate, in the normal way.
Questions


* GUISEPPE COTRONI, KINGSTON PENITENTIARY
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is Guiseppe Cotroni an Inmate of the federal penitentiary at Kingston, Ontario, and, if so, what was he convicted of and what is the length of his sentence?
2.	If Guiseppe Cotroni is an inmate of the penitentiary, has he ever been permitted to leave Kingston penitentiary since entering that institution to attend any personal functions on compassionate or other grounds and, if so, on what dates and for what reasons?
3.	If Guiseppe Cotroni was allowed to attend any personal functions on parole, was he allowed to leave unattended or under escort?
4.	Has any request been made for his parole and, if so, under whose authority was parole granted?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: Yes, Guiseppe Cotroni was convicted of trafficking in narcotics and sentenced to ten years imprisonment and to an additional seven years consecutive for receiving stolen goods.
The answer to part 2 is yes, on Friday and Saturday, September 18 and 19, 1964, pursuant to section 26 of the Penitentiary Act, to attend the wake of his mother.
The answer to part 3 is, Guiseppe Cotroni was not allowed to attend any personal function whilst on parole, but was at all times under escort.
The answer to part 4 is yes, a request for parole was made on behalf of Guiseppe Cotroni but it was refused by the national parole board.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the amount spent by the government In 1945 for the payment of family allowances?
2.	How many children were eligible in 1945 to receive family allowances?
3.	What was the amount spent by the government in 1965 for the payment of family allowances?
4.	How many children were eligible in 1965 to receive family allowances?
5.	What is the percentage increase in the cost of living from 1945 to date?
6.	What is the percentage increase of family allowances, from 1945 to date?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	$113,934,820.
2.	As at December 31, 1945-3,261,732.
3.	$550,571,248.
4.	As at December 31, 1965-6,849,095.
5.	The consumer price index (1949 = 100) increased from 75.0 in 1945 to 140.8 at the

February 21, 1966
Questions
beginning of December 1965, an increase of 87.7 per cent.
6.	The percentage increase in the average allowance per family as between December 1945 and December 1965 is 11.5 per cent. The percentage increase in the average allowance per child as between December 1945 and December 1965 is 9.4 per cent.


OFFICE STAFF, MINES MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
Question 353-Mr. Co ales:
1.	When the present Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys took office, who were the members of the staff of the minister's office?
2.	Were any of such staff removed and for what reasons in each case?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys: 1. When the present Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys took office, the following were the members of the staff of Hon. J. Watson MacNaught: Mr. J. P. Maclnnis, Executive assistant; Mr. O. J. Troy, Special assistant; Mrs. Regan Copp, Private secretary; Mrs. Marcelle Mihm, Assistant private secretary; Miss M. A. Giroux, Assistant private secretary; Mr. A. Sonier, Principal clerk; Mrs. Madeleine Logan, Clerk 4; Mrs. E. T. Larmour, Typist 3.
2. Section 71 of the Civil Service Act reads as follows:
"71 (2)-A person who is employed in the office of the minister ceases to be employed when the person holding the position of such minister ceases to hold that position." In effect, therefore, none of the staff referred to above were removed by the minister-their employment had terminated with the departure of the previous minister.
Here is the present position of individuals previously on the staff of Hon. J. Watson MacNaught:
Mr. J. P. Maclnnis, No information. Mr. O.	J. Troy, Temporarily employed as special assistant to the minister. Mrs. Regan Copp, With the office of Hon. R. Winters. Mrs. Marcelle Mihm, Retained as associate private secretary to the minister. Miss M. A. Giroux, Working elsewhere in the minister's department. Mrs. M. Logan, Retained as clerk in minister's office. Mrs. E. T. Larmour, Working elsewhere in minister's department. Mr. E. Sonier, No information.

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1. What are the plans of the government for the construction of a new post office building at Iona, Nova Scotia?
[Miss LaMarsh.l
2. Will it be constructed during the present winter works program and, if so, how soon will the construction commence?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1 and 2. The post office at Iona, N.S., is in the category of offices where the postmaster is normally responsible for the provision of suitable accommodation as a condition of employment. There are no plans for the construction of a post office building as this location is not in an area designated by the Department of Labour as one of high winter unemployment.


USE OF STILBESTROL
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What are the regulations on the feeding of stilbestrol to animals that are for human consumption?
2.	Is there any licensing arrangement to firms who feed it?
3.	Are the carcasses so marked?
4.	Are there any suspected ill-effects from the consumption of meat from animals that were fed stilbestrol?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and National Health and Welfare as follows: In so far as Department of Agriculture is concerned:
1.	Feeds containing diethylstilbestrol are regulated under the Feeds Act. Such feeds, in order to be registered for sale, may contain only an amount of diethylstilbestrol that when fed according to label directions, will result a daily intake of 10 milligrams per head in the case of beef animals and 2 milligrams per head in the case of lambs. Labels must carry warnings that the feed must not be given within 48 hours of slaughter and that swine should not be allowed to follow medicated animals because of diethylstilbestrol in the droppings. Warnings not to feed to breeding stock or milking cows are also required on the labels. Before registration is granted the manufacturer must establish his proficiency to manufacture the feed with the prescribed diethylstilbestrol concentration. No other feed may contain diethyls tilb estr ol.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No. Meat from animals fed diethylstilbestrol in the prescribed manner will not contain the drug at detectable levels.
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
1.	The premises containing stilbestrol used in preparing cattle feeds are classified as
February 21, 1966



"drugs" under the Food and Drugs Act. The labels of the premises must carry adequate directions for use which include directions for mixing, maximum amount of the drug to be fed per head per day and a withdrawal period of the medicated feed prior to slaughter of the animals.
2.	The feed manufacturer is required to register the stilbestrol-containing feed under The Feeding Stuffs Act before its sale.
3.	There is no requirement to mark the carcasses which have been fed stilbestrol-containing feeds.
4.	No ill effects from the consumption of meat from animals that were fed stilbestrol have been reported. Market surveys have been made using very sensitive methods and no detectable residues of stilbestrol have been found in the edible tissues of cattle that had been fed stilbestrol-containing feeds.


POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE-TENDER NO. 251-2-201644
Mr. Forreslall: With reference to Crown Assets tender No. 251-2-201644, dated January 10, 1966, on material being held at Point Edward naval base (a) how many tenders were received (b) from whom were they received (c) what were the prices paid and by whom were they paid on each successful bid?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. (1) Twenty-four tenders were received.
(b)	Tenders were received from the following: Tanny Merchandising, Dulac Etchemin, Hal-Dart Fire Safety Equipment, Hercules Sales Limited, Slater's, Universal Ship Supply Limited, Westmount Fire Department, Joseph Rehberg, Palmer Levit, Dominion Metal and Refining Works, Lipton's Auto Parts, Latzie Dudinsky, A. M. Shaw, Yazer Bros. Limited, Consumers Metal, Salter's, Oscars, M. M. Salvage, Pictou Lodge, Smith's Sales, Harvey Webber, Maritime Dredging, K. Phillips Fire and Safety, Cameron Contracting.
(c)	Material was sold as follows: Items 1 to 10 inclusive: Westmount Volunteer Fire Department, Sydney, Nova Scotia, $4,000. Items 11 to 15 and 31: Universal Ship Supply Montreal, P.Q., $2,100. New tenders called for items 15 to 24, 26 to 30 and item 32.
(a)	Ten (10) tenders were received.
(b)	Tenders were received from the following: Universal Ship Supply, Maritime Fire and Safety Supply Co., Hal-Dart Fire and Safety Equipment, Slater's, Dulac Etchemin, Maritime Asphalt Products, Curran and
Questions
Briggs, A. M. Shaw, Pictou Lodge, Munroes Limited.
(c)	Material was sold to high bidder-Universal Ship Supply, $1,571.75.
Note: Items 25, 33, 34 and 35 were withdrawn by the declaring departments.


INDUSTRY DESIGNATED AREA PROGRAM, MANITOBA
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	Is the southern portion of the in ter lake area of Manitoba, including Teulon, Stonewall and Selkirk, excluded from the industry designated area program and, if so, on what basis?
2.	Are areas such as Grand Rapids, Norway House and other such points in northern Manitoba excluded and, if so, on what basis?
3.	Is the government now giving consideration to including the areas mentioned in (1) and (2) above, in the industry designated program?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Census division 12 in Manitoba represents that part of the interlake region of Manitoba which is designated under the area development program. It does not include Teulon and Stonewall, which are in census division 9, or Selkirk which is in census division 5. Census divisions are designated where the average annual non-farm family income was reported as being below the qualifying level of $4,250, provided they are contiguous to NES areas which also qualify for designation, and which together with these areas form economic regions. Census division 12 met this criteria, having an income level of $3,423, and being contiguous to the designated NES area of Dauphin.
Census divisions 9 and 5 are considered to be within the broader labour market area of greater Winnipeg, where unemployment is relatively low, incomes generally higher than the Canadian average of $5,449 and there has been a greater rate of employment growth than that experienced by the nation as a whole. They did not, therefore, meet the criteria for qualification.
2.	Grand Rapids, Norway House and other adjacent points around the northern end of Lake Winnipeg are located in census division 16, which, although contiguous to the designated NES area of The Pas, has not been designated because the reported average annual non-farm family income of $4,518 is above the qualifying level of $4,250.
3.	The area development program is being reviewed on a continuing basis by the government. Pending the availability of new data on family income late this year or early 1967, it is not planned to alter present designations.
Questions NATIONAL DEBT

February 21, 1966


Mr. Godin: 1.	In 1940 (a) what was the cost of the interest on the national debt (b) what was the amount of the national debt in that year?
2.	In 1965, what was the amount of the national debt?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	(a) For the year ended March 31, 1940, the cost of interest on the gross public debt was $129,315,442. (b) As at March 31, 1940, gross public debt was $4,028,728,606.
2.	As at March 31, 1965, the gross public debt was $26,574,246,505.


SALARIES AND WAGES, DEFENCE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT
Mr. Godin: What amounts did the Department of Defence Production spend, during the years 1955 and 1965 on (a) salaries and wages (b) professional and special services?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Fiscal year ending- March 31st, 1955
Salaries and Wages
Professional and Special Services
Departmental Administration	$ 4,949,669
Reimbursement to DND re military personnel on loan

Total per Public Accounts (DD17)

March 31st, 1965
Departmental Administration	$11,395,972
Reimbursement to DND re military personnel on loan
Purchasing, stationery and Stores Unit	$ 972,841

Directorate of Printing	$	460,187
Total per Public Accounts (11-7)	$12,829,000
Salaries and wages of stores and traffic divisions of Purchasing, Stationery and Stores Unit charged to Queen's Printer's Advance (P.A.11-3)	_$	193,865

Emergency Measures Organization, Public
Accounts (13-4)	$ 1,117,902

The above figures include the value of advisory and administrative services rendered free to the Department of Industry and also procurement services for Canadian Commercial Corporation for 1964-65, but exclude the value of services rendered free by other government departments.

February 21, 1966


SALARIES AND WAGES, INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT
Mr. Godin: What amounts did the Department of Industry
Questions
spend during the years 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 on (a) salaries and wages (b) professional and special services?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Fiscal year ending-
March 31st, 1962 March 31st, 1963 March 31st, 1964
Departmental administration Paid from funds transferred from Department of Trade and Commerce Minister's Salary
Salaries	Professional and
and wages	Special Services
The Department of Industry Act came into effect in July 1963.
$ 174,150	$ 14,007
$ 269,217	$	9,406

Total per Public Accounts (19-3)

$	23,413
March 31st, 1965
Departmental administration Minister's Salary
$2,578,454 $	15,000
126,223
Total per Public Accounts (19-4)

The above figures exclude the value of advisory and administrative services rendered free by the Department of Defence Production, and excludes the value of services rendered free by other government departments.


FEED GRAIN STORAGE, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	During 1965, how much feed grain was stored In the port of Halifax to be used by famers of the martime provinces during the winter of 19651966?
2.	Is it considered that there is an adequate reserve of feed grain now available in Halifax for distribution to farmers in the martimes?


Maurice Sauvé: 1.	2,150,000 bushels.
2.	These supplies are considered to be short of meeting the full needs of the mari-times for this winter. However, rail rates are now available for direct hauling from the lakehead to maritime destinations, which are competitive with the normal water haul.


ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD LOANS
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many loans have been approved by the adjustment assistance board, Department of Industry, to automotive parts manufacturers since the loan was established?
2.	To whom were these loans made?
3.	How many were for capital to purchase land and buildings?
4.	How many were for machinery, equipment and working capital?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Seven loans have been approved.
2.	The activities of the adjustment assistance board with respect to borrowers are of a confidential nature and the names of the applicants, together with the terms and conditions of the loans, are considered to be commercially confidential. Accordingly, it would not be in the public interest to release this information.
3 and 4. All seven loans involved providing funds for machinery, equipment and working capital. In addition, three of these involved the purchase of land and buildings.


RECIPIENTS OF VETERANS PENSIONS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many war veterans are receiving pensions from the government at the present time?
2.	Out of this number, how many are receiving
(a)	less than 10 per cent of the maximum pension
(b)	from 10 to 20 per cent (c) from 20 to 30 per cent (d) from 30 to 40 per cent (e) from 40 to 50 per cent (f) from 50 to 60 per cent (g) from 60 to 70 per cent (h) from 70 to 80 per cent (i) from 80 to 90 per cent (j) from 90 to 100 per cent (k) the maximum pension?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minisler of Veterans Affairs):: 1. As at September 30, 1965 there were 141,612 world war I and world war II veterans of the Canadian forces receiving disability pensions under the Pension Act.

February 21, 1966
Questions
2. Percentage of disability for which pension is in payment:
Percentage	Number	
Less than 10%	20,891	( 5%- 7%)10% to 20%	48,084	( 8%-17%)20% to 30%	24,731	(18 % -27 %)30% to 40%	12,048	(28%-37%)40% to 50%	6,613	(38%-47%)50% to 60%	9,855	(48%-57%)60% to 70%	4,326	(58%-67%)70% to 80%	2,957	(68%-77%)80% to 90%	5,308	(78%-87%)90% to 100%	1,041	(88%-97%)100% (maximum)	5,758	(98%-100%)Total	141,612


ASSISTANCE FOR CARPET FACTORY CONSTRUCTION, KELOWNA, B.C.
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-: Kingsway):
1.	Has the government or any agency thereof received representations from any firm or individual concerning the construction of a building in the area of Kelowna, British Columbia, to be used in the manufacturing of carpets?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the representations and what was the government's response, if any, to them?
3.	Is the government considering a grant in connection with the above representations which would contribute to the cost of erecting such a building and if a decision has been made, what is the size of the grant in relation to the total cost?
4.	Is the government considering tax incentives in connection with the above-mentioned enterprise and, if so, what is the nature of such considerations and what is the government's decision, if any?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. The area development agency of the Department of Industry has received an application for a development grant under the Area Development Incentives Act. The company has been advised that if the new facility is established in accordance with the plans outlined in the application, the project would appear to qualify for the benefits under the act and supporting regulations. A final decision on the part of the government will be made at the time the company commences commercial production. The level of the development grant will be based on the approved costs of new machinery, equipment and buildings, in accordance with formula No. 1 of the schedule of the act.
4.	It is understood that the company desires the development grant, although it has a choice of the grant or a three year income tax abatement under section 71A of the Income Tax Act. The decision must be taken by the company prior to commercial production.


STUDY OF POPULATION DECREASE, CAPE BRETON
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion: North and Victoria):
1.	Was a study made to determine the implications of decreasing population in Cape Breton, if so, who was engaged to carry out such a study?
2.	Is a report of the study available to members and, if not, when will such a report be available?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The area development agency of the Department of Industry has commissioned a study by the Institute of Public Affairs of Dalhousie University to evaluate the effects of population decline in two coal mining communities in Cape Breton island.
2. A report should be available for distribution to those interested in about three months time.


STUDENTS EMPLOYED, CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	How many students were employed during the past summer at the Cape Breton Highlands national park?
2.	Of those, how many were from Victoria county, N.S., and how many were from other areas in Cape Breton?


Arthur Laing: 1. Twenty-six.
2. (i) Thirteen were from Victoria county, Nova Scotia, (ii) Eight were from Inverness county, Nova Scotia, (iii) Four were from Cape Breton South, Nova Scotia, (iv) One was from Colchester, Hants county, Nova Scotia.


PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES UNDER HOSPITAL ACT
Mr. Ormiston: For the calendar years 1964 and 1965, what were (a) the D.B.S. estimated populations for each province (b) the amounts paid to each province under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act for (i) inpatient hospital services, and (ii) outpatient services?

February 21. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	1507
Questions


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Na-iional Health and Welfare):: Advances made by Canada under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Act for the calendar years 1964, 1965
Province
In-Patient	Out-Patient
Population (DBS Cert.)	Hospital Services	Hospital Services1964	1965	1964	1965(i)	1964	1965(i) (i)Newfoundland	490,000	497,000	$ 8,733,627	$ 10,538,822	$ 429,627	$ 556,588Prince Edward Island..	106,000	106,000	1,881,402	2,017,142	156,876	253,578Nova Scotia	739,000	742,000	14,393,181	15,908,297	1,067,913	1,274,807New Brunswick	609,000	615,000	12,666,128	12,562,192	296,046	324,241Quebec(ii)	5,546,000	5,640,000	115,559,459	-	1,596,717	-Ontario	6,540,000	6,688,000	141,696,981	158,582,990	2,817,123	3,612,126Manitoba	947,000	952,000	19,388,999	21,327,466	633,408	804,576Saskatchewan	939,000	947,000	20,575,178	22,731,384	1,603,474	1,778,149Alberta	1,420,000	1,440,000	28,919,210	32,870.992	715,759	564,738British Columbia	1,724,000	1,775,000	34,023,998	38,935,762	-	-Yukon	15,000	15,000	324,952	318,734	4,341	3,038Northwest Territories..	25,000	25,000	549,172	590,583	13,458	14,769Totals	19,100,000	19,442,000	$398,712,287	$316,384,364	$9,334,742	$9,186,610(i)	Advances for the month of December for New Brunswick and Northwest Territories have not yet been made.(ii)	Quebec received amounts for 1965 under Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.


PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN FOODS
[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare adopted a standard of maximum tolerances of pesticide residues for foods consumed in Canada?
2.	If so, do these standards apply to imported foods as well?
3.	What are the levels permitted in Canada?
4.	What method of checking is used to determine levels of residues contained in food imports?
5.	Have there been any instances of imports exceeding the maximum tolerances permitted in Canada?
6.	If so, what action has been taken?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The details of the tolerances for pesticides, together with a listing of foods in which they are permitted, are to be found in the food and drug regulations.
4.	Imported foods are sampled at the port of entry and examined for pesticide residues in one of five regional laboratories of the food and drug directorate.
5.	Yes.
6.	The imported foods which were found to contain pesticide residues in excess of the established tolerances were refused entry into Canada.


RURAL MAIL ROUTE CONTRACTS
Mr. Fawcett: Does the Post Office Department have policies with respect to rural mail deliveries and, if so (a) are routes publicly tendered periodically (b) is a route automatically re-tendered in the case of the demise of a mail carrier (c) can a route be transferred to another carrier without re-tendering (d) how many rural route deliveries operate out of Chelmsford, Ontario and on what dates were each last open for tender?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: The policies of the Post Office Department with respect to rural mail deliveries are governed by sections 23 to 33 of the Post Office Act (a)^EXptring mail contracts can either be renewed (section 31 (1), Post Office Act) or put up for tenders, (b) Mail contracts are entered into with the contractor, his heirs, executors and administrators. In the case of the demise of a mail carrier, the contract is automatically put in the hands of the sureties, who may (i) continue to operate the service until the expiration of the contract, (ii) Submit an application for transfer, (iii) Give 90 days' notice of termination of contract. In this instance public tenders are invited or, if the contract is for one thousand dollars or less, the Postmaster General may enter into a contract without tenders, (c) Yes (section 31 (1) of the Post Office Act.) (d)

February 21, 1966
Questions
Four rural mail delivery routes operate out of Chelmsford, Ontario: Chelmsford R.R. 1- Tenders due October 18th, 1957, Chelmsford R.R. 2-Tenders due September 4th, 1959, Chelmsford R.R. 3-Tenders due August 1938, Chelmsford R.R. 4-Tenders due October 6th, 1961.


PENSION FOR REV. PETER COWLAND
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What decision has been reached relative to compensation for the Reverend Peter Cowland, pension No. 502171, who was seriously injured in 1941 by a bomb blast and whose eyesight is now deteriorating?
2.	On what date was Mr. Cowland examined by two eye specialists?
3.	How long does it normally take the Department of Veterans Affairs to reach a decision in similar cases?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1. On February 9, 1966, the Canadian Pension Commission granted entitlement for corneal and lens opacities, effective twelve months prior to date of decision.
2.	An eye specialist's report was prepared on October 27, 1965.
3.	It is not possible to answer this question definitely but the length of time required by the Canadian Pension Commission to reach a decision depends on a number of factors including the nature of the claim, etc.


MOVE FROM CALGARY OF FORESTRY HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	Is there any intention to move the Calgary branch divisional headquarters of the federal Department of Forestry from Calgary to Edmonton?
2.	If so, what are the reasons for this projected move?
3.	Have the mayor and council of the city of Calgary been consulted on this matter and given an opportunity to set forward the reasons why this office should be retained in Calgary?


Maurice Sauvé: 1. Yes.
2.	Improved efficiency of operations of the department's regional establishment serving Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon Territory, through the development of closer professional contacts with senior staff of the Alberta Department of Lands and Forests and officials of forest industrial firms, and closer proximity to the major commercial forests of the region.
3.	No. However, the mayor of Calgary has been advised of the decision and the reasons for it.
[Mr. Cote (Longueuil) .1


SAFETY STANDARDS FOR CARS
Mr. Simard: In order to reduce the number of road injuries and fatalities, is it the intention of the federal government to implement some control by establishing standards for the import and manufacturing of cars?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Government of Canada intends to establish safety standards for all cars purchased by it whether imported or manufactured in Canada.


PLANT RESEARCH SPECIALISTS, PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	How many research specialists are employed full time in basic plant research in the three prairie provinces in any program in which the federal government is involved?
2.	How many research specialists are employed full time in costs of production research in the three prairie provinces in any program in which the federal government is involved?
3.	At how many illustration stations and/or other kinds of research station are costs of production studies being carried out?
4.	What are the salary ranges for persons employed at the above, either in universities or with the federal Department of Agriculture?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Research specialists employed full time in basic plant research in the three prairie provinces are listed as follows: Plant breeding, genetics, ecology, management, 55; Plant physiology of crop plants, 8; Plant pathology, 24; Weed research, including physiology of weeds, 8. The above does not include soil and fertility research related to plant production. It does include pasture and range research.
2.	Three full time research specialists are employed in costs of production research.
3.	Some cost of production data are being obtained on seven project farms in southern Saskatchewan.
4.	Salary ranges for the people employed in the federal Department of Agriculture are from a current minimum of $6,302 to a maximum of $13,038, depending on training and productivity.


AUTO IMPORTS FROM U.S. NOT DUTY FREE
Mr. Hales: How many cars or what dollar value of cars imported from the U.S.A. in 1965 did not qualify for the duty-free entry because the firm or firms did not maintain the same ratio between cars produced and sold in Canada in the base year of August 1. 1963 to July 31, 1964?
February 21, 1966


Edgar John Benson: The number of cars or the dollar value of cars imported from the U.S.A. in 1965 which did not qualify for duty free entry because the firm or firms did not maintain the same ratio between cars produced and sold in Canada in the base year of August 1, 1963 to July 31, 1964, is not known at the present time, for the reason that company returns are not as yet available for audit.


FARM GUIDANCE AGENCY
Mr. Neveu: Is the government planning to set up, in cooperation with the provinces, an agency for the profitable operation of farms, for the purpose of providing guidance and information to farmers on the possibilities of a rational production of diversified crops, compatible with the soil resources and the commercial outlets?


John James Greene: The various activities of federal and provincial departments of agriculture are related to the objective of profitable operation of farms. To provide co-ordination in guidance and information to farmers there are now various committees and conferences at the local and national levels. Continuing consideration is given to more effective means of advancing this objective.


*C.B.C. APPLICATION FOR LABOUR CODE DEFERMENT
Mr. Lewis: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation applied to the Minister of Labour for deferment of any of the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and, if so, what are the provisions sought to be deferred?
2.	What, if any, disposition has been made by the minister of such application or applications?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the question and the answer to this question are in two parts. As to the first part the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made a submission under section 51 for deferment of part I, hours of work set out in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
The answer to part 2 is, no decision has yet been reached.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Irvine: 1. Over the past five calendar or fiscal years what has been the total annual outlay for wages and salaries at the Canadian Government Printing Bureau?
Question of Privilege
2.	What is the rate of pay for compositors, press operators, binders, other categories of employees?
3.	What "fringe" or other benefits are provided by way of (a) sick leave (b) pensions (c) vacations?
4.	Over the past five calendar or fiscal years
what has been the rate of absenteeism?	'
5.	What has been the total loss in man-hours through such absenteeism?
Return tabled.


RESEARCH INTO MOTOR CAR SAFETY
Mr. Graffiey: 

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, you were kind enough to speak with me last Friday in your chambers in respect of the matter of privilege which I raised that afternoon. I have provided Your Honour with notice of my intention to raise it this afternoon, and I wish to inform Your Honour and the members of the house that I have sent a copy of that notice through the chief government whip to the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger).
I do not intend to go into detail this afternoon, since an application is before the courts by the hon. member, I assume under section 63 of the Canada Elections Act. It would appear, however, that there is some question as to the right of the hon. member to have voted on three occasions during this session, because while the official count in the

February 21, 1966
Question of Privilege
particular riding was held on November 15 and the writ returned on November 22, it would appear that the 60 day time limit within which a return of election expenses must be filed expired on January 21 last.
Mr. Speaker, there were three votes taken in the house; two on January 27, one respecting a motion to hear a member in priority to others and the other respecting the 11 per cent sales tax, and the third on January 25 concerning an amendment to increase old age pensions. The hon. member for Montmag-ny-L'Islet is on record as having voted on all three occasions, the dates of which are subsequent to the date on which the return of election expenses should have been filed.
I raise the matter now simply to draw the attention of Your Honour and the members of this house to the probable breach of privilege that exists. I believe this is important, particularly in a house composed as this one is where such a vote might assume quite important proportions.
The hon. member concerned has brought an application which has been adjourned to February 24 because of the imperfection of the application. In the meantime it was my intention on Friday, as it is this afternoon, to leave this matter with Your Honour. If it should be your direction, and I seek Your Honour's guidance in this connection, I should be prepared to move a motion that the matter of privilege raised by me this day be referred to Your Honour for such disposition as Your Honour may see fit.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the matter might be held in abeyance for the time being until such time as the Chair has had an opportunity to study the matter raised by the hon. member for Yukon. In the light of the views later expressed by the Chair he will decide whether a motion should be actually moved. I do not want to cut oft discussion in this regard. I gather that the hon. Minister of Public Works has comments to make, and I would certainly be pleased to hear them.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, just before you consider this matter I want to say that I support the view that it should be studied by Your Honour before a decision is given as to whether or not it involves a question of privilege. I say this because section 63 of the act quoted by the hon. member for Yukon provides that all election agents, official
[Mr. Nielsen.)
agents as they are commonly called, must file returns. Then it adds a separate provision affecting members of parliament, or candidates who are elected. The case now under discussion is one in which a candidate has been elected.
It is regrettable maybe, but none the less a fact, as has been revealed by an order for return tabled in each parliament, I think, or in all the parliaments I can remember, that great numbers of candidates have not filed these returns. For instance, there was a return made in the last parliament. I have the reference here to that return and it shows, for example, that some 51 of the candidates of the party to which the hon. member for Yukon belongs failed to file a return in that election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Some 22 of those were from the province of Quebec. There is nothing unusual in that; it is a circumstance-


Mr. Starr:: Were they elected members?


George James McIlraith: The returns will speak for themselves.


Michael Starr: You are camouflaging your argument.


George James McIlraith: The point I wish to make is that in dealing with elected candidates the subsection of section 63 provides that if they fail to carry out the provisions of the act there is a remedy provided in the courts and it is a matter for the courts. If the hon. member feels that this case warrants such action, he has his remedy set out in that section of the act, by virtue of which parliament dealt with this subject matter.
If the hon. member wants to avail himself of that remedy then, of couse, he is quite entitled to do so. My point is that it is not a matter of privilege affecting the usages in the house, but rather it is a case where the remedy has been provided by statute, by parliament, for dealing with this subject, and it is set out in that section of the act which governs this matter.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I quite appreciate the position of the hon. member for Yukon. I appreciate the fact that he has allowed the matter to rest in the hands of the Speaker. I also appreciate the views expressed by the Minister of Public Works. All these views will be taken into account. I
February 21, 1966	COMMONS
understand the position of the hon. member for Yukon, as I have said, and the fact that no motion has been made. I think perhaps the hon. member would wish to guide himself in the light of whatever decision or comments are made by the Chair as a result of the question raised by the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: I shall certainly do that, Mr. Speaker, but I do not believe the matter can be allowed to rest on the record with the perhaps unintentional distortions made by the house leader.


George James McIlraith: Distortions?


Erik Nielsen: There is no remedy as the house leader suggests. The prohibition contained in section-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member that this is the task of the Chair, namely to find out what remedies there are, if there are remedies. This is why I assume the hon. member is placing the matter in the hands of the Chair to study the matter and study the statute. I have already had an opportunity to give some thought to the question since the hon. member left the notice in my hands, and I really do not think there will be any great difficulty in studying the matter and giving a decision to the satisfaction of the house.


Erik Nielsen: That really is not the point, with deference to Your Honour. The government house leader has been allowed to place on the record one side of the story-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have an opportunity later to place before the house any other considerations. It seems to me that the hon. member has submitted representations, has raised a question of privilege, and it will be for the Chair to rule in due course whether there is a question of privilege, and if there is to allow the hon. member to make a motion if he wants to do so.
The hon. member disagrees with the facts, or the allegations if he prefers, advanced by the minister, and he can rely on the Chair to take everything into account in considering the matter.


Erik Nielsen: The point remains, Mr. Speaker, that the house leader has got these matters on the record-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.	i


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I still wish to place on the record the other side of the 23033-96
DEBATES	1511
Inquiries of the Ministry story, which in all fairness I believe the house should hear because it affects the privileges of all hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think what the hon. member wants to do now is begin a debate on the matter. The question has been put before the Chair. The hon. member will realize that if he is allowed to speak a second time on the question of privilege this will definitely open a debate and other members will want to speak once, twice or even more. To my mind the matter is not complicated; it is a very easy matter for the Chair to study. I therefore ask the co-operation of the hon. member for Yukon to allow the Chair an opportunity to study the matter, consider it objectively and in due course render an opinion which I hope will be satisfactory.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to ask whether the press report is correct to the effect that India informed Canada that it had no interest in having a meeting of the Geneva truce committee convened unless Poland would signify interest in it in advance; furthermore, that in so far as Poland is concerned, the attitude has been negative.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any intimation to this effect from anyone speaking on behalf of the government of India. I am sure the commission can only act, in accordance with the Canadian proposition, on the basis of an agreement among all three member states.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been that agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have had discussions with representatives of both governments and we are now waiting for their replies.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say there is no foundation for the press report to the effect that India stated that without the acceptance of such a meeting to Poland on Poland's terms, India would not join with Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not seen the press report, Mr. Speaker. I have had no
February 21, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry information to this effect, as I have said, from the government of India. I did add that it is clear that the commission would have to be unanimous before the commission itself could undertake the responsibility which Canada has proposed. I was told only this morning, upon making inquiries, that the high commissioner for India and the Polish ambassador here are not yet in a position to give us the official reaction of their governments.


John George Diefenbaker: Then perhaps I might ask one more supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Canadian government directed the Canadian representative on the commission to communicate with the government at Hanoi with a view to bringing about a reconvening of the Geneva truce committee? What authority has been given to the Canadian representative, and what report has he brought to the attention of the government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Canadian member of the commission, Mr. V. C. Moore, who has succeeded in that assignment Mr. Blair Seaborn, paid his first official visit to Hanoi a few days ago. As my right hon. friend knows, the members of the commission and the commission itself make frequent visits to the capital of North Viet Nam.


John George Diefenbaker: When was the last time a Canadian visited Hanoi?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The last time was late last summer, after that visit to which my right hon. friend directed our attention on June 3 last. However, the visit of Mr. Moore had nothing whatever to do with the proposal that Canada has made to the other two members of the commission. Mr. Moore went there pursuant to his obligations as a member of the commission, in accordance with the well established practice of the commission.
But I may say that the Canadian government would not find itself in any way restricted from giving instructions, in connection with an opportunity that might exist, if it thought that this might lead to the opening of negotiations; because the government shares, with my right hon. friend and other members, the conviction that anything we can do to bring an end to the conflict is the clear duty of the government of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister why, if Mr. Moore was in

Hanoi within the last ten days and communicated with the government of North Viet Nam, this opportunity was not made use of to sound out the government of that country with a view to seeing if there were some common ground upon which negotiations might be based?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my hon. friend got the basis for his question. Mr. Moore had a very fruitful discussion with the Prime Minister, with the foreign minister, and a vice minister in charge of defence in North Viet Nam. However, his conversations had nothing to do with the proposal that we have been discussing within India and Poland, but it was a useful discussion covering the kind of matters that would be of interest and concern to anyone in this house who wanted to see a cease fire effected, and who wanted to see an end to the conflict in Viet Nam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if any hopeful avenues of discussion were opened up as a result of Mr. Moore's meeting with the government in Hanoi? May I also ask if, as a result of his visit within the last few days to Washington, there seems to be any hope that the government of the United States would be prepared to include in any peace negotiations a delegation from the national liberation front of South Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the fact that members of the commission are able to have access to the government at Hanoi is in itself a helpful fact. The fact that discussions did take place is also a helpful fact.


John George Diefenbaker: There has been five months delay since the Canadian representative was last there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend refers to a five months' delay. I am sure in a matter of such great delicacy, one which caused him to make an important pronouncement the other day about the desirability of a conference, he would want to be very helpful.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister overlooked the second part of my question. I asked the minister if, as a result of his visit to Washington, he found any inclination on the part of the government of the United States to agree to a meeting with representatives of the national liberation front in any peace negotiations.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: This was not the
particular reason for which I went either to
February 21, 1966
the United Nations or to Washington. The main purpose of my visit to the Secretary General and to the Secretary of State of the United States was to exchange views on the present course of developments and to explore ways of bringing the Viet Nam conflict closer to a conference situation.
As the house knows, it is the objective of the government to see the Viet Nam conflict brought to an end through negotiation. All promising proposals which are designed to carry us closer to that objective will have Canada's support. Earlier this month, as my hon. friend knows, the Viet Nam question was inscribed on the agenda of the Security Council. We welcomed this because we believed that the United Nations could not remain indifferent to a conflict which has grave implications for international peace and security.
But there are practical difficulties in the way of effective United Nations involvement. I must tell the house frankly that I am not hopeful that much headway can be made on Viet Nam in the United Nations at this stage. I do believe, however, there is a very real possibility that members of the international commission will be able to play a useful role. The commission powers have had a long and close association with the Viet Nam problem, and they are the only group of nations with ready access to both sides. I think it is important, therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the Secretary of State for External Affairs on such an important matter. If the house wants to hear the minister further, it is at the discretion of hon. members, of course. However, it does appear the minister is now making a statement rather than answering a question submitted to him by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just say, Mr. Speaker, I had assumed that, because of the importance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the importance of this matter, the house waits with bated breath for an answer. So far we have just had the prelude.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I make no apology, Mr. Speaker, for making a careful-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I make no apology for making a carefully considered and extended statement on a matter which the right
23033-96J
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. gentleman properly said the other day in this capital city was one of the most important problems facing the world at the present time. I went to the Secretary General of the United Nations and to the Secretary of State for the United States, to discuss from a Canadian point of view a matter that has all the implications which the right hon. gentleman noted, and which we all recognize. I think it is important that there should be no misunderstanding about what the Canadian government is trying to do, and about what I was trying to do on behalf of that government when I was at the United Nations and in Washington the other day.
What we want to find out, first of all, is whether there is a general consensus in favour of some action by the commission powers. If there is, we shall want to give careful thought to the next stage. We do not think it would be realistic to expect an immediate call for resuming the Geneva Conference to produce results in the present circumstances. There are obstacles which should be removed before such a conference can be usefully called. At the present time the road to a conference may be long. We all hope it will not be. However, whether it is long or not, a beginning will have to be made, and we think the commission powers may be able to help the parties make such a beginning. It is on these lines that I spoke to the Secretary General and to Secretary Rusk last week.
I am happy to tell the house that their response was encouraging. We shall now be pursuing our discussions with the commission powers and with other interested parties to see what this country and the commission members can do to help bring an end to the war in Viet Nam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister now answer my question, as to whether he found any inclination on the part of the United States government to meet with the national liberation front in order to begin negotiations?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the position the government of the United States wishes to take on these matters must be announced by it. I clearly indicated what we thought were the measures that must be taken to enable a conference to take place.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have already had a number of questions on this matter and

1514	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry quite a few supplementaries. I suggest to hon. members that we should turn to another subject now, and if there is time before the expiry of the question period hon. members with supplementaries might ask related questions.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether, in his discussions with the Secretary of State in Washington, he sought an assurance from the United States administration that they would cease bombing North Viet Nam as soon as arrangements for a conference such as he seeks are under way? If he did, would he say what the reply was?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows perfectly well that in matters of this sort it is not possible for me to give the kind of reply which I should like to be able to give.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friends say "oh, oh", and that is their privilege. I must say I cannot believe there will be general approval in the country of the stand that some hon. gentlemen are taking with regard to a matter of this vital importance. I am sorry I cannot give an answer to the question put by my hon. friend in the particular form in which he puts it, but I did have with Secretary of State Husk a very full discussion of this matter, particularly with regard to the role which Canada feels the commission might be able to play in this very difficult situation.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. If the minister is unable to say what Mr. Rusk's reply was, can he at least inform the house whether he, on behalf of the government of Canada, sought an assurance that this bombing would stop?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is repeating the question he has already asked.
ITranslation]



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to revert to a most interesting subject and put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
IMr. Speaker.]
DEBATES	February 21, 1966
Could he say whether he or a member of the government has received from Mr. Rene Levesque, minister of Social Welfare of the province of Quebec, a request for transfer to Quebec of family allowances administration and jurisdiction in return for an equivalent tax compensation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for me and for all my colleagues and naturally I cannot answer it without consulting them. Perhaps my hon. friend will put the question on the order paper.



VISIT TO OTTAWA OF NEW ZEALAND OMBUDSMAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it has to do with the visit to Ottawa today of Sir Guy Powles, the New Zealand ombudsman. It also relates to the announcement made on several occasions that the government intends to consider establishing such an office. Has the Prime Minister made arrangements for himself or members of his government to meet with Sir Guy Powles to discuss this very interesting and urgent problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether arrangements have been made by any of my colleagues. We would, of course, be very glad indeed to meet with the gentleman in question and discuss his experiences in this role in New Zealand.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the revelations on the television program "This Hour Has 7 days" last evening, will the minister consider reviewing the case of the widow of airman Edward E. Chambers and other cases like it with regard to pension entitlement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an important question which should be placed on the order paper.
February 21, 1966	COMMONS



METHOD OF DEALING WITH INQUIRIES BY MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and has to do with the change of policy on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs which apparently has not been announced by the minister. When, and for what reason did the minister instruct the district pension advocates to refer all inquiries from members of parliament to the deputy minister or the departmental secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If this question is in order it should be placed on the order paper.



THE AUDITOR GENERAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which he might like to take as notice. In view of the very important allegations made by the Auditor General in his last report and in view of the very important role that this official plays, would the Prime Minister give early consideration to amending the Financial Administration Act to provide for greater independence and authority for that office?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into the matter.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has received the letter with the petition from 325 professors at the University of Saskatchewan asking that the federal government permit the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to establish and operate a television station in Saskatoon, will he urge the Board of Broadcast Governors to issue a permit for a C.B.C. station in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is another question which I suggest to the hon. member he might want to place on the order paper.
DEBATES	1515
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



U.S. TAX ON RAPESEED OIL AND MEAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfori-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring a matter of urgency to the attention of the Minister of Finance before he drafts his budget. It has to do with duties and tariffs on edible oils. Is the minister aware of the fact that edible oils such as rapeseed oil and others coming from the United States, Sweden and Germany enter Canada duty free while Canadian edible oils, in particular rape-seed oil, sold to the United States are subject to a one cent per pound extra import tax? Rapeseed meal going to the United States bears a tariff of $6 per ton. Would the minister take this into consideration when he drafts his budget?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister will do that. If the hon. member wants to pursue the matter further he might place his question on the order paper.


Mr. Rapp:: Ten o'clock.



NOVA SCOTIA-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as the minister from Nova Scotia. Would the minister indicate whether $25 million in aid to the Cape Breton coal industry will be made available and would he specifically make reference to the $10 million promised to open a new mine at Lingan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member poses a very important question but it cannot be asked of the minister as a minister representing a specific district or province. The question can be asked of the minister only in his official capacity as minister of a certain department.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I put the question to the minister because of his participation in the announcement of government policy in this respect, and I feel he is capable of answering.


Malcolm MacInnis: I wish to direct my question at this time to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and
February 21, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry ask him when the promised $25 million will be made available to Cape Breton mines and in particular the $10 million required to open the new mine in Lingan.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines, and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that we were waiting for the Donald report.


Malcolm MacInnis: That is not what the former minister said.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the situation of the coal industry in the maritimes, and at the appropriate time this question can be brought up in debate.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to review the policy statements made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: -by
the former minister of labour and ask him what the Donald report has to do with an announced policy of aid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member's question is supplementary to a certain extent. The original question was in order, but the supplementary question seems to be of a general nature not requiring an urgent reply at this time.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the house that there was nothing wrong with the supplementary question, it was only the answer which was out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I would ask the Prime Minister, in that a policy announcement by a minister is no longer an accepted responsibility of that particular minister, does this mean that in future no minister will be allowed to make policy statements announcing matters concerning other than his own department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General inform the house what progress is being made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

in their inspection of the records seized from the headquarters of the Seafarers International Union with a view to the possible laying of charges against Mr. Banks and some of his close associates?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I instructed the R.C.M.P. to continue the investigations that they were conducting at the time they were halted by the court proceedings. I am unable to add anything further.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS USE BY PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS OF CONDITIONAL GRANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the
Prime Minister say, having regard to the difficulties that have been experienced in the province of Quebec, particularly by McGill University during the last few days, and which led to the intervention of two ministers, the Minister of Industry and the Minister without Portfolio, whether any provincial government may now use funds designated for a general objective for a purpose other than that for which the payment is made? In other words, is Premier Lesage justified in his view that the $17.5 million paid to the province of Quebec can be used not for education in any particular but for the building of roads? Is that the Prime Minister's understanding of the unconditional nature of conditional grants?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my understanding, I repeat, is that the money was made available to the province of Quebec by the federal government for aid to eduoation.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Could he assure the house that his government will not interfere in any way in the field of education which, according to the constitution, comes under provincial jurisdiction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is out of order at this time. The hon. member's question is of a very general nature and consequently has nothing urgent at this time.
February 21. 1966	COMMONS



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the letter sent to him by the president of the Federal Superannuates National Association asking for an escalator clause to be put into the Public Service Superannuation Act? If so, can the Prime Minister say what reply he has made or will make to that letter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member asks if the Prime Minister has received or seen a letter. That is not a subject which is considered as urgent at the present time. I would ask the hon. member to put that question on the order paper, or debate it on another occasion.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. I wonder if he can say whether the government will give early consideration to the request made, I believe today, by the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Canada that royal commissions be established in the matters of divorce and abortion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is true that for those who were there this morning it was a very satisfactory meeting with the organization in question. We did receive that recommendation, among others, and I informed the representatives of the organization that the government would give consideration to all their recommendations.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him if he was able, as he hoped he would be, to discuss with United States representatives the implications of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act; and whether as a result of this
DEBATES	1517
Inquiries of the Ministry discussion the minister is now in a position to state that the government is able to establish geographical co-ordinates to protect the contiguous areas along our coast for the exclusive use of Canadian fishermen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did discuss this matter of territorial waters and fishing zones with Mr. Rusk and his colleagues. We resumed our negotiations and I think we made some progress on Friday and Saturday last. We are now awaiting a response to proposals that the Canadian government has made, designed to establish exclusive fishing zone rights for Canadian fishermen.


Mr. G. L. Chatierton (Esquimali-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether the negotiations with other countries involved have been concluded?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, Mr. Speaker. [Later:]


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to seek some clarification of the reply given earlier to the hon. member for Queens in respect of the negotiations in Washington concerning the 12-mile limit and the base line co-ordinates. If I heard the minister correctly, the minister said we had now resumed negotiations. In view of the many occasions upon which we have been told in the house by the hon. gentleman himself and more particularly by the Minister of Fisheries that we have been pressing forward vigorously with negotiations concerning this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that questions should not be prefaced by lengthy preambles. I would invite him to put his question at this time if he has one in mind.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: My question is simply this. In view of the minister's statement that he has resumed negotiations, would he inform the house when it was that the earlier negotiations with the United States ceased?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister will
1518	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry use his good offices to arrange the business of the house so that we might bring forward the bill in the name of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) to bring about the relief in regard to old age security that I believe the house now desires.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the concern across Canada relative to the increase of the price of food, would the Prime Minister assure the house that the government is taking steps to stop the spiralling cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This also is a question of a very general nature which cannot be accepted at this time.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform the house whether he has received representations from the Ontario Municipal Association requesting an increase in the exemption respecting remuneration paid to municipal councillors, and if so, what action does the minister intend to take regarding this request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member place this question on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Industry. What steps does the minister propose to take to stop the practice which apparently exists whereby Canadian car part manufacturers have been told that they will not receive any orders unless their companies have first been recognized as established suppliers, and that this certification must come from the United States head offices of Canadian car manufacturers?

DEBATES	February 21, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe this is a very important question, but it seems to me that it could easily be placed on the order paper with the hope that an answer will be received at an early date.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege at this time. I have listened today during the question period, to you advising members to place their questions on the order paper, and I agree with you that this should be the case. On the other hand, when you look over the orders of the day and find that over 450 questions remain unanswered you begin to wonder whether there is any use in putting questions on the order paper. Today, for example, there were some 40 of this group of 400 or 500 questions answered. If we are not going to get answers within a reasonable time to questions that are being placed on the order paper, there is no use putting them there, especially when we cannot get answers on orders of the day even from the ministers.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Can he say when the proposed legislation to be known as the Canada labour safety code will be on the order paper?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: At an early date, Mr. Speaker. I cannot suggest any definite date at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether this legislation will include the health and sanitation provisions which were discussed last week with the Canadian Railway Labour Executives Association?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and ask him if he has had an opportunity since Friday to make inquiries in connection with the strike at the
February 21, 1966

atomic energy reactor at Pinawa. If so, can he tell the house if there is likely to be a settlement shortly?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would ask the hon. member to be present at ten o'clock tonight. An hon. member has already raised this question. It will be dealt with tonight at ten o'clock.



ONTARIO-PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS IN TRUCKING STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to give us a short report on what is happening in connection with the Ontario truckers strike and whether there is any glimmer of hope for a solution?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to do so in view of the seriousness of the matter. The parties are meeting today. They are in continuous session under the joint chairmanship of the deputy minister of labour of Ontario and a senior official of my department. I can only report progress at this time.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the honourable Minister of Commerce.
Could the hon. minister tell us whether it is true that a delegation of the French government is coming to Canada very soon in order to discuss Canada's sale of uranium to France?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not heard of any such delegation, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Will he inform the house whether he is considering favourably the introduction of federal legislation to provide insurance for deposits in banks and near banks such as trust companies?
1519
Supply-National Defence


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the only answer I can give to a question like that is that government policy will be announced in due course.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Prime Minister of my question of last Thursday relating to a medicare timetable? At the suggestion of Mr. Speaker I filed it for the "late show". I hope some responsible minister will be here tonight to answer it, preferably the Prime Minister himself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nothing will give me greater pleasure, Mr. Speaker, than to be here tonight at ten o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the Treasury Board, for total commitments of $2,560,546,715 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 15 , 20, 25 , 30, 35, 40 and 45 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,044,262,000 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $5,204,855.
The Chairman:: The hon. member for
Kootenay West.


Mr. Lamberl:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings called it six o'clock on Friday evening and I think by courtesy he would have the floor on this occasion.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I apologize. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Mr. Nowlan:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had not necessarily intended to take part in this debate but in view of what the minister said in his technical countdown of the mechanics and new weaponry and the methods of management which the Department of National Defence is now following I felt it
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence incumbent upon me, as one who has the honour to represent a constituency which has therein one of the largest air force bases in Canada, namely, Greenwood, to draw attention to what, I submit, is a major point of weakness in the hon. gentleman's review of his estimates before this committee.
Greenwood, which is in the heart of the constituency I represent, always causes a quiver at election time but we never quarrel with the legitimate hopes and aspirations of those airmen who wish to make their service in the air force a full time career. On Thursday last, as reported at page 1423 of Hansard, the minister tried to slough off one of the basic problems confronting service personnel in Canada. I do not intend to talk about the policy toward Viet Nam or the policy of integration other than as it affects our servicemen. I take exception to this statement by the minister, as found on page 1423 of Hansard:
-the important problems relating to individuals in the armed forces today are not those resulting from integration; they are the same real problems affecting men and women in all walks of life, that is, pay, allowance, housing, career opportunties, etc.
The hon. gentleman continued in that vein. I submit that the minister blandly restricted the problems of servicemen to those encountered by men and women engaged in industry and business. He gave a detailed countdown of management methods and new mechanical equipment, some of which, we hope, will achieve more lasting fame than the bomb toss computer. Nowhere did he mention the subject of morale. Other speakers in this discussion have mentioned morale. But the minister maintained complete silence on the matter although his other observations were protracted enough. Frankly, that does not amaze me.
I have to be honest and admit that so far as the principles and philosophy of integration are concerned I am one who is really sympathetic toward the minister. My difference of opinion concerns the way in which the policy of integration is implemented. When a minister, in reviewing the details of the work of his department after such a radical policy has been attempted, makes the claim that there are no problems so far as personnel are concerned other than those which would normally face men and women in industry and business he is, I suggest, being irresponsible. Unless he admits that
[Mr. Nowlan.l

there is a manpower problem and, specifically, a manpower problem relating to morale, he is being very irresponsible.
It is necessary to recognize a problem before action can be taken to resolve it. Yet despite all the astuteness and aplomb of the minister he remains completely neuter on one of the basic qualities of the entire armed services, their morale and esprit de corps. It is his blind spot, and compared with him the one-eyed Cyclops monster of old had 20-20 vision.
I have quoted what the minister said about service problems. Of course service personnel are concerned about the things he mentioned, career opportunities, allowances, housing and so on. But does the minister think seriously for a moment, if indeed he thinks at all, that the economy, the rising cost of living and family matters account for the insecurity and frustration felt by the great majority in the services today? Does he not acknowledge even remotely that the purchase of so-called permanent commissions has created confusion and uncertainty for those left in the services who had hoped to make it a permanent career?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
While the re-engagement policy announced during the course of this debate is helpful, I submit it is somewhat of a sop too and perhaps an acknowledgement of the morale problem. But I am afraid it is too late and too little. Does not the minister honestly think that an officer or an enlisted man would be wary of re-enlistment when he or his friends, even though permanently commissioned, had received the pathetic and prophetic "Dear John" letters? Certainly for those in short service an extension from year to year or every three years does not allow a mature man to plan his future with any confidence. It is too bad the minister never pruned trees for if he had he would know you cannot cut off the top without injuring the base.
Again, Mr. Chairman, there is the problem of the permanent commission and the way in which many, the hundreds we have heard about, were bought out. But in another area does the minister think that the problem between the permanent commissioned officer and the short service man with regard to their respective pensions is similar to any situation on "civvy" street? I wonder how many unions would allow two men both trained for the same job and doing the same
February 21, 1966	COMMONS
work, albeit hard and dangerous work, one on short term and one on permanent commission, to have such dissimilar benefits payable to their survivors in the event of an unfortunate and fatal accident? These benefits are so dissimilar that it is a wonder we have any short service personnel in the services today.
I hope that during the course of this debate the minister will announce that the government is at least taking steps to remove the penalty for short service so that the problem with regard to the short term and permanent commissioned men will be resolved. It does seem unjust that two men flying together, both contributing to pension plans, should leave such dissimilar benefits for their survivors just because one is on permanent commission and the other is on short term service.
Along with the cutback and freeze at the top there is a further area which gnaws at the serviceman in marked contrast to the man in industry or business. Here I would suggest that the minister is hoist with his own petard, for in an expanding, busy economy there is room for advancement and promotion for those who wish to work and who are trained for it. Contrast this with the situation in the services where you have the freeze at the top, the freeze in the middle, the freeze at the bottom and the cutbacks which have occurred during the past two years. Where can a qualified, energetic man who wants to make the services his career find room for advancement when there are these freezes and cutbacks? I submit that the lack of advancement due to the minister's integration policy is the dry rot which eats away at morale, and this the minister has failed to acknowledge, let alone resolve.
There are some who say that the serviceman is already a political eunuch in that he can vote but not participate in political affairs. There may be sound reasons for some of the restrictions on political activity although personally I think some of those reasons are outdated. But I submit there is no justification for a moratorium on morale which, if allowed to continue, may let the forces integrate in a form which will be a faceless one without the spirit, colour and strength developed through the sadnesses and sacrifices of the past.
When he gave his detailed review and statement the minister showed a lack of concern by not mentioning the word "morale". Morale, I submit, is one of the foundations of any effective force regardless of the 23033-97J
DEBATES	1521
Supply-National Defence methods used to train and manage it. His review was impersonal. It was cool. It was like an I.B.M. computer. We need those machines but I submit that a man in the responsible position of the minister has to bring some personality to the services instead of treating them in an impersonal way.
You can only build up the strength of the future by relying on some of the traditions and colour of the past, but when the minister comes before us with his revolutionary policy of integration and does not once mention the word morale in his review I submit this is cause for grave concern.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I make no pretence to being well informed on matters relating to national defence or to being an expert on the subject but because I feel in good company in this respect I should like to make some remarks. I believe there are many hon. members who are in the same position as I and other new members who are confused, bewildered and perplexed as to just what is the state of Canada's defence capability in the year 1966.
There is confusion in the minds of the public across the country because on the one hand we have heard statements emanating from the minister's office to the effect that integration has been a success and that the savings to be derived from the new integration policy can be devoted to the acquisition of more, as the minister likes to put it, military hardware. On the other hand, having listened to members of the opposition such as the hon. member for Calgary North and my colleague from Vancouver East, it becomes clear that the government has not in fact succeeded in diverting any of these rumored savings into the acquisition of additional quantities of better and more modern weaponry.
If there has been such a drastic reduction in personnel, then why was there not extra money available for the acquisition of more up to date weaponry? Expenditures by the department can only be made in three directions or for three purposes. The first is to pay for the personnel who serve in the armed forces. The second is to pay for the costs of administration and the third is to pay for the acquisition of more modern weaponry.
The reduction in personnel, which apparently has taken on all the characteristics of being dangerous to the morale of the forces, must have resulted in savings. Where has this money gone? If it is true, as stated by the
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence hon. member for Calgary North the other day, that only 12 per cent of the defence budget has been allocated for new equipment, then what has happened?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I think it is incumbent upon the minister to explain clearly to the members of the committee and to the Canadian public as a whole just where all this money is going. It seems very confusing that the department's policy in one year should be to retire people from the armed services and pay them rather lavish retirement bonuses but in subsequent months, when faced with a shortage of trained military personnel, to transfer men from one unit in order to bring another up to full strength. It also seems strange that the department now finds itself in the position of having to pay re-enlistment bonuses in order to entice people to remain in the services. This seems to be a complete contradiction of policy in the course of a very few months. It may be that the policy of this department in this regard has been given a good public image but it seems to me that the results indicate something quite different.
I am of the opinion that the public relations efforts that went into this change have been very expensive and I am not sure that this has not succeeded in giving the people of this country and the members of this committee an entirely misleading and false impression of the reality of the situation. It seems that we are looking at a hoax of epic proportions because it does not appear possible that Canada's defence capability has been improved during the course of the past year or 18 months. Certainly this cannot be the case when we have been able to allocate only 12 per cent of the defence budget to weaponry acquisition, unless that figure is wrong. If the figure is wrong I should like to hear the minister refute it.
I have no intention of speaking further on matters of broad policy concerning this department but I do wish to make some remarks concerning the administrative practices followed by the department in the acquisition of land for departmental purposes. I refer specifically to the decision of the Department of National Defence to expropriate several thousands of acres of land, including an entire village, in order to enlarge the area of Camp Valcartier.
This decision taken by itself may seem to be concerned with only a small isolated incident in the department's activities but it does

raise several questions that deserve consideration. First of all, what specific military purposes demanded or necessitated that this particular army camp be enlarged? According to my information, the army now has large blocks of land for training purposes in close proximity to that camp, although perhaps not adjacent. Even though it were agreed that the military did require extra land for its purposes, could not the department have acquired that land in more unsettled areas where the land is not being used? Canada is not a densely populated land. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of open space which could be utilized for such purposes. Why is it so necessary to expropriate farm land and an entire village?
The procedure that was followed by the department in an attempt to acquire this property near Valcartier makes me curious. From all accounts I have heard and articles I have read I have gained the impression that the officials of the government expropriated first and then negotiated as to the price to be paid to the property holders. It seems to me that the statutory power to expropriate should not have been invoked unless free negotiation ended in a stalemate. To expropriate first and then approach the owners as to the price to be paid seems to me to be an abuse of this power.
I must admit that in the past six or so years there has been a tendency on the part of governments, federal and provincial, to take a more administratively convenient approach in acquiring property for the Crown. Governments today are rather more inclined to file plans of expropriation first in land titles offices and then go about the process of negotiating with the property owners the price to be paid. I think we have degenerated into a rather sorry state when we give preference to administrative convenience over the rights of individual small property holders.
It may well be that in respect of the land acquisition being attempted at this time near Camp Valcartier the government has in fact attempted to acquire the land through free negotiation. But that certainly is not the impression I have of the matter and I hope that the responsible minister or the minister who is informed in this regard will be able to give us some clarification.
It is also my impression that no high ranking official of the department has bothered to go to the area to meet with the people who are affected and that no attempt has
February 21, 1966	COMMONS
been made to discuss the necessity of the undertaking, relocation plans and so on. It would seem that emissaries from the department have gone there and given what amounts to an ultimatum to the residents. Surely this is unfortunate and highhanded. When the rights of individual citizens are concerned no effort should be spared to deal with them in a proper manner.
One other aspect of this whole program of land acquisition which rather intrigued me relates to the fact that it was a military person, I believe the commanding officer of the brigade, who got in touch with the people to inform them of the need for this land by the Department of National Defence. It strikes me as being very strange that military personnel should involve themselves in the process or procedure of land acquisition. Surely this is something that should be handled by civilian authorities. What possible justification can there be for having military personnel involve themselves in what is essentially a transaction between the government and the property owners?
At some appropriate time during the course of our consideration of these estimates I should like all these points to be explained. I hope someone will elaborate on the circumstances and offer some defence for the administrative procedures followed by the department in this particular case.
Finally, I think it is incumbent upon the minister to explain how it is that after months of a campaign to explain to the Canadian people that our defence policy is geared toward higher mobility of our armed forces through integration with a reduction of personnel and with the savings acquired therefrom to be reallocated to greater and more effective weaponry, we now find after all this talk that there is really no substance to it and that we have not apparently improved our defence capability one iota.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly on the estimates of the Department of National Defence. My interest in the subject is prompted by the fact that in the constituency I represent is found the finest military establishment in the British Commonwealth, namely, Camp Gagetown with its model city beside the camp, its new buildings and 427 square miles of what is the finest training terrain in this nation and perhaps in the world. As a matter of fact, Camp Gagetown is considered to be such a
DEBATES	1523
Supply-National Defence fine camp that military observers from all the nations of the free world come there during the summer concentration to watch the exercises and this winter the American marines finished a tour of duty there. They tell me that even this battle-hardened group found it a tough enough experience.
There are several units there at the moment, the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, the Royal Canadian Dragoons, which have been mentioned in the debate, the Royal Highlanders of Canada, two battalions of the Black Watch, the new service battalion and the other units which I think can be considered to be Canada's finest military units.
Just as we in this House of Commons cannot be experts on everything, so in those subjects in which we do become interested we pick out certain factors we like to discuss and think about. My interest in defence is concerned more with the human factor, the person, the personnel. I should like to thank the minister for the unfailing courtesy he has afforded me in the defence problems I have taken to him, and especially the Associate Minister whom I see there beside him. I have on many occasions written to the Associate Minister of National Defence and his answers have always been helpful. I have not always received the satisfactory solution which I have sought but he has always been helpful indeed and I wish to express my thanks to him at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Chester MacRae: On Friday last, February 18, the Associate Minister announced that a reengagement bonus would be paid. I was very pleased to hear this because on the order paper at this moment under the date of February 17, the day before, is a question in my name asking for the government to consider this matter. I also raised it when speaking in the debate on the Speech from the Throne and it was very much a subject of discussion of course, in the last election campaign in my riding.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, I advocated that there should be a re-engagement bonus paid because it seems to me that far too many men are being lost to the service at the end of their third, fifth or tenth year of service, as the case may be. I commend the minister and the government for this particular action in making available to the members of the armed services the re-engagement bonus. It is quite true, as somebody said last
February 21, 1966

Some two years ago surveys were started with a view to the lengthening of the runways of that airport but nothing has been done. I believe that from a civilian point of view we are all right with the present aircraft that come in there. From a service point of view, and this is my only justification for raising the problem now, I think it would be to the advantage of the Department of National Defence to press for the extension of the runways of that airport so that troops which may be brought into or taken out of Camp Gagetown can be moved in the largest aircraft flying today. I am thinking especially of an emergency situation.
The minister in his remarks mentioned the Defence Committee. I would take the liberty of concurring fully in what he said. I have served on that committee since 1963. 1 think that of all the committees of the house this one fulfils its purpose to best advantage. It has been an excellent committee and has been well staffed. The member who chaired it last time, unfortunately from the Liberal point of view, went down to defeat. He was an excellent chairman and a good friend. I suggest to the minister that the Defence Committee should begin its work as quickly as possible. I hope that as soon as the estimates of the department are through the committee can proceed.
I was interested also in the minister's discussion of the reserve force. I do not know whether the minister is aware but two or three years ago when there was a drastic reorganization of the reserve force its morale dropped severely. I speak with some knowledge since I have long been interested in the reserve force and served in it for some 25 years. I have always maintained my interest in our defence establishment. He mentioned that General W. A. B. Anderson was to head the reserve force and this will be welcome news. General Anderson is an excellent officer and the reserve force deserves to have the leadership of such a man.
I have only one more point to mention and it has to do with education. It may seem as though I am digressing slightly but I assure you I am not. My own profession is teaching and I have taught many children of members of the armed forces. One of these youngsters told me that in 12 years of schooling she had gone to 15 different schools. This is no fault of the Department of National Defence. The exigencies of service demand that a man be moved on very short notice. The unfortunate
Supply-National Defence part is that we have ten different systems of education in this nation today. I have seen teachers in Oromocto who have taken 10 or 15 minutes for lunch and have spent the remainder of their lunch hour attempting to help children who through no fault of their own had fallen behind as a result of thei parents moving from province to province While we must admit that education is a provincial matter, and you, Mr. Chairman, as a member of that time honoured profession realize this, I think that the sooner we achieve some uniformity in the field of education in this nation, the better. We know that the province of Quebec is very jealous of its rights in this field but if we can achieve uniformity in education we will be achieving something of great benefit to this nation.
I concur in the statements of the hon. member for Calgary North and others who have referred to the problem of morale in our forces and the fact that it is at a low ebb today. I hope that for the benefit of our nation and the benefit of our services this will change. I know that what the minister is trying to do he is doing in all sincerity. I have the highest regard for the minister personally and I know he believes in what he is doing. I submit that if he can bring up the morale of our forces more quickly it will help to achieve the objective he is seeking, that is, to have one of the finest military forces in the whole world.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the first item of the minister's estimates on this second day of the debate I do not believe one has to apologize in any way for the time that is being taken. After all, the minister must realize that his estimates have not been considered since 1964 and a great deal has transpired in the meantime. Certainly the minister and his staff have been very active in getting across to the people the fact that a great deal has been done in the department, that they were moving and that there was a certain spirit of dynamism in the department. The only point is that no explanation has been offered to the house.
I may say that I was disappointed in the minister's statement on Thursday evening. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre compared it with statements made by the minister in previous years. There was a great similarity, and there was a sort of Tweedledum and Tweedledee attitude between the minister and associate
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence minister. I say to the minister that before we complete this discussion he will have to have some serious answers to questions that have been put by my colleagues, the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Other members have raised questions but they particularly have raised some very difficult questions which go to the whole root of the administration and policies of the Department of National Defence.
I must confess I was disappointed in the minister's statement. We were given a very brief general outline of the purposes of mobile command. Much more has to be said about this. There has not been an opportunity to discuss it in the committee because the decision to form mobile command, if I am correct, was announced on June 7 of last year. The minister indicated that the command was only formed on October 19 last. This is the first opportunity we have had to examine it. If we look at Hansard, page 1417, second column, second paragraph, we find the following:
The formation of mobile command is basic to the philosophy of Canada's new defence policy.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
If we fail to discuss the philosophy of that formation and the principles behind it, if there is no explanation given to the country, then the whole set-up of national defence is kept within the breast of the minister. We know he loves to approach us from some great Olympian height. All we have to do is read his speeches in the past. I would commend them to him today, and he would certainly change his attitude.
We also get a great number of laudatory articles about this subject. I picked up one this week end in the magazine "Air Force and Space Digest", the most recent issue. It contains an article entitled "Canadian Air Space, a Tightened Belt and a Clear Eye", and alongside is a picture of the minister. This is a well prepared piece by a Canadian newspaper man. I am not going to put his name on the record. This is a "flack" piece, if I may use the term.
There have also been other articles. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. John Gellner and some of his ideas. I do not agree with him all the time, and I would hope he would not fall into this category of "flack" writers. I have before me an article in the February number of the "Executive" which frankly is again in a similar vein.

It produces the same result. This is the sort of reputation that is being spread around, an invincible minister with invincible policies.
Quite frankly, in many instances the only people who do not agree with him are the people under him. If he thinks his policies have been sold to the people in the Department of National Defence, then I think he has a second think or even a third think coming to him. Far from it. Certain sectors of the armed services have not had explained to them and fail to see the principles behind a lot of the policies which are being put before them.
I should like to come back to the reference I made to the statement of the minister. As recorded on page 1417 of Hansard he said:
The largest of the new functional commands, Its task is to operationally train and maintain the land elements of the Canadian force and its tactical air support, and to keep this force in a state of combat readiness which will enable it to be deployed in units of the required size to meet Canadian commitments and undertakings anywhere in the world.
How innocuous can one get, Mr. Chairman? There is nothing new in that; this has always prevailed. The only thing that is new is the reference to tactical air support, but there is really nothing further in the minister's statement requiring elaboration.
In connection with the return to tactical air support by the Canadian armed forces, if the minister is serious about this and intends to go through with it then some explanation must be provided. This is a radical departure from what has been the case now for some time and it is certainly a significant departure so far as I can see from the whole concept of an integrated force.
We next come to this fine phrase:
The prime ingredients in the force are quick reaction-time, the ability to go where required with dispatch, and to perform its tasks kith maximum effectiveness.
This has been a requirement of our defence forces from time immemorial. There is nothing peculiar about it. So far as "quick reaction-time" is concerned, any force commander, any army, any navy, any air force must have a quick reaction time. All that "the ability to go where required with dispatch" means is that the forces are to get to a certain place in the quickest way possible. That has always been a prime requisite. The reference to "to perform its tasks with maximum effectiveness" is again an underlying
February 21, 1966

principle which has existed since time immemorial. These conditions are supposed to be the keystones of the mobile command.
We want to know a number of things about mobile command and we are raising these questions now. I hope that the minister can give us some clarification. We are certainly giving him warning that when he and his officials are before the Defence Committee these matters will be studied in very great detail.


Mr. Hellyer:: That is fair enough.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: However, we want something more at this time. We want to know why the government has decided on this concept of a baby expeditionary force, because that is all it is. It will be composed of segments of our armed forces which will be deployed in units of the required size to meet Canadian commitments and undertakings anywhere in the world.
For example, we want to know how the sea lift will be performed. We want to know who is going to provide the lift for the tactical air support. Does the minister anticipate that this mobile force and any segments which may be attached shall be required only within a narrow radius of Canada? What are we going to do if we have to go to the far end of South America? How does the minister expect to get this tactical air support down there? Will it have to travel to the Far East or the Middle East, across wide expanses of sea? How are these aircraft to be transported. Are they to be taken on the Bonaventure, or has the minister plans for some other type of ship to take these aircraft? Has he plans to purchase ultimately huge transport aircraft which as of now are just a gleam in some designer's eye? Or does he plan on flying these CF-5's in formation and then have them line up at some sort of aerial service station for refueling? These are all fundamental matters.
Let us suppose that the aircraft reach their destination. Who is going to furnish the supply train? Who will supply spares, ammunition, fuel and carry out repairs? Are we going back to the concept that Canada will supply everything, that the force will be entirely self-contained? Are we to be responsible for the supply train for what I call this baby expeditionary force? This, I am sure, has long been rejected, yet we must see what the minister is thinking in this regard.
Supply-National Defence
I do not see how we are going to be able to maintain this type of aircraft with the limited resources we have at the present time. How is the refuelling to be done? I have heard rumours that the department wants to convert four of the CF-130B's into tankers. Our fleet of Hercules aircraft is already committed to other transport tasks. They are going to provide long range transportation for our troops. If one takes four of these from that task it means that one will have to have a commitment of six aircraft. I say this because there is always the regular maintenance of these aircraft and their periodic removal from service. Breakdowns occur. For example, the Zambian airlift required six aircraft, not four. We all know that one of the aircraft which flew out to Zambia had to be rotated back to Canada in less than a week for its periodic check and overhaul. Therefore we are going to require six aircraft, not four, and at the present time we do not have this particular type of aircraft in sufficient numbers, certainly not if the minister means to carry troops and equipment in sufficiently large numbers to be effective.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Again, this is a mobile force. Just how mobile is it? The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made reference to the M-113 which is an armoured personnel carrier. This is all very well for those people out in the forward battle positions. What about their supply? I venture to say that our ground forces today, in so far as supply is concerned, are very little more mobile than they were at the end of world war II. They are roadbound on wheels. We have few if any tracked vehicles to assist them. We have few if any aircraft at the very front. I know that there are now a few helicopters. I do not agree that we should have continued as we have. This is a point that we have raised, that the Defence Committee raised in 1963, and to which I have referred to many times in the past, namely, that in so far as our ground forces are concerned they are not mobile and have not been, any more than they were in world war II.
We are supposed to be operating in Europe so that the use of tactical nuclear arms is such that the underlying principle is mobility and dispersement. How can our forces disperse and how can they be mobile when they do not have the equipment?
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence
What about their reconnaissance elements? Has the minister increased the establishment for helicopters? Has the brigade in Europe any more helicopters for reconnaissance? The minister has referred to Voyageur helicopters that he has acquired. How many has he acquired? We also know that he is going to get 15 Buffalo aircraft. Let me put it this way. Magazine articles tell us that the department is supposed to get 15 Buffalo aircraft.


Mr. Churchill:: He did not give us any figures at all.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No. If I can rely upon this aviation editor, the Canadian forces are supposed to get 15 de Havilland CC-115 Buffalos. Do we have to get our information from paagazines or must we wait for the minister to give it to us in his own good time? This is not good enough. Rather than this general version it would be far better if the minister came out and told us precisely what he means by his mobile command, what he intends to do with it, how it is going to operate and how it is going to be equipped. We are being asked to vote money for the reorganization of our forces in a certain way but the descriptions, the roles and their equipment are all secrets locked in the minister's breast. The question arises of the mobility of this mobile group, the conversion of a further brigade to a sort of airborne brigade. I know that is a poor term but I refer to a brigade which will have an air capability or an air transportability.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are air transportable.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Supply-National Defence from the time the original retirement took place to the time of re-enlistment? These are details we want to know and I think that before we pass this item we should be given this information.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we might have the attention of the minister while this debate is going on? It involves a great deal of money, about one-fifth of Canada's budget. Surely the minister could pay attention to what is being said.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is paying his monthly visit to the house, is he?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: These are the observations I wish to place on record at this time. We want answers to these questions. I have adverted to only a few. In other parts of the house, even on the minister's side of this chamber, further questions have been raised and I think we are entitled to answers. It is not good enough to say we should wait until these matters are discussed by the standing committee. That committee will be discussing the estimates for 1966-67. We are dealing now with a monumental reorganization of the forces based on the estimates before us and we should like answers to the questions which have been raised.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this discussion I may say that I do not intend to take the time of the committee for very long. First, I wish to thank the Associate Minister for the prompt action he took with regard to a request I made to him. It has always seemed to me since the days when I spent some time in the army that the inflexibility of military regulations petrified the minds of the officers to such an extent that they were unable to give a common-sense interpretation of rules which affect service personnel, so sacrosanct were the regulations.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It was most encouraging to find that the Associate Minister's approach to the problem put common sense first and I can only wish that this will permeate the senior ranks of the army. I am quite aware that regulations must be strict and fairly strictly adhered to. But it is too often the case that regulations which are made to bring about certainty, to assist in bringing about regularity in handling affairs so that people will

know where they stand, which are of assistance in accomplishing the task that the military have before them, are used by the military not in the sense of an approach to the task but from the point of view of the sacredness of the regulations.
I always found when I was in the army, and I have discovered few instances since to change my attitude, that the military mind considers the book to be the most important thing. The regulation is all that counts and there is a mental block against trying to interpret a regulation in a human way and in a common-sense manner. I hope the example of the minister will have some effect on senior army personnel so that the minister himself will not have to be bothered with these questions which I understand come to him quite frequently.
I understand the Associate Minister always takes the same common-sense attitude when these questions come to him but it is discouraging to find that he is approached so frequently. When it comes to a question of when or how soon a man may be released, bending the regulations or interpreting them in a liberal manner so that they make common sense would make it unnecessary for the associate minister to be bothered with such matters. I hope the senior personnel in the armed forces, having observed that it is. the wish of the government to put more heart or at least more comon sense into the interpretation of regulations, will follow that course.
Hon. members and the public in general are perturbed about morale in the armed forces. Since the questions of recruitment and re-enlistment are providing us with a little problem I cannot help but feel that a common-sense and humane approach to personnel in the armed forces would be a most crucial factor in relieving the forces of some of their difficulty in getting recruits and keeping personnel who have been trained at such expense over such a long period of time.
In another area I have been bothered by one consideration for a long time. I refer to nuclear arms. It seems to me that the entire purpose of defence is to ensure the safety of this country and its citizens and that anything which will help us prevent war and keep us from getting into a conflict becomes our first line of defence so that none may perish in defence of our freedom. Therefore
February 21. 1966	COMMONS
I think that the efforts of the government should first be concentrated on making sure that the United Nations is strong.
No one in this chamber will deny that the United Nations is the best hope for continued world peace. All of us are aware, however, that in the charter and in the present operations of the United Nations, particularly of the Security Council, there are many cracks in the administrative machinery so that the organization does not function as well as we would like to see it function. Therefore, since the continued useful operation of that body is our most successful line of defence the government should bend its efforts to reforming, changing, modifying, and amending the United Nations Charter to make it more useful both for this country and for our friends and allies, indeed, for every country in the world.
I suppose this suggestion should be made to the Department of External Affairs since the matter probably lies within its orbit but it seems to me that questions of defence and external affairs are so bound together that I should mention it in this discussion, particularly since we are concerned with the further question of relations between states and the way in which they can be affected by the operations of our own defence policy. Every time we consider our defence policy we should consider what effect it is going to have on international affairs.
One question which has bothered me is the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. From time to time it has been debated in this chamber. For years and years it has been made a political football. When Canada accepted nuclear warheads for the Bomarc I submitted that to some extent we became a nuclear power. The Prime Minister and some members of his cabinet have denied this. I am quite aware of the arguments put forward that these are defensive weapons, that they could not by any stretch of the imagination be deemed to be offensive weapons, and therefore that in the ordinary meaning of the word we have not become a nuclear power.
Perhaps it does not have too much bearing on the case but in the proposal made the other day for a non-aggression treaty respecting the use of nuclear weapons the suggestion was made that at least there be an agreement that nuclear arms not be used against countries which possess no nuclear arms. However, I did not notice any suggestion that
DEBATES	1531
Supply-National Defence such a treaty would include a provision that nuclear arms should not be used against those countries that possess no offensive nuclear weapons.
I have never been able to draw the simple distinction between offensive and defensive weapons that seems to satisfy some people when they consider these matters. Certainly I and many other people have never been satisfied that as we have a nuclear weapon that can be used in connection with the Bomarc it cannot reasonably be said that that same weapon cannot be used in a modified missile for an offensive purpose some place at some time in the future because of our limited technical knowledge.
If I have some misgivings about this matter, it can well be understood why other countries which are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons should have the feeling that we are not being quite honest when we say that the Bomarcs are only defensive weapons and we have not widened the circle of countries having offensive nuclear arms. I think the only logical conclusion we can expect other countries to come to is that Canada does have nuclear weapons, that we have aided and abetted their proliferation, and that Canada's efforts at the external affairs level in assisting to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons are to say the least completely hypocritical. The question of hypocrisy with regard to nuclear weapons in Canada is, of course, not confined just to the Bomarc and to external affairs.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The hypocrisy has become more apparent every time the Bomarc has been discussed. I am quite sure that all of us will remember the discussions which took place in the house when the present government insisted there were commitments in this regard. I well recall the Prime Minister stating in answer to a question I asked on June 7, 1963, that the decision to take nuclear warheads for the Bomarc was a mistake. At that time he said that the decision which had been made even earlier was also a mistake. I am sure if it was a mistake earlier than June of 1963 it was more obviously a mistake in 1963. The Prime Minister admitted at that time that before we in this country could even get nuclear weapons it was necessary to agree to acquire Bomarcs. If anything could be more ridiculous as a facet of our defence policy than pursuing a policy admittedly a mistake
February 21, 1966-

Supply-National Defence even earlier than 1963, I do not know what it could be.
When a Prime Minister who has the responsibility for implementing policy says that a policy not yet implemented is wrong and is a mistake and that a further agreement is required in order to pursue this mistaken policy but still insists on pursuing it, then I submit this is the most ridiculous defence policy the country has ever seen. I would ask the house to consider that situation in the light of the fact that this decision, thought to be a mistake, to accept such weapons made Canada another nuclear country, contributed to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and branded Canada as a hypocrite in the councils of the world at a time when we hoped that Canada might have had some status in bringing conflicting powers to the negotiating table. I am sure that in the ideological struggle between communism and democracy as we know it one of the greatest weapons we can have is our reputation for integrity. Instead of protecting that reputation we are pursuing a policy of hypocrisy.
The Prime Minister has been most enlightening in answering questions as to when we are going to negotiate out of nuclear arms. However, to complete the picture on the nuclear weapons policy the government decided to implement the mistaken policy of June, 1963, and made another agreement in order to implement it even though it was aware that it was not only mistaken but that the nuclear weapons were useless. The Prime Minister promised to negotiate us out of this agreement. This is now February, 1966. Yet in a most offhand manner the Prime Minister has indicated that we are going to get around to negotiating out of nuclear arms. I want to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he feels that nuclear weapons are useful in Bomarcs and whether or not he is chided from time to time by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for cutting the feet from under the Department of External Affairs in its attempts to use Canada's influence in negotiating treaties or agreements limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I wonder also whether the Minister of National Defence can justify any amount of money now being spent in connection with the purchase, maintenance, use or storage of nuclear warheads for Bomarcs.
Does the minister have the ear of the Prime Minister a little more closely than the

rest of us and can he tell us that there is to-be an early decision by the government of Canada to get rid of these useless weapons and adopt a defence policy based on common sense so that Canada will be restored to the position where it can talk honestly about nuclear weapons and the desirability of not having them spread further? It would be a common-sense step to get rid of these useless weapons, the acquisition of which rendered our voice futile and hypocritical.
I wanted to say a word about the integration of our armed forces, particularly with reference to morale, but other members have covered this subject adequately. I am curious, however, about the vast sums of money that this policy was supposed to save. The minister has stated that it has saved money without impairing efficiency. Perhaps my bookkeeping is not up to the minister's standards but I cannot see that there has been in fact any lessening of defence spending.
Since morale is a very important factor in relation to efficiency and in view of the fact that morale has declined in our forces, it is apparent that in fact there has been a considerable lessening of efficiency. Perhaps the minister at some time when he is replying to questions in this regard will spell out how he reconciles the total amount of money spent now compared with the amount spent before this campaign was commenced with his statement that we are spending less on the armed forces. In this regard he should be reminded that the navy is only about half as operational now as it was and that the latest decision to buy the F-5 aircraft is just as controversial as the ill-fated decision to buy the Arrow. The more we hear about the F-5 the less common sense there seems to be in purchasing it. I can only conclude that no matter how much it is improved the decision to buy it will be a mistake. I expect the Prime Minister to get up in the house and say, as he did in respect of the Bomarc, that the government has made a mistake in its decision to buy this plane. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to defend the decision to purchase this aircraft, a decision which has alarmed everyone in this house and in this country.
Perhaps the minister in his reply might also explain the Prime Minister's statement at the time we accepted nuclear warheads on the excuse that there was a billion dollars tied up in equipment. At the time I thought the Prime Minister was going to
February 21, 1966

point out that while the government was pursuing a stupid defence policy the stupidity was justified by the saving of some of that billion dollars. Since we are apparently following a policy that was admittedly wrong the Minister of National Defence should point out to the country how much money we are to save so that we can at least console ourselves with the thought that while we have been foolish in our policies we have been penny-wise.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to take part in this debate on defence estimates as a defence expert, though I have served on the defence committee and have taken more than a passing interest in defence expenditures and defence policy in the past few years. I should like to address my remarks to the value the taxpayer is receiving for these defence expenditures. Now as never before in the history of the world we must bear in mind and always remember that the civilians must keep a very close watch over military might and military expenditures and the final authority must forever rest in the hands of the civilians. I believe this is very true today because of world situations that exist.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Looking back over our defence policy and our defence expenditures and thinking back to the time when the minister assumed this portfolio, we are reminded of what a clear-cut policy he seemed to have but did not have for defence. He outlined clearly where he was going and where he thought our defence policy should be going. He outlined how the unification of the three services would save the taxpayers of this country a great deal of money.
I was on the defence committee some years ago and I know that a number of questions were asked in this regard. I did not ask any; I was prepared to wait and see. We have waited a number of years and I have looked for the savings in defence but have seen none. The amazing thing about this is that John Q. Public is convinced that there is a saving of public money here. There should be a saving in this area but there is not. John Q. Public is convinced that the minister has done an amazing job and has not made any errors.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: John Q. Public is convinced that the minister is spending this

Supply-National Defence money wisely. I say this is partly the fault of this house because we have not examined the minister's estimates thoroughly enough. It is partly because the press and the minister's public relations officers have been together on many aspects of defence. It is partly because we are in the middle of a peacetime period in Canada and John Q. Public is just not interested in the whole question of defence and how our defence dollars are being spent.
I think these estimates should be filibustered until the minister can stand up and show that he is saving money, until he says he will take a second look at this wasteful expenditure of $215 million on an aircraft which the United States government is not going to purchase. This aircraft has been tried in Viet Nam and it has been proven that it is not a good combat plane; yet we blindly go ahead with it because the Canadian public are not interested in defence and allow their defence minister to spend $215 million on a plane which is not a good combat plane, has not proven itself and is not going to be purchased by the American forces who originated and planned it. The United States government have scrapped this plane. Yet we blindly go ahead and spend this very great amount of money on it. This is just one aspect of the mistakes made in our whole defence picture.
Let us look at our defence picture. We force 500 pilots into immediate retirement. They are told, "We don't really need you fellows. You have been really faithful. We admire the spirit in which you enlisted so we will give you a bonus if you now retire. Canada no longer needs you". Then what happened? After the taxpayers of this country had spent something like $175,000 training each one of these pilots and had footed the bill and having been told we did not need them, the minister turns around and says, "We do need you fellows. We will give you $200 for each year for which you re-enlist". What kind of management is this? This is the question that should be uppermost in the mind of every taxpayer. Is he getting value for his dollars?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We should examine this question very closely. The minister says yes, the taxpayer is getting value for his dollar. Who beside the minister and his executive assistant have anything to say about defence matters? I sat on the defence committee and I have read all kinds of articles saying what a great committee it is. It is an
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence educational committee. At no time is the committee allowed to determine or even look at the forward policy of the government or what the forward policy of this country should be in regard to defence.
We examined the Bomarc sites but at no time did we have the chance to say that the whole thing is obsolete, that we are spending $3.5 million a year maintaining these sites which are no longer useful to Canada. The minister said when he was in the opposition that a war involving manned bombers over this country was very unlikely. That was said some three or four years ago. It is certainly much more unlikely today. Yet we continue to maintain an obsolete fleet of missiles which at best have a range of 425 miles. Any manned bomber could fly around them without losing too many miles or wasting too much gas.
Thirteen thousand men have voluntarily retired from the forces and we are not supposed to ask why. We spent a great deal of money training these men, the amount of money spent on training them depending upon how long they were in the services, but we allowed them slowly to slip away. We the taxpayers are supposed to allow this to go on forever just because no one is apparently interested in what the Minister of National Defence is doing. This is a shameful waste of the Canadian taxpayers' money, forcing men into retirement and then paying something like $65 million in bonuses to keep them in the services.
Some time ago we were told that the Minister of National Defence under his plan of integration of the services would make a great saving in our defence expenditures. As the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out the other day, where is this saving? For the past number of years our defence expenditures have been around $1,500 million. In the present year they are estimated to be $1,580 million. Where is the saving?
The minister's speech on the opening of the debate on these estimates was one of generalities. He dealt at length with the question of how he had made tremendous savings in housekeeping. He said that at national headquarters he had got rid of 1,000 men. He moved them to another building, for all we know. Now he is paying those same men to re-enlist. What kind of a hodgepodge of policy and government spending is this? Never before has the Defence Committee had
[Mr. Homer (Acadia) .1
such a tremendous task ahead of it to reexamine the situation and point out the follies of the Minister of National Defence.
I hope the members of that committee will thoroughly examine defence matters not from the point of view of military experts but to see that the taxpayer has value for the dollars spent in defence. We travel across this country and see the growing alarm on the part of John Q. Citizen because of what we are doing with our money. Canadian citizens are saying: You are going to tax us in order to provide a pension; You are going to bring in medicare. Can the country afford it?
We are told that something like 40 per cent of the gross national product is paid to one government or another in taxes. Members of parliament were hoodwinked by the present Minister of National Defence when he said he would make great savings in the amalgamation of the three services. I could not see it at the time. The minister may amalgamate some services and smooth out some headquarter's expense but basically the man trained to fly a plane will still be in a separate unit from a man trained to sail a ship or serve in the army.
What has this amalgamation done to morale? A number of hon. members who have spoken previously have discussed this question. Thirteen thousand people have retired voluntarily from the forces in the past few years. This alone provides the answer to the question, what has amalgamation done to morale. They would not get out of the service if they had confidence in the minister and in the service.
This is the greatest problem the minister must face. It is all well and good for Charles Lynch to say in the Ottawa Citizen not long ago that the minister's self-assurance is undinted. But the minister must lie awake some night and examine the question of why so many men have left the services if they have confidence in the minister. Do they know or respect the direction in which he is taking the services? This is the ultimate question that the minister must come back to and answer. Is the minister providing the leadership necessary for these men to stay with him? I think the answer must be that he has failed in this regard and failed miserably.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is no question about it. I am not debating the question of pay for the armed services. I appreciate the fact that they need pay increases. I was pleased to hear the minister announce the other day that a
February 21, 1966

pay increase would be forthcoming, retroactive to October of last year. He forces retirements and then he pays men to stay in the service. This very fact must convince the people of Canada that the defence policy of this government is the worst we have ever had. These are the questions that are uppermost in the minds of the people of this country. You force men to retire after spending $175,000 on their training and then you introduce an item of $65 million in the estimates in order to pay men to stay in the service.
The minister has announced that he will give men $200 a year for each year for which they re-enlist. I talked the other day to a person in the air force who said he was going to re-enlist for five more years. It meant $1,000 to him and he had intended to get out. I asked him why. He gave me a whole host of reasons which I found very interesting but when you summed up all his reasons they amounted to the fact he did not know where he was going and he was more or less fed up with the leadership shown by the department. We in the opposition have a duty to point out to the government that the Canadian citizen is not getting value for his money in this department. The minister has failed and failed miserably in trying to make savings and cut out wasteful expenditures.
The minister could make an immediate saving of $215 million by cancelling the contract for the F-5. Charles Lynch put it very well in an article in the Ottawa Citizen from which I should like to quote:
There is more than a suspicion that the CF-5 was ordered more to keep Canadian workmen busy than for any qualities it may possess as a fighting machine.
I ask you, is that the duty of the defence department? If the government wants to keep Canadian workmen busy the government should spend money on the development of our resources because there you have a multiplying force. As the resources are developed many more people are employed. If the sole purpose of the government is to spend money to employ people, then it should spend money not in making an aircraft which is obsolete before it is off the drawing board but in developing our resources. I think the minister must wrestle with that question and decide just what he is doing, employing men or purchasing equipment that will enable us to defend this country better and keep peace throughout the world.
Further along in this same article Mr. Lynch says:
The result has been that there has been no informed critical appraisal of the Hellyer revolu-
Supply-N ational Defence tion except by the men who are conducting it under his guidance and inspiration. Not surprisingly, they find it good.
This is what I said a while ago. The only people who have really examined the minister's record have been his own advisers, press agents and public relations people. They have all agreed it has been tremendous. We look for results, we look for savings, and we have seen none.
In addition to all these mistakes, the morale of the forces has been eroded. Mr. Lynch has a word to say about morale too:
Mr. Hellyer admits that he is having trouble keeping the armed forces up to strength.
I like this:
Having cut away the fat, he now finds he's losing some of the meat.
This is exactly the case in the armed forces today. Having cut away the fat he is losing some of the meat. Morale has gone and the forces are completely dejected.
What did the minister say in his remarks in this regard? He first gave us some idea of what he thinks the Canadian forces should do and what has been done. I should like to quote from the minister's opening remarks as found on page 1416 of Hansard:
-that notwithstanding the reduction in expenditures we will have achieved, within two years, a significant qualitative improvement and operational capability of our armed forces.
Let us examine that statement. First he says, "notwithstanding the reduction in expenditures". We have not seen any reduction in expenditures. The minister may say that this tri-service business has saved us a lot of money. The estimate book shows that there has been $15,800 million budgeted for the armed services. We do not see these savings. The minister goes on to say that within two years we will have achieved a significant qualitative improvement. How can you have a significant qualitative improvement when you force 500 of your top officers to retire? You cannot. The minister also said there would be an improvement in operational capability of our armed forces. How can you have that improvement when you order an airplane for them that is obsolete before you start production of it?
The news last night really prompted me to make this speech on defence. It was stated then that 107 CF-5 planes had been ordered by West Germany and 21 of them had crashed because of faulty mechanism, faulty construction or faulty design. About one-fifth of the planes with which they were supplied
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence less than a year ago are completely ruined. The minister says he is going to bring about a significant qualitative improvement and operational capability in our armed forces. He is going to completely ground our air force.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Are you talking about that plane you bought when you were in the government?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister makes some snide remark about the Avro Arrow. Certainly he made a great fuss when he was on this side of the house but he did not tell us the whole story. The Defence Committee ascertained that the decision to cancel that plane had been made in 1956 but because an election was imminent the government failed to declare itself. It failed to say the air force had rejected it in 1956. The government failed to take any action on the air force's decision because an election was imminent.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Nonsense.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This all came out in evidence and it is in the committee's report. I believe it was General Foulkes who appeared before the Defence Committee and put this information on the record. The minister can make some smart remark and then go back into seclusion in his department but he has led the Canadian public down the garden path with regard to defence expenditures.
What else did the minister say? He said that war between the NATO powers and Russia was remote. Did he tell us what is happening to NATO and the whole question of our NATO alliance? This matter was quite prominent in the 1963 election campaign, at which time the minister had great ideas and great vision. Did he tell us in his speech that France has said that the NATO powers will be out of there? Did he tell us the Canadian force in France is the only one permitted to take photographs over France today and that the United States is not? Did he tell us what is going to happen in NATO in the years ahead? Did he tell us how Canada can better serve the NATO alliance? No, Mr. Chairman, he dealt in generalities. Two years ago when the minister took over the department I am sure he would have had all the answers. He has found that answers do not come so easily today.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The minister went on to say that there are political difficulties in Europe not yet resolved. That is the way he summed up the trouble in NATO. He went on to say that

NATO is still of continuing importance to Canada's security. No one denies that, but how best can Canada play its role in this regard? Did he say that we must maintain a nuclear force in NATO, which was a prominent question a few years ago? No, Mr. Chairman, he did not. In fact, he said that the concept of Canada's defence force must be one of mobility, which seems to be a key word of our present minister. He is going to ground the air force with the CF-5's, the Freedom Fighters, so that our defence force will not be very mobile. This question is one of the most important that the opposition can point out to the government in the coming session.
Let us examine our defence estimates. Let the minister produce the savings which he predicted he would make two years ago. Let us examine this tri-service defence force which we are building to see whether or not it is feasible, whether or not any real savings are produced and whether or not something can be done to bolster the morale of our Canadian forces. There is certainly no question that it is at its lowest today.
Quite apart from the air force, what has the minister done with the navy? As the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out, 20 to 25 per cent of our naval ships are tied up in dock with no men to man them. Is the minister building a completely new fleet? He has ordered a few new ships but he has no real program in mind for the navy. Some one in this debate has already said that the navy has gone, that the minister has completely grounded it. Perhaps that is closer to the truth than most naval men would like or be able to admit.
We must continue to examine these estimates with thoroughness. After all, we are living in a democratic country and members of parliament and the government move with the wishes and desires of the people. One role an opposition can play is to continue to investigate conditions and government thinking in the hope that the public will arise and say to the government that we should have some action. That is what we must do in this debate. We must continue to point out that the government has led the Canadian public down the garden path regarding defence expenditures and the mobility of our defence force.
We all remember the great things the government said we were going to do. I remember that I was a member of the Defence Committee when it visited Europe. One
February 21, 1966	COMMONS
of the Liberal members talked to the then Minister of Defence in the British government. He asked him whether Canada would not best serve world peace by having a mobile force and the Minister of Defence in the British government immediately said "Yes, we would love to have you join in a mobile force and help bring about peace in Indonesia". Well, we did not go there. Neither did we go to Viet Nam. The only real effort we made was in Cyprus, and in the statement of the minister when he introduced his estimates he did not even mention Cyprus. One of the speakers in this debate has mentioned that the only real effort we are making today is against the white Rhodesians in Africa, and this is not taking too much of a military effort.
I should like to see more participation in this debate by Social Credit members who are forever showing their interest in expenditures of government, especially wasteful expenditures. I think now is the time for every member of parliament who has the interests of the taxpayer at heart to speak. There are many projects in my constituency, as I am sure there are in the constituency of the hon. member for Red Deer who interjected in this debate, on which I should like to see the government move. But time and again the house has been told by the government: "We are sorry but money is not available".
We were told that money was not available when we asked the government to increase the old age pension to $100 a month. The big hue and cry raised by the government was that money was not available. Yet in this department we see wasteful expenditures, $215 million to buy an aeroplane that is not airworthy, $3.5 million per annum to maintain Bomarc missiles which were practically obsolete when they were built, $175,000 each to train 500 pilots who were forced into retirement-you can do a little multiplication there, Mr. Chairman-13,000 men voluntarily retired, and now $65 million to be spent by the government to urge members of the forces to re-enlist. I would ask members on both sides of the house to look at these figures and to ask themselves whether this is value for money spent.
Are we doing what the Canadian taxpayer wants us to do? I am sure that if these expenditures were fully examined and knowledge of them made available to every taxpayer-taxpaying time will be rolling around pretty shortly-every taxpayer who sends in his form at the end of April will say
DEBATES	1537
Supply-National Defence
to himself: One fifth of this tax money will be going to the Department of National Defence which is protecting me from becoming wealthy. That is about the size of it, Mr. Chairman, because any army which moved into Canada today would find no resistance. Our armed forces strength is down to an all-time low. Their morale has completely gone. Its aeroplanes are no longer airworthy. Ships are not manned and the infantry has no manpower either. So where are we? Why are we giving this department one-fifth of the taxpayers' money? I would ask that this information be made available to every Canadian citizen.
If any minister of the present government has failed, has hoodwinked the public and led the public down the garden path, it is this Minister of National Defence. I remember when he stood up in the house and lambasted the then government about the cancellation of the Avro Arrow. He said it was a terrible thing, knowing all the while that it was not and that the decision was made back in 1956. He lambasted the government about nuclear weapons. Now this government is dropping them. He told the public he would save them a fortune with the amalgamation of the three services. Is he saving them a fortune, Mr. Chairman? The last five years' estimates have already been put on record by the hon. member for Calgary North. Some $1,500 million a year has been spent, only 12 per cent of which going to the procurement of new weapons. So where is the housekeeping saving? It is just not there.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, may I introduce a slight change of pace. I want to deal very shortly with a problem that I think is extraordinarily important and which has been going on for a long time and should be cured. I refer to the soldiers' votes in federal elections. I wish to comment first about the ballot itself and, second, about the publication of service votes.
My understanding is that the ballot is secret but because the man's name appears on the sealed envelope containing his ballot men in the armed services feel that their vote is known when they vote. I have talked with a good many of them and they feel that their vote is known. I think we should assure them that we have honest people looking after this
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence matter, and I think they are honest, and that there is no way of knowing the exact vote of a serviceman. However, Mr. Chairman, there is that feeling among servicemen because their names appear on the outside of the envelope. They feel that their vote is known. This is wrong and should be corrected.
It can be cured quite simply. I think that the Minister of National Defence or people connected with the administration of the Canada Elections Act could cure it. There is no reason at all that any person in Canada entitled to vote should not have the feeling that when he puts his X opposite a candidate's name that vote is secret and cannot possibly be known by any one else. That feeling does not now exist in the armed services and I think it is wrong that it should go on. So much for the ballot itself.
Second, may I refer to the publication of the service vote. In each and every federal election we have this hangover from election night. We wait for what is known as the service vote. It is wrong that this vote should be make known later and published after the actual main vote. No class of people in Canada entitled to vote in federal elections should have the result of its vote made known. The votes of doctors, lawyers or any other group are not made known and there is no reason whatsoever why the soldiers' vote should be treated differently.


An hon. Member:: Include the sailors' vote in that, not just the soldiers.


David Vaughan Pugh: That is quite true. The hon. member for Victoria says that I should not call it the soldiers' vote. In common parlance in Canada it is known as the soldiers' vote and it is referred to in that way in the press.


An hon. Member:: It is the service vote.


David Vaughan Pugh: Call it the service vote. The last few remarks I have made in connection with the secret ballot should refer to the service vote rather than to the soldiers' vote alone. The service vote is made known and this is wrong. It is wrong that in any election one class of people should be delineated as being against another.
For the life of me I cannot see why today, with modern transportation, ballots should not be cast in advance in exactly the same manner as they are in an advance poll. In an advance poll the results are made known but there is no indication of the class or kind of people involved. The results published are merely added to the total as an item in the final summation. However, in the services

members of the armed forces voting outside their own constituencies are tabbed. This is wrong and in view of the feeling of members of the armed services that the ballot is not secret the situation ought to be corrected. I say that it should be corrected and it could! easily be by the minister making representations to the proper authorities before the next election.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I was called! out of the house and I returned to speak on item 1.


An hon. Member:: It has been carried.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Oh, no.
The Depuiy Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for a considerable period of time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. To clarify this situation, have we given unanimous consent to revert to item No. 1 in order that the hon. gentleman may speak?


An hon. Member:: It has been passed.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order, please. The Chair has the impression that we have the unanimous consent of the house to return to item No. 1. The hon. member has explained that he had to leave for a few seconds and I am under the impression that we are still on item No. 1.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you. I have spoken on previous occasions to the minister with regard to a question that I want to raise because of my personal knowledge and experience in respect of army retail stores on bases outside the country. I refer specifically to the service known as Maple Leaf Stores so far as the army is concerned and I wish to compare it with the service available to members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on air force bases which is known as PX and is similar to the United States system of retailing on air force bases. Anyone who has travelled throughout the continent in the course of the last two or three years will have had this matter brought to his attention by the people concerned.
Throughout this debate we have heard considerable discussion in regard to morale in
February 21, 1966

the forces. Members of the Canadian armed services were present in a gallery of the house to hear the opening of the debate. I had the pleasure of asking a few of them if what was being said about poor morale was a fact. They went on to explain that first of all they thought the situation was due to the uncertainty of their positions plus the fact that certain statements had been made to them recently in regard to increases they were due to receive. I mention this point at this juncture because so far as the picture on the continent is concerned I understand that a change in store services on army bases to the type on R.C.A.F. bases would in fact give the members of army camps the equivalent of an increase in their present pay.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Health and welfare-medicare-inquiry as to legislation; the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Yanakis), Health and welfare-inquiry as to health warning on packages of cigarettes; the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, (Mr. McIntosh), Veterans affairs-method of dealing with inquiries by members.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
It being six oc'lock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, before the house proceeds to consider notices of motions I should like to ask for unanimous consent to send a number of private members bills on the
Reference of Bills to Committees subject of divorce and on the subject of birth control to standing committees of the house. Perhaps I could ask for the consent of the house to make this motion now.
I should like to move:
That bills Nos. C-16, C-19, C-41, C-44, C-55, C-58 and C-79 be given second reading and sent to the Standing Committee of the House on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move an amendment to the motion which has just been put forward. I move:
That the subject matter of bills Nos. C-16, C-19, C-41, C-44, C-55, C-58 and C-79 be referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs and that the bills be not read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister moving an amendment or a separate motion? I understand this is a separate motion. Is that
agreed?


David Lewis: Would Your Honour inform us whether the motion moved by the hon. member for Rosedale was passed? I understand that a vote was taken and that it was passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us say that the question was not put on the first motion. I must take it that the second motion was the one which would be deemed to have been presented to the house at this time. I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he withdraw the first motion. Is that agreeable?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I agree.
Motion (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: So the motion before the house is the one moved by the Solicitor General for the reference of the subject matter of these private bills to the committee on justice and legal affairs.
Motion (Mr. Pennell) agreed to.


An hon. Member:: A fumble in the back-field.


Mr. Prittie:: I wonder whether the Solicitor General moved the reference of the subject matter of all the bills he had in mind. I believe the ones he moved were those dealing with divorce only.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The hon. gentleman is quite right. I understand there has to be a motion by the sponsor moving the bill and it was my intention to move a second motion that the subject matter of certain bills be referred to


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps on that basis I should attempt to do what I did previously, to move them, with the consent of the house, on behalf of the movers of the particular bills. Then we could proceed as the Solicitor General has suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that a motion be made for the reference of the subject matter of Bills Nos. C-64, C-40, C-22 and C-71 to the Committee on Health and Welfare?


Lawrence T. Pennell: To clarify this matter, is it my understanding you are now putting the motion for second reading or for reference to the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: There is no motion before the Chair. If the hon. member would make a motion I would put it to the house.



REFERENCE OF SUBJECT MATTER OF BILLS


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the subject matters of bills Nos. C-64, C-40, C-22 and C-71 be sent to the standing committee on health and welfare.
He said: I do this, Mr. Speaker, with some hesitation because I still have some doubt, and I say this with deference, whether the procedure is entirely correct.


Mr. Speaker:: The subject matter of the bills can be referred to a committee before second reading. I assume this is why we followed the procedure we did in connection with the bills referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. So I suppose, we can put the motion to the house.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I bow to your better judgment, Mr. Speaker.
Motion (Mr. Pennell) agreed to.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouth -Clare):: moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of withdrawing the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of off-shore mineral rights, and in the spirit of Confederation, place the question

before a dominion-provincial conference to the end that the decision as to ownership of such mineral rights be determined in a manner fair, just and equitable to the provinces concerned.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as a signatory to the convention on the continental shelf at the Geneva conference on the law of the sea in 1958, Canada's sovereign rights to the natural resources of the continental shelf adjacent to our shores were clearly established. The convention came into force on June 30, 1964, and it only remains for parliament to ratify it, a move which the government has not pushed through to conclusion.
The government's first move has been te submit to the Supreme Court of Canada the question whether jurisdiction over offshore minerals resides with Ottawa or the provinces individually involved. This was done over protestations by the various provinces that the question be decided through a dominion-provincial conference.
I am not a lawyer Mr. Speaker, and therefore I am unable to assess the strictly legal aspects of the claims of the various provinces to offshore mineral rights vis-a-vis the federal position. However, as a member of parliament from the Maritimes I have introduced my motion convinced that the settlement of the issue can best be achieved through a dominion-provincial conference. To that end I propose the withdrawal of the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on the question.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The nub of my motion is found in the operative words "and in the spirit of Confederation". It seems to me that Canadian history, tradition and precedent dictate as basically equitable that the provinces should first be assured of a favourable position in respect of the direct benefits accruing from natural resources found below the surface of the continental shelf. It is true, to repeat an old and well known story, to say that the Maritime provinces entered Confederation only after much soul searching and trepidation. But enter it we did. Now, just under 100 years later, we are still the low men on the national totem pole and constitute the single big area of unfavourable disparate economic development. This is starkly brought out in the second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada when it discusses its fifth point that is, regionally balanced growth and the reduction of disparities among the regions of Canada.
Over this night on to 100 years we have seen carved out of what once were territories
February 21, 1966

to the original confederation the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905. We have seen also the extension northwards of Manitoba and Ontario in 1912 along with the acquisition of the Ungava by Quebec in that same year. We have seen the great surge of our minerals industry that has transformed the economies of the provinces I have mentioned. This transformation was in great part due to the minerals developed in lands that were territorial to the founding provinces.
As Canadians we Maritimers take pride and pleasure in the vast wealth uncovered and being produced. We are delighted that it has contributed so much to the economy of the provinces I have mentioned. We appreciate that indirectly, as Canadians we have benefited, but we still ruefully contemplate our relatively melancholy economic position. I maintain that the Maritime provinces today stand in a position relative to the continental shelf much as the founding provinces stood vis-a-vis the territories of the Confederation period.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that by approaching the question of the mineral resources of the continental shelf in the context of what I have just said and along the lines of my motion the government has probably the last bright chance of rectifying the imbalances and inequities, albeit unintentional, suffered by the Maritimes through entering Confederation. We have heard much lately in and out of parliament about the basic necessity of unification in Canada. I firmly believe that the implementation of my motion would do much to counter the centrifugal forces so disturbing to us and would indeed constitute strong centripetal effects.
It might well be that the Supreme Court test would result in establishing provincial ownership of offshore mineral rights. However, there is the possibility of denial of those rights to the provinces, the possibility of decisions favouring one province over another on strictly legal technicalities, the possibility of decisions restricting provincial rights to a narrow band on the in-shore side of the continental shelf. Any one of these would only exacerbate the feeling in the Maritimes that here we would have again the perpetuation of the disadvantages of Confederation.
The procedure of handouts at some future date is no substitute for a predetermined and agreed allocation of benefits accruing, should our continental shelves prove a source of
Natural Resources
natural resources. A press statement attributed to a number of the government to the effect that "with a bonanza like this in the treasury we could afford a tax cut" does little to allay fears in the Maritimes. On the contrary, it suggests a continuation of the old cap in hand treck to Ottawa and the probable continuation of our disparate economic growth even though substantial resources were developed off our shores.
We in Nova Scotia are not unappreciative of the assistance given us by Ottawa and we have an administration in the province which within the financial resources of the area is doing wonders to improve the economy and the standard of living. But under inexorable economic circumstances we have to run very hard just to keep from falling back in position relative to central and western Canada.
Mr. Rasminsky, the distinguished Governor of the Bank of Canada, was in Halifax recently where he addressed the board of trade of that city. He pointed out that Canada stood very high in the international growth league tables. In fact, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation Japan was the only large country whose growth had been greater than Canada's over the period 19611965. He then went on to note that in the Atlantic provinces many indices showed about the same rate of growth as the corresponding national averages over this period.
This is all very well and as far as it goes it is encouraging. However, the sobering fact remains that the per capita personal income in the Atlantic provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, averaged for the years 1962, 1963, and 1964, was $1,148 versus $1,622 in the other six provinces or almost 29 per cent less. This, I submit, suggests that a massive economic injection is necessary to boost the Maritimes up to parity.
In concluding this particular phase of my remarks I would note that the Governor of the Bank of Canada was addressing the 215th annual meeting of the Halifax board of trade. It would appear we have not been unduly impatient in the Maritimes, Mr. Speaker, and are not to be criticized if we cry out, "How long, oh Lord, how long"?
To those in this house who may worry about the problems of conservation, export and Canadian participation in the development of any resources found off shore, I say all those and any others I have not catalogued here could be worked out in the national interest through the dominion-provincial

February 21. 1966
Natural Resources
conference that I contemplate in my motion. The federal government would always participate in any continental shelf development to the extent of corporation taxes arising from exploitations off shore.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I maintain that the government by reversing its stated position and adopting the procedure proposed by this motion has the opportunity of solving, if substantial mineral resources exist offshore, the hundred year old economic disadvantages of the Maritime provinces. They can do this through carrying on nothing more than an historical process in practice since confederation. When, in the course of time, there now seems to be a chance for doing for the Maritimes something that may redound to the benefit of that area through a procedure employed earlier in the century in respect of the provinces of central and western Canada, why do we forget equity and invoke the strict legalistic concept?
In concluding my remarks in support of my motion I want to make one thing abundantly clear. While I have stressed the Maritimes' position I by no means imply that the Atlantic provinces only should be given the consideration I propose. It is my confident .expectation that in the course of debate members from all parts of the country affected by this issue will see fit to support my general thesis and formulate their specialized points of view.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to compliment the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Bower) who has just spoken for the way in which he has introduced this private member's notice of motion. He has certainly chosen a very important subject and dealt with it in a statesmanlike manner. I cannot say that I agree with the substance of that motion as he has introduced it in that I do not believe the government of Canada should withdraw its reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not believe that a political solution as opposed to a judicial solution is the answer in this case. Offshore mineral rights are very important. They have become increasingly important in recent years and they will be vastly more important in the years and decades to come.
I looked up a recent issue of Oil Week, one of the authorative publications of the oil and gas industry in this country, and it indicates that in this area alone in Canada some $20

million will be spent on offshore exploratory and development activities and that no less than $9 million will be spent on one drilling rig alone which, I am proud to say, is under construction now on the west coast of Canada. This still is a drop in the bucket. The immense resources, the increasing activity and the large scale production of oil and natural gas off the U.S. gulf coast area, in the Persian gulf and more recently in the North sea between England and Norway has been very impressive indeed. These are becoming the world's principal sources of oil and in years to come may become the principal sources of gas for the advanced industrial nations of the world. So Canada cannot disregard the development of her own offshore resources.
The jurisdiction under which these resources come is very important. We must not have overlapping of jurisdictions; we must have a clear-cut statement and I trust that this will be a statement rendered as a result of careful review and a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. I should like to think that in this country the powers of the two different levels of government, federal on the one hand and provincial on the other, will become in the process of time much more clearly defined. A fair amount of overlapping exists and perhaps a fair degree of overlapping is inevitable in a federal state, but we must keep this to a minimum. I suggest that in this vital area of development, an area which could be of tremendous importance to the province of Nova Scotia and, indeed, to all the Atlantic region, Quebec and British Columbia, a clear-cut definition must be drawn and the position made abundantly clear so that new capital can be found and development activity proceed with a minimum of interference, a minimum of red tape and a minimum of bureaucracy in this country.
I should like to refer quite briefly to what Canada's rights are. In this I am not begging the question whether these rights belong to Canada as a single nation state or Canada as an assemblage of provinces. Canada's rights on the seabed are established under international law. Under this international law Canada has the exclusive right to explore and exploit the resources of the submerged seabed off its coasts, not only in bays and inlets but also far beyond the limits of our territorial waters.
This right is formally recognized by the convention on the continental shelf adopted by 17 countries at Geneva in 1958. It actually
February 21, 19G6

came into force on June 10, 1964, 30 days after Britain became the 22nd nation to ratify it.
While the title of this convention refers only to the continental shelf, the right it acknowledges extends much farther. According to this convention, a coastal nation has the right to the submerged seabed resources at any distance off its shores, wherever it can manage to exploit them, limited only by similar claims from other countries. In other words, we are talking about seabeds that exist not merely three miles, not merely twelve miles and not merely to the limit of our straight base lines but outside and beyond our continental shelves or as far as new technology will permit mankind to exploit and develop the resources which lie under the sea. This immense territory reaches far into the Atlantic ocean and far out into the Pacific, and it is of major importance to this country as well as many other countries.
Canada as a nation, Ottawa, that is, has passed legislation bearing on the exploration for oil and gas off our shores. Regulations were issued in 1960 under the Public.Lands Grants Act and the Territorial Lands Act. The first major permit was granted by the previous government on June 29, 1960 to the Richfield Oil Corporation for 1.1 million acres. This was off the coast of British Columbia. One might say that this act set in train the arguments which have followed and precipitated what one might loosely refer to as the offshore mineral dispute between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada.
In December 1962, the then mines and petroleum resources minister of British Columbia, Mr. Kiernan, made a statement which was widely quoted to the effect that it was the intent of his government to make a reference to the provincial court of appeal of British Columbia to decide the issue as between provincial and federal jurisdiction. On June 12, 1964 there was a meeting here in Ottawa between the subsequent minister of mines of British Columbia, the Hon. Donald Brothers, and the federal minister then responsible for natural resources, the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing). They had a lengthy discussion on this subject and on the same day they agreed to release to the press a statement which reads in part as follows:
The two ministers emphasized that both governments wished to avoid any delay in exploration.
Natural Resources
After a review of the possibility of administrative arrangements and a review also of their respective legal positions, both ministers were of the view that the only way the matter could be reconciled was by a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.
So as at June 12, 1964, at least one minister of the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia was in agreement with the steps which have subsequently been taken by the federal government and in fact in agreement with the reference which is presently placed with the Supreme Court of Canada.
There was a federal-provincial conference held later in that year on October 14, 1964. The then Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources presented the federal point of view regarding our offshore mineral rights. He pointed out that it was necessary to refer the offshore problem to the Supreme Court of Canada in order that the legal positions of the parties concerned could be established.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Later on December 11, 1964, the Prime Minister sent a letter to all the provincial premiers indicating that Ottawa wished to refer the various aspects of the problem to the Supreme Court. All the premiers replied and on December 31, 1964, the Prime Minister issued a press release setting out the position of the federal government.
On March 17, 1965, the Prime Minister sent a letter to each of the provincial premiers stating the main considerations that led the federal government to decide to refer the offshore problem to the Supreme Court and saying that this decision had not been altered by the replies received from the premiers. On April 26, 1965, the question of the jurisdiction and ownership of the submerged resources off the west coast of Canada was finally referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by Order in Council 1965-750. This was tabled in the House of Commons on April 29, 1965, and is a public document.
Since then there has been some correspondence emanating from the government of Canada and directed to the province of British Columbia. Little if anything has been heard from the province. For a government which was on previous occasions extremely vocal on this subject, this is indeed surprising. The question now is how the reference will proceed, and of course it will proceed, without a submission from the province of British Columbia outlining the facts and the argument upon which its position is based. It would be a shame if the province of British

February 21. 196G
Natural Resources
Columbia was not to have its policy and its historic claims represented in this way.
Critics of the position taken by the federal government generally assume that Ottawa is challenging the constitutional rights of the provinces with respect to their jurisdiction over those natural resources which lie within their boundaries. This is not true. The federal government gives full and frank recognition to the rights of the provinces in respect of natural resources. They have complete jurisdiction over all resources that lie within their boundaries. But it is a matter of boundaries and not resources that is in dispute. In effect Ottawa is asking the Supreme Court to determine where the provincial boundaries begin and end.
Certain facts are at hand. We know, for instance, that under international law Canada has the ownership of the soil under what might be referred to as internal waters, those inside the base lines and those out and beyond the limit from which our territorial waters are measured. The question with which the constitutional lawyer is faced is whether that ownership vests in Canada as a national state or in the separate and individual provinces that border on these submerged areas.
There are, admittedly, sharp differences of view on this matter. The governments of British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia have each taken the stand that these resources belong to the provinces. Ottawa, having itself negotiated these rights with other nations, has some reason to believe that they belong to the nation as a whole. In other words, we face an impasse but it is an impasse that should not be allowed to hold up the development of these valuable resources.
It could happen, but I doubt it, that the Supreme Court will find that the federal government has no jurisdiction in this field. The Prime Minister stated quite categorically at the federal-provincial conference in July, 1965, that if this were to be the case, Ottawa would "accept the decision and implement it as rapidly and as effectively as possible". He went even further and said that "all revenues collected from federal permit holders, for any area which the Supreme Court found not to be within the federal jurisdiction, will be remitted to those entitled to them", namely, to the provinces.
Equity demands that the provincial governments, on the other hand, adopt a similar attitude with regard to federal rights and property. I understand it has been the advice

of the law officers of the crown that offshore minerals are not within the boundaries of the provinces and that they belong to Canada as a whole.
This opinion is not one of recent date; it has been given to successive federal governments and, indeed, whenever Ottawa has had occasion to inquire into this matter. Given this consistency of opinion, the federal government can scarcely turn over rights and benefits to the provinces which are legally thought to be those belonging to Canada as a whole. These opinions at the very least should be put to the test in a court, in this case the Supreme Court, which will take into account arguments advanced by the provinces themselves.
Should the Supreme Court find that these offshore rights do indeed belong to the federal government, and I am again quoting from the introductory remarks made by the Prime Minister to last year's federal-provincial conference-"equitable arrangements may then be negotiated between the federal government and the provinces".
There is another aspect of this problem which I think bears discussion and it is this. Because federal regulations for the disposal of mineral rights by lease or permit differ -they differ as to charges and in other ways-from provincial regulations there is a possibility, and I suggest a distinct possibility, that private individuals, private corporations and companies engaged in exploration for oil and gas may take either level of government or both to the courts. Thus an administrative impasse occurring before the legal position has been determined in accordance with constitutional requirements could lead to legal proceedings before a local court.
Although the case would probably reach the Supreme Court, the dangers inherent in such a reference reaching the Supreme Court should rule out a political agreement between the two levels of government prior to a determination of the constitutional position. In other words, I am saying that were the federal government to withdraw its reference, were this matter to be subject to a series of federal-provincial negotiations, there could well be a dispute arising as a result of these overlapping jurisdictions and different regulations. Private actions could be taken, they could proceed in the courts, and we would be in an unholy mess.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I will be permitted to deal with yet another aspect of this problem. It has been suggested that while this
February 21, 1966


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak in support of the motion of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Bower), and I congratulate him for initiating this debate, which is of interest not only to the Maritime provinces and the provinces of Quebec, and British Columbia, but also to other Canadian provinces. As a matter of fact, eight Canadian provinces are interested in mineral rights off the coasts and on the continental shelf.
As recalled a few moments ago by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), on October 14, 1964, at a dominion-provincial conference, there were wide differences of

February 21, 1966
Natural Resources
opinion between the representatives of the central government and those of the provincial governments. On December 11, 1964, the present government took the decision on its own, without the unanimous consent of the provinces, to refer the issue to the supreme court.
I object to this attitude on the part of the government and I support the motion of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare for the withdrawal of this unilateral initiative of the central government and the settling of the issue at a dominion-provincial conference.
It can be said, Mr. Speaker, that the debate on offshore mining rights directly affects federal-provincial relations, the role of the supreme court and the capacity, even on the international level, of the provincial states.
Mining rights and rights to natural resources on the continental shelf are something that has not been defined in 1867 and that seems today to come under the responsibility, in a way, of the provinces and of the central government.
Obviously in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation could not foresee all those modern techniques, inventions and discoveries. We could not expect them to foresee the invention of the airplane or the discovery of fantastic and vast resources on the continental shelf. Consequently, if at that time such resources had been apparent, if this problem had arisen, it would not have been a court, or the privy council that would have settled it; it would have been the Fathers of the Canadian confederation because it was a political matter and not a legal one. They would have agreed on the nature of the power and on the extension or sharing of the power between the central and provincial governments.
The question here is not one of interpreting a section of the British North America Act, since it does not contain any provision on this matter, although the letter and spirit of the Canadian constitution clearly show that the area of natural resources, property and development of the fruits of property belong exclusively to the provinces.
1 consider, Mr. Speaker, that our constitution is a pact and that any new power must be negotiated between the parties and not created by a court, whatever it is.
Our Canadian constitution is a pact. It is not necessary to deal with that matter at length because the leaders of the greatest

political parties have acknowledged it throughout our history: Cartier and Macdonald called it the federative pact; Laurier and Borden did the same thing; Meighen called it a federation of majorities and minorities; Ferguson became indignant in a very well-documented report at the idea that a different opinion could be expressed. Ernest Lapointe, in turn, said that confederation was a compromise. In addition, the judicial authority, that is the privy council in London, in several decisions, in particular on aeronautics, in 1932, through the voice of Lord Samkey, stated that the Canadian confederation was a pact. Therefore, since the Canadian confederation is a pact, any new power must be defined, established and agreed to by the parties concerned and not created by a court.
A court, Mr. Speaker, must only interpret a section already established, already part of our federal system. On the other hand, the Supreme Court is not, in my humble opinion, an appropriate constitutional court to settle the matter.
Before 1949, our constitutional disagreements were solved by the privy council in London. Under a federative system, such was an adequate court. The court which is to decide the constitutional conflicts must be objective. Its members must not be appointed by one side only. Before 1949, constitutional conflicts were solved by the privy council in London and that is why, until 1949, the provinces secured many decisions extending their powers.
Since 1949, since Canada abolished appeals to the privy council, as proof of Canadian sovereignty, we found ourselves in Canada without an adequate constitutional court in a federative system.
And that is why, so long as the central government and the provinces do not jointly set up a constitutional court where both would appoint representatives, we cannot accept in a spirit of genuine federalism Supreme Court decisions on our constitutional conflicts.
When I brought up the matter with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) on February 15 last, he said the time had not yet come to institute a constitutional court. He even said, Mr. Speaker, that the officials of his department did not feel it was necessary at this time, to set up a constitutional court. Just imagine. The minister does not decide, nor does the cabinet; the civil servants of his department are the ones who decide.
February 21, 1966

Natural Resources
In my opinion, the political and constitutional nightmare we are going through is due to the fact that we are trying to solve our political and constitutional problems by means of political pressure and administrative decisions. I think the government was wrong in not setting up a constitutional court to proceed with the revision of the Canadian constitution in order to deal not only with mining rights but several other matters.
The new power referred to in the hon. member's motion will interest, in a sense, both levels of government. The question is relatively simple and far from complex: the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources and property.
Paragraph 13 of section 92 is clear on that point:
Property and civil rights in the province.
And what is an exclusive right, Mr. Speaker? It cannot be taken away from us by somebody else, because it belongs to us, it is an absolute right and no part of it can be taken away from us unless we agree.
Now, several Canadian provinces are jealous of their property and the benefits derived therefrom.
In another connection, the federal government, as a state, is concerned with international relations, in international agreements; it enters into negotiations, into international agreements, whether it be the law of the sea, freedom of navigation, fishing rights and scientific research under the ocean.
Well, it would be necessary to give definitions and this is a political, not a legal question.
The agreement mentioned a while ago by the hon. member for Coast Capilano, the 1958 agreement of which Canada is a signatory was concerned with the law of the sea. But the 1937 decision on the Labour Convention Case before the privy council should be kept in mind. It was stated that the federal government could not sign international agreements and commit the provinces in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, since international law cannot alter the constitutional law of a country. International law, international agreements are related to the constitutional provisions and standards of a country.
If this motion were adopted, it would perhaps mark the beginning of many negotiations and agreements between the provincial governments and the federal government.
Unilateral administrative decisions should cease because they cause political strains
which are harmful to understanding and national unity. Very soon, representatives of governments at every level will have to examine our Canadian constitution and adapt it to the problems of today and these which have arisen since 1867, and find the right solutions. Let us stop putting this problem off indefinitely. This is why since the beginning of the session some members of the house have been suggesting a constitutional conference or a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which would enable us, the representatives elected by the people, to face up to our responsibilities in this respect. It is not the responsibility of the supreme court of Canada whose members are not elected by the people, nor that of the Department of Justice officers, to decide if a constitutional court should be created, but this responsibility lies with us, the people's representatives and it is for us to take a decision on all political aspects of the matter.
I hope the government will take these suggestions into consideration. The fact that this matter has been raised by the hon. member shows how important it is to establish a constitutional court as soon as possible.
If such a- court existed today, the provinces would agree, with the federal government, to submit to that court this matter of off-shore mineral rights. But we do not have such a court, and the provinces object, and quite rightly.
At the time the Prime Minister tabled the famous Fulton-Favreau formula in the House of Commons, he said that it was conceived by virtue of a genuine federalism. Now, since they are making this a matter of genuine federalism, Mr. Speaker, let them begin by giving us the organization required for the exercise of such a federalism, that is a constitutional court to which the provinces and the central government would appoint representatives, so as to settle the question put in this motion as well as the ones that will arise, as a result of this new mentality peculiar to each section of Canada. For instance, in some fields such as education, nine provinces have agreed to let the Ottawa government look after it; on the other hand, the province of Quebec has refused. There are many questions that could be solved with the help of a constitutional court. I am, therefore, happy to support the motion of the hon. member.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, all I have time for this evening is merely to state
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence that I am in full agreement with the motion before the house. There are quite a few things I should like to say but if I do so I will talk the motion out. At the appropriate time on estimates I shall deal very extensively with the remarks of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis).


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Bower) for bringing forward this motion in the house, though I cannot agree with what he wants to do. Nevertheless I welcome this opportunity for discussion.
I am in far more agreement with the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) when he puts forward the argument that this is a boundary problem, not a problem of natural resources. Traditionally the three mile limit has been observed off our coasts both internationally and domestically. The federal government has guarded and patrolled our shores for many years now.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the proper authority to give a decision in this matter. When that decision has been rendered any settlements found necessary or desirable as a consequence of such decision can be made. In this regard we have the precedent of the United States. There states fought bitterly over offshore rights and finally the court came down in favour of federal ownership. Subsequently settlements were made. '
In Canada the Supreme Court is the proper court to decide this issue. It will protect the rights of all parties. I would submit that not only is the federal government involved here as well as the ten provinces and territories but that Indians and Eskimos may have claims that should be heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the Treasury Board, for total commitments of $2,560,546,715 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 15, 20,

25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,044,262,000 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $5,204,855.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was making some comments with reference to the method of supplying stores and facilities to Canadian troops, particularly on the continent. I was making reference to the system now used in camps of the Canadian army as opposed to that being used on air force bases. The army camp method is called Maple Leaf Services, and on the air force bases it is called PX, similar to the U.S. system. I was saying that a revision of the systems in effect would amount to an increase in income for members of the Canadian army concerned. I say this, Mr. Chairman, because of my personal experience in this regard, and I am putting this forth as coming directly from the enlisted men and other ranks on Canadian bases, and also from my own knowledge gained on air force bases.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
It is worthy of note, Mr. Chairman, that the Maple Leaf Services organization is directed by a board of directors right here in the nation's capital, and is composed, I believe, of ex officers of the Canadian army. I do not know whether they are paid out of the profits of M.L.S., or whether they have expense accounts, but I do know that there is a great difference, when you compare the method of direction, from the method used on the air force bases where the commanding officer of the station controls not only the policy, but the price system and the price structure in stores under his jurisdiction. I know that he has, with the assistance of and in consultation with other people on the base, the power of disposition of the profits from the stores which, as I understand, are substantial. The services at R.C.A.F. stations, which most army camps do not have, are not a charge against the Canadian taxpayer. That is, I think, a very worth-while method of operation for those services. In the case of the army bases this is not so.
I understand that decisions of M.L.S. are made by the board of directors in the nation's capital, and that the profits made at a camp
February 21, 1966	COMMONS
in Germany, for instance, can be spent anywhere in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter. One finds as a result that the services on army bases are, by no stretch of the imagination, equal to the services that are made available to personnel in air force bases. This seems a small item possibly to bring forward at this time, but it was important to people in the camps that I had the privilege of visiting.
Another important matter I wish to raise in regard to army camps is that personnel used as employees in these stores are largely from the local area. In other words, they are nationals of the locale in which the camps are situated. In the case of the R.C.A.F. PX stores, usually a member of the serviceman's family was employed. Therefore there is a double benefit to be had from this change that, I suggest, might go to the benefit of people living on Canadian army bases on the continent.
I also learned that very few in the ranks of the officers had available certain services. This was of equal importance to wives of servicemen. For instance, I know that it was not possible for them to enjoy the convenience of, shall we say, automatic washing machines or dryers. A few machines in isolated cases are available, largely as I understand, only to senior officers. This was a complaint from the junior officer branches in both the army and the air force. I think it would be very easy, unless it has already been done, to make available the services I have suggested to people on these camps, if the proper organization steps from headquarter in Ottawa were taken.
I bring that particular phase of my intervention to a conclusion, and I simply say to the minister that in regard to stores facilities if he could see fit to bring about the changes I have suggested it would increase the pay particularly of army personnel in camps on the continent. It would result in lower prices and in a greater degree of station services than under the present high priced structure. The services operated under the Maple Leaf name are not necessary. I think the minister might have his officials look into this aspect of things on the continent.
There is one other thing that I learned in the course of the debate that I have not heard the minister thus far refer to. Because the points in regard to weaponry have been dealt with I will not waste the time of the committee. However, I say this to the minister in regard to our position in national
DEBATES	1549
Supply-National Defence defence, and in regard to our purchases of weaponry from the United States: I do not want the minister or anyone else to misconstrue my words in this regard, but we must understand where we stand in international affairs. We are beside the largest and most powerful nation in the world; we cannot deny that. Certainly if difficulties arose we would hope that our communication would be as close and as warm as ever. At the same time I must say to the minister and to the members of the committee that there is no reason that we have to be dictated to by any particular individual in the Pentagon with regard to Canadian policy.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I think back to those times when defence policy became such an important issue that the minister debated it more than he has debated it at this time. I should like to inquire from him whether he is aware of the change, because of the fact that the military is so closely related with external affairs. I would ask him if at any time he was aware of direction being given from Washington in regard to weaponry they wanted Canada to acquire. Is the minister aware that at any time any officer felt it was necessary for Canada to participate in international defence matters? Was any pressure being brought on the Canadian government at that time in regard to its foreign policy and its association with the Organization of American States? That is important to know in the light of what has occurred in the last few weeks, and in the light of an apparent acceptance of the fact not too many years back that the American authorities did bring pressure to bear on the press of this country in regard to the way a certain election campaign would be conducted.
I wonder whether any of this information was available to the minister at that time? Was it the policy of his party to use this in connection with the political position they were taking then? This seems to be an important matter in the consideration of our defence policy at the present time.
We are not here to play politics, as one of my colleagues said earlier in the evening. We are here to determine in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer whether this money is being spent wisely. At the same time, I say my previous remarks are closely relevant in this regard. Is there even one United States authority which has been dictating any policy for the Canadian government to follow? If so, surely we are big enough and have enough
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence blood left in our veins to choose the course of events which we ourselves want to follow. I hope no such considerations are inherent in the purchases which have been made in areas which were the subject of much criticism by the minister when he was seeking office during that period.
That is all I have to say. I hope that in due course the hon. gentleman will make some comment with regard to these important questions.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, a certain amount of repetition is unavoidable when taking part in the debate at this point. However, I think I can say a few things which need to be said about government policy in the field of national defence, and about the attitude of the minister.
As to the latter, I may say at once that I am sure we would all appreciate it if, while his estimates are being discussed, the hon. gentleman could get here on time. He is so taken up which his public relations and the effort which is put forward to get him a favourable press that he sits here day after day enjoying himself, trying to live up to the "know-all" image which his staff is endeavouring to foist upon the Canadian people. The minister would be well advised to take a good look at the chaos he has created and the devastating effect of the policies he has introduced upon the morale of our armed forces.
During the war years, the hon. gentleman's chief claim to fame was that long motorcycle ride from California to his home town. I would say that a trip back there would be in order. Reference has been made to his record in opposition as defence critic. This has been examined. So have the contradictions in that record-contradictions produced by the minister himself since his role changed. The minister seems to try to slough off these remarks in the same way as he has endeavoured to slough off other representations made from this side of the house. I would ask him to consider carefully the attitude he himself adopted as-supposedly-the chief opposition critic on defence matters, and to review what he had to say in respect of the policies he was denouncing at that time.
It is difficult to understand how a few senior officers can go about defence establishments making speeches prior to elections with no other purpose in mind than to impress on the rank and file as well as on others serving in the armed forces their idea of the value of the present Minister of National
(Mr. Winkler.]
Defence. Yet this is the practice which has been followed by certain officers, and should the minister object or feel he is able to deny this statement, let him review the questions on the order paper and indicate why the question put forward by my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings has not been answered. That question has direct reference to senior officers making speeches in defiance of the rules and regulations with no other purpose, as I have indicated, than to campaign on behalf of the minister. If the hon. gentleman questions this I would ask him to consider the fact that the Liberal party sent representatives to Europe with the sole purpose of visiting military bases there in order to carry out electioneering on behalf of that party-to a point where one representative of the Liberal party was obliged to take a plane back to Canada, having encountered one senior officer who correctly understood the regulations.
If the minister wishes to look into these charges he can do so. Should he fail to find answers, I will provide them. As late as yesterday I watched a television commercial advocating enlistment in the armed forces. It told Canadians how our armed forces are prepared to look after any situation which might arise on land or sea, or in the air when the defence of our country is required. It told them how the services are prepared to play an important part in keeping the peace of the world. I understand that both ethics and legislation require that advertisements should be truthful. The minister of defence should bear in mind, for example, the situation in Halifax and on the west coast where the navy cannot provide sufficient manpower for its ships. I know the minister tells us that this is because they are old. He ignores the fact that it is the shortage of trained personnel which has brought this situation about. This shortage in personnel is attributable in large measure to low morale, as has been indicated by responsible senior officers.
Morale and the whole question of confidence are much involved in an incident which took place late in December at Rankin Inlet. The date is not so far away that the minister will be unable to recall what he said on an occasion when he indicated his willingness to assist in the recovering of a downed aircraft-only to say, the next day, that this was not possible because a Hercules aircraft could not land because of field conditions. At the same time, the hon. gentleman was interested in preserving his image. In this instance
February 21, 19G6	COMMONS
he foisted the blame upon his colleague the Minister of Transport. I note the Minister of Transport is not in his place and I hope somebody on the other side is responsible enough to call his attention to what the Minister of National Defence was trying to do. He immediately placed the blame on the Department of Transport, and indicated that difficulty was being experienced in obtaining proper information from that department. Did the hon. gentleman contact his colleague, the Minister of Transport, in order to obtain priority with regard to the information required?
I would very much like to hear what the Minister of Transport might have to say about this matter. Should a national emergency arise in this part of the country in similar circumstances, where would we find ourselves? The indications are that the Canadian forces could not even find their way into that part of the country. No, we are not prepared, despite the claims the minister has made. On his own admission there are situations which we cannot handle as indicated by our failure to do anything at Rankin Inlet last December.
The question which arises is this: What does the minister propose to do to rectify these omissions? The minister made a statement about the capabilities of our air force in Europe. Here I am dealing primarily with the question of morale. We are all very proud of what our air force has accomplished. However I would like the minister to tell us, if he knows, what he intends to do about the most recent report from General de Gaulle to the effect that from April 4 foreign troops in France will come under the jurisdiction and command of the French government.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is April 1, 1969, is it not?


Malcolm MacInnis: Are we
prepared for this, and are plans being formulated with respect to our service personnel? The minister has been questioned in respect to our nuclear role. He has been asked whether the departmental people are travelling in different directions, as indicated very recently in Montreal by someone close to the minister. What is the true course of our intentions here? Are Canadian troops involved in the laying of nuclear ground mines around the perimeter of NATO defences in Europe? If so, what part are Canadian troops playing in this field? Does the minister feel the phasing out policies announced by his government
DEBATES	1551
Supply-National Defence are making any headway? I would be very interested to hear him with respect to the nuclear ground fields.
I suggest to the minister that, rather than follow the course of looking down his nose, he sit up and examine what actually is going on-rather than use the department to further his own image in the hope that he may some day lead his party.
He should stop the stupid and silly approach which is being used to publicize himself. There is absolutely no need for anyone in his department to suggest to opposition members that they ask more questions of him, with the prime purpose of giving him publicity. I notice the minister is finally sitting up and taking notice, I say it is a stupid and silly approach to have somebody from his department come to opposition members and suggest that we ask him questions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I agree with that.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am
not surprised the minister agrees with it. The minister himself initiated this type of activity. He will recall, although the Speaker of the day did not agree with it, that I attempted to put questions to him. I was ruled out of order by the Speaker; but it was the minister who took it upon himself to suggest that I should ask a question in the house so that he would have an opportunity to give a favourable reply. When I asked the question it was ruled out of order, despite the fact that the minister had suggested this course. In spite of all his preparations he did not come up with a favourable reply to my question, and when he did get an opportunity to deal with it his suggestions were most ridiculous.
Are he and his colleague still trying to get the Canadian people to pay for something which was formerly the property of the Department of National Defence but of which the crown assets disposal people have no inventory? Is he still trying to sell these abandoned war materials? This was the type of question I had and which he had every opportunity to answer in correspondence; but, adopting the policy still being advocated by people in his department, he insists that members of the opposition publicize him by getting up and following this stupid course.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware of the fact he is just three years out in respect of President de Gaulle's statement about getting rid of NATO troops in France?
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence


Malcolm MacInnis: I am
aware of the statement previously made by President de Gaulle, but there seems to be a little more determination in the one he made recently. A date line has been set of April 4 with respect to the NATO forces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What year?


Malcolm MacInnis: This year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member did not read the paper.


Malcolm MacInnis: Probably I read a different paper. In any case General de Gaulle has indicated his intention of taking over service personnel of foreign countries that remain in France after April 4.


Mr. Walker:: But what year?


Malcolm MacInnis: 1969 is the answer, and I thank the hon. member very much. With respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West, when that same problem came up on a previous occasion the Department of National Defence had no answer for it. In many respects the policies followed by the government are most ridiculous.
On the question of morale I realize that the matter I am going to mention comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It concerns our enlisted men and women and their pensions, and in the case of pensions I feel the Minister of National Defence should take it upon himself to make representations on behalf of service personnel and their families.
The Auditor General's report has indicated that in some cases pensions for service personnel were dated back to the age of nine years. I contrast that with the case of Sergeant Hamood, a man from my own town, who was serving in Europe. I bring it to the minister's attention because I think it is his responsibility to intercede with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. This sergeant was a married man, serving in Europe and living off the base. Each and every day he took part in a car pool in order to arrive for duty at nine o'clock in the morning. On the particular morning I am referring to he was travelling with his own commanding officer. There was an accident and this young Sergeant Hamood was taken to hospital. There they had to cut his uniform off, and there he died. But the Minister of Veterans Affairs can see no reason why his survivors should get a pension,
[Mr. Herridge.l
despite the fact that the man was killed on his way to work, was in uniform, and was travelling with his own commanding officer.
It is the minister's responsibility to look after the troops. This man's wife and children are denied a pension because, according to the department's interpretation, he was not on duty at the time he was killed. It is something which has a direct effect on the morale of our troops and I believe the minister should take the matter up with his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and have something done about it.
As the various items of the estimates come up I have every intention of saying more with respect to these matters. Once again I plead with the minister to intervene on behalf of the sergeant's family I have mentioned.


Mr. Grills:: Mr. Chairman, the reason I am taking part in this debate at this time is due to the fact that one of the largest and finest air stations in Canada is in my riding. I refer of course to Trenton air station, the home base of Transport Command, as well as No. 6 repair depot.
I have more than a casual interest in this debate because I represent many of the personnel at this air station and am associated with them in the business and social life of our community. I have met some of the finest calibre of citizens who have intended fulfilling their carreers in the air force.
So far as the minister is concerned, as an individual outside his office I have found him a likeable person. At one time it was said that he somewhat resembled the Leader of the Opposition, but I am afraid that so far as ability is concerned there is no resemblance. During my acquaintance and experience with armed service personnel I have never witnessed morale so low within the services. In my opinion nothing in the history of the Canadian armed forces has shaken the individual serviceman's morale more than the mismanagement of integration.
Why is morale so low within all services and throughout all ranks? The answer lies in the methods used to release personnel ahead of their normal retiring dates. The total disregard of the individual and the callous and ruthless method of chopping away careers has alarmed everyone.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Airmen and officers with long and honourable service were suddenly released. For many months all ranks knew that releases would be made because the minister made frequent
February 21, 1966

press reports and announcements of the sweeping reductions to be made. No official word was given to the individuals; they had to sit and wait until the fateful letter arrived giving them three months to clear out, and in some cases less. Some received their letters while serving overseas. The individuals chosen had no chance to plan ahead or to begin the organization necessary to obtain employment. Servicemen who wear the uniform often live for years in isolated bases, often in public housing. They are divorced from the normal way of life and have a real problem in readjusting.
One of the basic reasons for the low morale today is the insecurity caused by an uncertain future. The serviceman never knows when he may receive a "you are through" letter. Servicemen knew that many of the early retirements were unnecessary and that normal retirements within three years would have reduced the forces by the amount claimed necessary by the Minister of National Defence. They also knew that the savings claimed by the department were just for press releases. They believe that the personnel selections were made by the officers of the minister and not by the personnel staff of the services. It is my opinion that the average military person, whom I have come into contact with, feels no real pride in belonging to the military forces of Canada. The average serviceman feels he has lost the respect of his fellow Canadians, and believes they have no interest in his well-being.
The huge amount of propaganda put out by the Department of National Defence prior to integration has convinced the serviceman that he is nothing but a football to be kicked about by Liberal politicians. Today servicemen badly need a new minister to trumpet their worth and to give them pride in serving their country.
I have noticed that in recent years the servicemen's votes have been predominantly Liberal. After the treatment they have received from this minister they now wonder why they voted this way. I agree that they are privileged to vote as they wish, but I noted some difference in the last election and look forward to seeing a further change in the next, whenever that may be.
In my opinion, in the minister's remarks at the outset of this debate he overlooked the most important factor in any institution: the personnel, the human factor.
To prove some of my statements, Mr. Chairman, let me say that during the recent 23033-99J
Supply-National Defence election campaign, when the minister was good enough to come to speak in Trenton on behalf of my friend the Liberal candidate, the attitude of the servicemen to the minister was clearly shown by the heckling he received from the members of the armed forces. I am sure that night will linger in his memory for some time. Some of the servicemen had to be removed by service police.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He says that is not true.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not true.


Lee Elgy Grills: Will the minister come down to Trenton and tell me that it is not true? I could say a little more about this if he likes. I have knowledge from reliable sources that the minister did not intend to come to Trenton. About ten days prior to his coming #to Trenton I had the privilege of speaking in the same hall in which he spoke and I am sure that he was drafted to come down in an attempt to save the situation which was deteriorating fast for the Liberal candidate. He came on short notice and made the best he could of the situation.
Servicemen are now so discouraged that they are writing letters to members of parliament-I have some on my desk today-asking how to get out of the services. They are completely discouraged. On November 26th-or it may be the 28th; I would have to check the date-a new policy was brought in whereby servicemen must wait six months before they can be released. If these men are happy in the service and are not getting out in great numbers, will the minister tell us why that policy was brought in? Many servicemen are asking to get out at this time, so many that it has become alarming.
Mr. Chairman, I could say a great deal more about this situation but I do not think I should take up any more time of the committee or embarrass the minister further. However, it is high time he came down from his ivory tower and changed his arrogant attitude towards service personnel in this country, or resign in favour of someone who does appreciate their worth in the service of Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I want to take a little time of the committee to discuss some aspects of the very important questions of national defence covered by the estimates now before us. May I preface my
1554	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence remarks by saying I think it is unfortunate for Canada that there has been such a long time during which parliament has not had an opportunity of examining defence matters in parliament as a whole. You will recall that there were no discussions or opportunities for discussions on the defence estimates during the last session of the last parliament and that the estimates for the year before that were passed very quickly under the guillotine. The government should recognize that in a democratic society it is responsible to the people and is a servant of the people, and that parliament as a whole is the representative of the people. The government should hold itself accountable to parliament and to the people for all its actions.
The time honoured way of doing that is to present the estimates of each department of government to parliament every year for examination. As a matter of fact, it is necessary for parliament to meet at least once a year. Theoretically we could have a session of parliament during which no legislation was passed, with only the estimates being considered. I think that is only right because a consideration of the estimates and the voting of supply in my judgment should always be at the top of the list of priorities.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
During the last session of parliament the government seemed to be preoccupied with decorating its political window with tinsel, rather than seeing to what was in the shop. During all the months of last winter and spring until the end of June, the estimates were not discussed. I do not believe that is the right way of conducting the affairs of parliament in a democratic country. For the reasons I have stated the defence estimates, in common with many others, have not been examined by parliament for a long time. The last major debate we had on defence was in 1964, almost two years ago. That was the debate on the bill which was passed to amend the National Defence Act to allow the reorganization of the Department of National Defence. But since parliament transferred this additional power to the government, the government has not held itself accountable to parliament for its actions, nor has it reported on the results of those actions until now, when we are considering estimates which are already eleven-twelfths spent.
Mr. Chairman, there are many, many questions in the minds of the Canadian people as far as defence matters are concerned. Perhaps chief among them is the question of

DEBATES	February 21. 1966
integration. The Canadian people want to know what will be the result of the program of integration being carried on. The services themselves want to know exactly what the program contemplated is going to be, how far this business of integration is going and what it means. The question of integration has been put forward as a convenient vehicle for propaganda and it has been said it will be a great means of saving money and preventing waste.
I am all for efficiency, the prevention of waste and the elimination of duplication or triplication wherever it exists. But I feel there are disadvantages in the program of integration, depending on its extent. These disadvantages have never been admitted. The benefits claimed for it have never been documented or substantiated, except that it has been said time and again that integration will save Canadian taxpayers roughly $100 million. But the expense of defence remains about the same. It should be noted that if $100 million is being saved by integration there is another $50 million or so saved in defence expenditure, by reason of the fact that defence construction has been greatly reduced over the last three years.
As I understand it, for the last three years the expenditure in connection with defence construction has been roughly a third of the figure for a good many years before that. This is for the construction of buildings having to do with defence plant. For the last couple of years for which I have figures, the expenditure was just over $25 million for this item; for a number of years prior to that it was on the average at least $75 million a year and one year it went up to over $150 million. So there is this element that is no longer a charge on the public. I should like the minister to report as to the actual progress being made toward spending a larger percentage of our total expenditure on equipment and a lesser amount, relatively, on the housekeeping side of national defence.
Up till now, Mr. Chairman, we have been lacking factual information on the effects of integration and on what we are getting for the defence dollar as of 1965 or 1966. Then, too, there has been no significance given to the intangible things which have to do with integration. The White Paper which was produced a couple of years ago mentioned integration, and I shall quote briefly from it:
Following the most careful and thoughful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration
February 21. 196G	COMMONS
of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff and a single defence staff. This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
The query in the minds of Canadian people, and I think in the minds of the men serving in the forces is, what are the additional steps? How far are these steps going? What is meant by a "unified defence force for Canada"? If it means co-ordination of all three services at every possible level into a well balanced fighting force, with the elimination of duplication in our administrative commands, that is fine with me and I think it is fine with most Canadians.
However, Mr. Chairman, if it means doing away with tradition, with the three separate services and the many other things that create morale and esprit de corps, I have very grave doubts about it. The White Paper no doubt was aware of these intangible elements with regard to integration but they were given short shrift in the White Paper. It says:
Two objections are given as reasons why integration should not be undertaken. First, that morale or "esprit de corps" is weakened, and second, that competition is diminished. Neither of these objections will stand against careful scrutiny.
But I believe the proof of the pudding is in the eating and we can gain by experience in this matter. As has been said by various other members of the committee, morale in our defence forces is low. There is a great wastage of skilled personnel from all three services and the explanation that this is due only to competition from civilian occupations is not the full answer, because Canada has been equally prosperous on previous occasions and the existence of this type of competition has not previously, to this extent at least, caused the low morale that exists in the services.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, all Canada is not prosperous. The Atlantic provinces are not prosperous; they still have a high unemployment rate. This is a part of the country with a long and honourable tradition of service in the armed forces. I am sure there are enough unemployed people in the Atlantic provinces alone to fill the gap in the armed forces, if this career was still attractive to them.
We have the situation where only a short while ago pilots, highly skilled and highly trained men, were prematurely discharged from the R.C.A.F. because it was said that we had a surplus of aircrew. It should be
DEBATES	1555
Supply-National Defence remembered that training aircrew to operational level is an extremely expensive procedure. It costs many, many thousands of dollars to train one pilot. Now we are understaffed as far as aircrew and technicians in all three services are concerned. Many of our armed units are under strength. We have the situation where some of the ships in the navy are not operational because of the lack of crew. I believe the minister said that the remaining destroyer escorts carrying helicopters are more effective than were all the destroyer escorts which we had in operation without helicopters.
This would be true, Mr. Chairman, if you gauged the situation against conditions of a quarter of a century ago. No doubt one of our destroyer escorts of today with a helicopter is infinitely more effective than were our destroyers a quarter of a century ago. But the world is not standing still. As capability in defence matters increases, so does the problem increase and the responsibilities in respect thereof. The problem of anti-submarine warfare is greatly increased.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
In the past, submarines were short range attack weapons. They could not attack shipping, which was their only target, without exposing themselves to counterattack. They had to approach very close to a ship in order to attack it, and thus made themselves vulnerable targets.
In this day and age we are not talking about the submarines of world war II; we are talking about a highly sophisticated, nuclear powered, nuclear armed strategic weapon, the role of which is not to attack shipping necessarily but to stand offshore, hidden in the sea somewhere and, while submerged, launch missiles at centres of production or population. This tremendously increases the problem of anti-submarine warfare. I feel it is certainly very unsafe to assume that any potential enemy that we may have will be as unfortunate in its minister of national defence as we are. We can assume therefore that any potential enemy is making advances in the techniques of waging war.
What we need, Mr. Chairman, are some clear statements, simple statements, that are not in any way ambiguous with regard to our defence situation, not only with regard to integration but other important matters. For example there is the question of nuclear arms. Where do we stand on this issue? The White Paper has this to say:
The question of nuclear weapons for the Canadian armed forces is subordinate to that of
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence Canada's political responsibility as a member of a nuclear-armed alliance. NATO is a nuclear-armed defensive alliance, which dare not be otherwise as long as it is confronted by a nuclear-armed potential opponent. NATO may become less dependent upon nuclear weapons, but the alliance must continue to possess nuclear weapons in the absence of controlled disarmament and as long as hostile forces have them. Its policies must envisage that in certain circumstances such weapons would be used against aggression. A share in the responsibility for these policies is a necessary concomitant of Canada's membership in NATO. One cannot be a member of a military alliance and at the same time avoid some share of responsibility for its strategic policies.
Having accepted the responsibility for membership in a nuclear-armed alliance, the question of nuclear weapons for the Canadian armed forces is a subordinate issue. It depends on how we can most effectively contribute to collective strength.
I agree with that statement, but our contribution to NATO defence has the capability of being nuclear armed, still is nuclear armed and will remain nuclear armed so far as we can see into the future. However, on February 18, the Prime Minister in reply to a question had this to say, as reported on page 1440 of Hansard:


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Prime Minister which will require a very short answer. Is the Prime Minister going to fulfil his promise to negotiate Canada out of its nuclear role?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As my friend the Minister of National Defence indicated last night-it was too bad my hon. friend was not listening carefully-we are at present doing just that.
On the one hand, we are negotiating ourselves out of our commitment so far as nuclear arms are concerned, and on the other hand we are retaining equipment to carry nuclear arms, which equipment is armed with nuclear arms. The whole situation is very confusing. These statements, which appear on the face of them anyway to be completely contradictory, do not do anything to remove the confusion in the minds of Canadians. If this whole collection of statements can be rationalized a rationalization should be made so that we, as Canadians, know where we are in this matter.
The White Paper, to which I should like to refer once more, has this to say on page 22 with regard to the air force:
During the decade, we propose to give increasing emphasis to the provision of aircraft for direct support of our ground forces. We anticipate that a high performance aircraft will be available to provide sufficient flexibility for any task we might undertake from ground attack to air surveillance. These versatile tactical aircraft will possess adequate radius of action to allow rapid deployment from Canada to bases overseas. This will permit squadrons to be stationed in Canada or Europe as required.


Now, what is this long range tactical aircraft? Is this the one to which we have already committed ourselves? Is this the CF-5 they are talking about? We have already learned that this aircraft, although it was purchased as a close support aircraft, is very limited in its radius of action. I do not know what the radius of action is, but various figures have been quoted, all of them under 200 nautical miles. I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that that aircraft lives up to the picture that was painted for this future aircraft in the White Paper, if this is the one they are talking about. If it is not the one that is meant, the minister should tell us when it is planned to acquire the aircraft spoken of in the White Paper.
I now turn, Mr. Chairman, briefly to one more aspect of defence. This is an aspect which is not of direct concern to the professional soldier, but it should be of great concern to the Department of National Defence, to the minister and all members of the government, in common with the members of any government. It has to do with the effect of defence expenditures on the economy of various areas of the country. The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has recently made a study with regard to the effect of defence expenditures in the Atlantic provinces. Those provinces are especially vulnerable from an economic point of view to any changes contemplated so far as defence policy is concerned. The introduction to this study quotes from a study recently prepared for the Parliamentary Committee on Defence. It quotes this statement:
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Defence spending can, to cite a few of its possibilities, provide an important stimulus to the level of business generally, or in a particular geographic region; reduce unemployment; maintain or advance technical competence; lead to important new inventions and improvements in the non-defence area; stimulate foreign trade; and increase capital investment.
This has been a vital side effect of defence expenditures in recent years. A great deal of the research done in the United States for defence purposes and space projects has had a very important technological fall-out, as it is expressed, as far as civilian production and invention is concerned. In this day and age where only a wealthy country can undertake the design, development and production of highly sophisticated and costly armaments there is a widening gap between such a country and its smaller, less developed neighbours. Canada has an important problem to face in this very field.
February 21, 1966

No doubt the development of a wide range of very sophisticated military aircraft in the United States, to cite one example, puts the aircraft industry in that country into a position of great advantage over its competitors in other countries, whose aircraft industry does not have large defence contracts to feed on, which enable it to develop new processes techniques and advances.
Between 1951 and 1956 expenditures on national defence in Canada rose from $1,100 million to a high of $1,800 million. Since then defence spending has declined somewhat, to an average of about $1,600 million for the first five years of the current decade. A great deal of this expenditure has been for equipment, and in some industries these contracts do have a tremendously important impact.
In 1960 defence expenditure in certain industries was as follows: Defence contracts accounted for 89 per cent of the production of the aircraft industry; in the electronics industry 41 per cent of the production depended on defence contracts; twenty-five per cent of the ammunition and explosives produced went to defence contracts, which also accounted for 21 per cent of the shipbuilding industry and 19 per cent of the instruments industry.
So that you have a situation in which industries are very vulnerable to fluctuations in defence policy and defence spending. In the Atlantic provinces you have a situation where the economy is even more sensitive to and dependent upon defence expenditures than is generally true for the rest of the country.
I should like to quote one further extract from this study, which is to be found at page 9:
The importance of defence to the regional economy is far greater than has been traditionally supposed. More people are employed in the defence industry than in any of Atlantic Canada's primary industries or the construction industry. Employing 41,164 civilian and military personnel, defence activities ranked fifth in total employment behind services, trade, manufacturing and transportation and utilities. In 1961 Atlantic defence employment almost exceeded the employment figure for forestry and fishing combined.
You will realize, Mr. Chairman, that we in the Atlantic provinces are extremely conscious of the impact of defence expenditures and defence policy. We hope that the minister will achieve his objective of applying a larger percentage of the expenditures on national defence to the re-equipping of our forces, and we in the Atlantic provinces hope that further steps will be taken to stimulate the supplying of defence requirements from our
Supply-National Defence area of the country, so that unemployment can be reduced at the same time as the defensive posture of our country is improved.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to intervene in this debate because I was satisfied that most of the points one could bring to the attention of the committee at this time had been raised quite adequately by various members of the opposition. I am a newcomer here but it seems to me that the rules of politeness have their place in the house just like anywhere else. Usually, politeness requires one to listen when another speaks.
Unfortunately, my experience over the past three days has been quite to the contrary.
If it is the duty of members of the opposition to express their doubts and fears as representatives of their respective constituents, it seems to me that consideration of the estimates should be just as important a debate as any other and should be taken just as seriously.
I feel that the last three days have proved the contrary beyond any doubt. The members on the other side of the house may wonder why the debate lasts so long. They need not worry, we are only starting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Chairman, we will prove, once and for all, that the opposition has an essential role to play. We represent the majority of Canadian voters. Consequently, the opposition's point of view must be taken into consideration by the government, and in particular by this minister. We had a good example when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) listened, spoke and took notes.
What has happened since this debate started? We are getting absolutely nowhere. I feel this is quite irregular and I ask the minister to take part in the debate. As long as he does not, he has a good chance of staying where he is now.
Let us see what happened. Speeches have been made in the last few days: he does not listen. Questions are asked: he makes no attempt to answer. Definite charges are laid: no reaction. Concrete suggestions are made: no interest is shown. Doubts are expressed: no action is taken. He is attacked: he smiles. He shows no intention of replying in an intelligent manner; if he intends to reply, let him do so without delay. The efficiency of weapons is being questioned: he shrugs his
1558	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence shoulders. Armed forces morale is discussed: He is seen yawning. He gives the impression of downright arrogance, of total disinterest in any opinion not his own.
Simulators are discussed: no answer. The CF-5 was questionned:	still no answer.
Inadequacies in the Navy are discussed: still no concern.
These are the only remarks I had in mind. For the benefit of the house and the effectiveness of our work, I ask the minister who is the perfect gentleman to live according to his standards and to take part in the discussion. Otherwise, it can go on for a long time.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr, Nesbiil:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks and suggestions to make to the Minister of National Defence, which might also be helpful to the Associate Minister. In the last day or so we have heard a great many comments in the house concerning morale in the armed forces. I think most members of the house who have looked into the matter, whether they agree to admit it or not, find that morale in the armed forces is indeed very bad. We have heard the reasons for this a number of times. They include uncertainty in the minds of those who would consider the forces as a career. A combination of events has helped to bedevil the minister and his department at this time. While on the one hand the economy of the country is booming and there is a shortage of labour, on the other new defence policies are being brought in, regardless of their merit, which have caused great apprehension and uncertainty in the minds of the personnel of the armed forces.
I have talked to many people of the armed services whom I have met in the last year or so, and who have said to me, "Well, our rates of pay are not that good. We don't know whether we are going to be kept on. We are getting older. We might be perhaps 30, or 32 years of age. It may be difficult to get a job. It might be better to leave now, when we know we can get a job, and have some kind of future, than wait in the armed forces and find ourselves suddenly retired, or sacked, with no particular future." They feel that it is better to leave of their own choosing when they can get a better position and better salary in industry than to wait until they are compulsorily retired, or are just let out.
The minister and his department are in an unfortunate position. There is a combination

DEBATES	February 21, 1966
of high demand in industry generally for skilled and semi-skilled labour, while at the same time the armed forces have not caught up with pay scales. I know the minister told us the other night that bonuses are to be paid and that the government is going to raise pay scales. Whether these measures prove sufficient incentive under the circumstances remains to be seen.
As another little item may I mention that you always find lags in all government departments, of all varieties and at all levels. Regulations made for previous occasions hang on and on, while circumstances in the country change and complicate matters. As a matter of fact I have had correspondence with the Associated Minister of National Defence with regard to a particular case which illustrates the point I refer to.
The case at issue which illustrates one of these troublesome regulations has to do with a man who has been in the air force for two full terms of five years, and who served two years of his third five year term. In all he has had a total of 12 years service. In common with others, he had a wife and children to maintain, and decided to retire. He knew when he retired, and accepted the fact, that he would give up his rehabilitation pay, and he hoped that after 12 years good service to his country-perhaps the department might consider moving his wife and family back to his home city. But, oh no, they would not do that, they would not consider doing that.
This sort of thing gets around. If the minister and his department hope to get new recruits, regulations of this type will have to be rejected. I have heard this sort of story before. In smaller cities it is the subject of discussion. People will say that when Mr. so and so left, after 12 years, the services would not even move his wife and children home.
No other branch of the civil service, to my knowledge, functions like this. At one time there may have been a good reason for the regulation, but surely there cannot be a good reason now. There are many regulations like that. If the minister hopes to get new recruits into the armed services, then he had better look at these regulations to try to get rid of them. They do not help morale in the armed services, nor do they encourage recruiting when there is such a need for it.
I do not wish to take any longer on this subject, or to repeat what others have said. But I do think it is important that we get people back into the armed services. If they are given a greater sense of security for the future and some hope for advancement, apart
February 21, 1966

from raising pay scales and giving bonuses, this would be well worth while. A great deal can be done in this regard by an assurance from and somewhat more concrete acts, by this minister.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall that item carry?


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, my form of address tonight is more in the way of questions than expounding policy for our services.
I have always been curious why the R.C.A.F. took on a tactical role. I think if you read your service journals and your staff college journals you will find that that is murder, unless you have the manpower and machines to follow it up-unless we are going to start the war, and I do not think we are.
Let no one tell me that if any enemy is going to start a war he will not know how many machines there are, where all the men are on leave, and so on. If we are going to spend money, then let us spend our money on things we can do best.
As far as aircraft are concerned, I could not express an honest opinion, because first of all it was decided that they were to have weapons with nuclear warheads. Then that policy was modified, and modified, and we have not been apprised.
I want to bring up another point. Day after day on radio and television we are hearing about trained skilled men, and that we need these skilled men. That is right. I have been to some apprenticeship classes. I see no reason why we do not take these boys into the forces, give them training, and let them go out to industry. They are always in the reserve if we need them. We can always call them back, and they will be better technicians. Here we are running expensive and beautifully equipped establishments, and we are not making use of them. To me that is rather silly.
If you take a boy with a grade 10 education, keep him in the forces for two or three years, and on his release allow him to go to industry, he is still of value to the armed forces because he will be in the armed forces reserve. Moreover, that boy will become a better man for his training, because nothing is worse than making work. A skilled man hates to sit around to make a job for himself.
I suggest that we look into this, and perhaps this department and other departments can get together. That way we shall train skilled men. The country has the training facilities, and could build up a reserve.
Supply-National Defence
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, the remarks I have tonight will be very brief. Many of the subjects, including procurement of defence vehicles, have been mentioned by many members this evening. I wish to enter this debate because I have had some personal contact with members of the armed forces. My first remarks must be directed to the minister who, outside the House of Commons, is a very amiable person-but inside the House of Commons and in his department he has become almost a dictator. I would say to him that he reminds one of a young boy who is trying to impress the Canadian people, with the help of the press, that he has grown up.
In this debate the minister is trying to convince the Canadian people that everything he is doing is for their welfare. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is not true. It is a camouflage, it is a myth. The minister has only one thing in his mind, and that is to become leader of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I am very happy to know that he has three people backing him up on the other side. This is the minister's program. He has no thought for the armed services. He has no thought for the standard of our defence policy.
In the past I am sure all Canadians have been very proud of our defence policy, a policy designed by such people as Mr. Pearkes and my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre. This was the policy which, I am sure, all Canadians wanted to see-one which they thought of as being a true Canadian policy.
I should like to say a word or two. now, about the mood of the services today. In the past perhaps many governments have shown a lack of enthusiasm about defence problems. This reflects the feelings of a nation which has a natural distaste for war. However, the fact that we have been living on the edge of war must be faced. We have obligations to our allies. To allocate vast sums of money to defence is not enough; the money must be well spent.
The most important thing is that there should be a high state of morale in our armed services. The services must have confidence in the ultimate authority, that is, the government. If loyalty is to be expected from the services, this essential attribute must be
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence reciprocated by their supreme authority. This, so the serviceman feels, is not the case today. The government is handicapped by a lack of advice from those with recent military qualifications. As evidence of this, it is enough to read through the minutes of the parliamentary committee on defence. The present Minister of National Defence has never heard a gun fired in anger, shrewd and ruthless though he may be.
Total integration or unification of the armed forces, long a Liberal policy, after being dabbled with half-heartedly for years was implemented precipitously in 1963. The confusion and muddle behind the scenes has been and remains devastating. Very little has become public. Morale in the navy was poor at the time. Morale in all three services is the worst in years. New weapons may have been acquired to advantage but the loss of skilled personnel at all levels, not so much by forced attrition as by voluntary resignations and refusals to re-engage, is to be deplored. It must be remarked that forced attrition was carried out with such unnecessary abruptness as to cause many individual injustices, this in turn reacting on the morale of those remaining.
It should not be forgotten that the present minister has brought about many real reforms in the selection of weapons and the reduction of wasted time in redundant and unproductive staffs and excessive ceremonial. He has also ensured a measure of support to the Liberal regime by a generous pay increase last spring for all ranks. After some criticism in Halifax he bought a proportion of the naval vote by granting all sea-going personnel an allowance of $15 a month. The entitlement may be deserved but the hon. gentleman's opportunism is highly questionable. Political comment should follow such action.
One example of the glaring weakness of the unification plan is that it involves three separate professions operating in three separate elements, land, sea and air. True, they overlap in places but common sense finds those answers. As a comparison, it would be more practical to integrate doctors, veterinary surgeons, dentists and pharmacists. However, the result would benefit neither the public nor the standards of those professions. On the other hand, integration of the unarmed services where they are, in common purpose, a profession in themselves does offer certain advantages. Again, common sense provides the key. The dental corps has always looked after the three services.


In the beginning there was much publicity to the effect that the present Minister of National Defence had made Canada the first nation to overcome the entrenched interests of the services in bringing about unification. This was, of course, nonsense. Several countries had looked into this proposition carefully and rejected it as being impracticable. For the last few months there has been a steady backtracking from this policy in the press without comment from any of the political parties. The minister is in a weak position but the public is not yet aware of this.
In our party's platform, we have advocated close co-ordination of the armed forces, together with a rationalisation of administration, our defence policy and our commitments under it. In order to do this we might set up a royal commission composed of the best brains in the country-including for example, Mr. Donald Gordon, General Guy Simonds, Senator McCutcheon and my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre. Leaving policy and administration as well as the re-organization of so large a commitment to one insufficiently experienced man, the present Minister of National Defence, has proved a profound and costly mistake.
A modernization of the whole system of personnel administration is similarly desirable. Let us take a new look at careers and individual opportunity-a strong requirement in this technical and electronic age. Better chances must be provided for the enlisted man with the energy, ambition and ability to achieve greater responsibilities. The wider selection would be bound to ensure for the future higher standards of leadership and administration as well as to extend further the democratic principles that the enlisted man is there to defend.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
We must have painstaking studies to find the means to lessen the cynical mood among those serving the nation. Defence must be a profession of dedication inspired by a love of this country where now, more than ever, selfish opportunism grows. Any loyalty that is primarily to the individual service or branch rather than the nation weakens the purpose. Only good federal government can build these qualities.
There should be a greater national identity for the Canadian armed forces. The commission already suggested should, in the course of such a study, question members of the forces, active and retired, as to the means
February 21, 1966

and their wants. This should mean as much to the nation as to the serviceman.
An important area of neglect covers fringe benefits, not to soften the hardiness essential in a fighting man, but those such as other nations provide in housing conditions, medical benefits for dependents, and re-employment on termination of service.
Steps should be taken to ensure the lessening of the major and minor anxieties of those overseas, concerning their dependents. Any serviceman deserves this. Neither should separation cause financial penalties. Such items, and others, point to a need for improved machinery so that the lower ranks can voice their dissatisfactions, outside those of military efficiency, without being penalized as troublemakers. It must be remembered they are the only large group of individuals who lack all means of collective representation in our modern society.	*
Canadian servicemen have always welcomed their Minister of National Defence overseas or in Canada. We were always proud whenever our minister would visit us. As Canadians we hoped and trusted that all would be well. But today, when visiting in the Trenton area and many other parts of Canada, our minister is not hailed as the Minister of National Defence; he is named "Mr. Termite" of National Defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, on assuming the portfolio of Minister of National Defence it was tempting indeed, to follow the easy route; to be a rubber stamp minister, going along unquestioningly with the tired old pattern of defence in this country.
This would have meant pouring more of the taxpayers' money into purchasing additional follow-on nuclear bombers; to continue to play the numbers game by pouring countless dollars into creaking 20 year old world war II ships that contributed no real operational capability to western defence and, worse still, could contribute little or nothing if any sort of war broke out; to permit the overwhelming proportion of the Canadian army to be equipped only to training scales; to continue with inadequate sea and air transport; and to continue with inadequate modern equipment particularly for tactical mobility.
The opposition says that we have a lot of second hand questionable equipment in our forces. I would remind hon. members I did not buy the nuclear bombing Starfighters; I inherited them. I did not buy the atomic

Supply-National Defence Honest John rockets; I inherited them. I did not buy the famous Bomarc missiles; I inherited them. I did not buy the Voodoo anti-bomber interceptors; I inherited them. In fact, I inherited the whole conglomerative mess that had built up through years of apathy through years of ministerial "rubber stamping"; through years of lip service to civilian control; through years of failure to analyse what a country like Canada really needs in the field of defence-needs based on the realities of today and the probabilities of tomorrow, and not just the traditions of the past.	.
What was the policy of three years ago? The strike role had been adopted for the air division in Europe. Hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent on equipment and training, but there were no atomic weapons available and there were no plans to rectify the situation.
The navy was sailing a fleet which included a large number of obsolete second world war frigates. Commodore Plomer described them pretty well in his magazine article. They were costly to operate and to refit, but there were no plans to take them out of service. The capability of the air transport fleet to lift fighting units was hopelessly inadequate. The C-119's, the logistic workhorse of the time, were virtually worn out and maintenance costs were skyrocketing. There were no plans to do anything about it.
The brigade group in Europe had no armoured personnel carriers to give protection to the infantry. It was one of the best brigade groups in Europe-probably the best. Yet it was one of the only ones in the front line without armoured personnel protection. The brigade had to go on exercises in open trucks and, worse still, would have had to go into battle in that manner in the event an emergency developed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Because of delays and procrastination the Bobcat could not have been brought into service in time to be a realistic solution. The balance of the Canadian Army in Canada, three quarters of the whole army, was not equipped for war. It had training scales only.
Hon. gentlemen might be interested to know that for years mortar batteries in Canada were limited in their regular training because of ammunition restrictions. The committee might also be interested to know that winter clothing was scaled for issue only to one
1562	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence company group per battalion, so that to send a battalion on winter training it had to borrow from other units.
The government of that time had no plans to change this shortsighted policy. And in the face of all this, hon. gentlemen opposite have the temerity to suggest that all that was needed in 1963 was another rubber stamp minister. I should hope not. The associate minister and I made decisions. We sought and obtained government approval for a sensible "new guard" defence policy for Canada, one which reflects the real world of today and tomorrow. And then we set out to implement the policy.
The new philosophy, put simply, is that Canada can make its greatest contribution to collective defence and world order by developing well equipped flexible, conventional forces, and providing the strategic mobility to move them quickly to meet emergencies anywhere in the world.


Erik Nielsen: That Bill Lee is quite a writer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That Bill Lee is quite a writer, and I can tell hon. gentlemen opposite they would do better to get some of their advice from him than some of the people they take it from. This new philosophy is one of emphasis and changing role. It does not preclude the fulfilment of those obligations previously undertaken and the utilization of the equipment purchased at staggering costs by the former government for those tasks. It does mean a shifting emphasis and a greatly increased capacity in an area where a Canadian contribution is a real addition.
I would like now to deal with some of the specific points included in the buckshot attack from the opposition benches.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It got home, didn't it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Pea shooter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I guess pea shooter would be more appropriate, and popgun would be even better.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
My statement that the R.C.N. anti-submarine capability is now the greatest in peacetime history was challenged. The challenge was based on the suggestion that because the fleet is smaller it is less effective and that the substitution of four destroyer escort helicopters-DDH's-and two support ships for eight general purpose frigates in the building program would be a further loss.

DEBATES	February 21, 1966
It is simply not in accordance with the facts to suggest that it seriously degrades our operational ASW capability to pay off or lay up a number of over age world war II ships. The new DDH's and converted destroyer escorts have an ASW capability several times greater than the world war II ships. New techniques recently developed have greatly enhanced the anti-submarine surveillance capability. I am not able to give details to this committee but I will be happy to brief the Standing Committee on Defence. Information will be made available which will convince anyone who can be convinced by facts that my claim in respect to the navy's anti-submarine capability is incontrovertible.
The fact that the four DDH's in the shipbuilding program will carry heavy helicopters which the general purpose frigates were not designed to carry, will increase their antisubmarine capability greatly. The four DDH's, together with the two support ships will provide the fleet with several times the on-station ASW capability that the eight general purpose frigates would have provided, and at considerably less cost. Both in absolute terms, then, and on the basis of cost-effectiveness the paying off of world war II frigates and the substitution of the four DDH's and two support ships for eight frigates were good decisions.
The question of minesweepers was raised by the senior member for Halifax. This subject was dealt with by the former associate minister on January 8, 1964 when he said that studies of our stragegic plans indicate that minesweeping is not considered to be a high priority task in relation to antisubmarine warfare. This same assessment still prevails. The probability of a conflict in which a potential enemy would mine Canadian coastal waters is extremely remote. Certainly a potential enemy would have to weigh the consequences of any such overt action and it seems very unlikely that he would risk all-out war through such an act.
Studies are continuing however in respect of the relative priority of minesweeping and also keeping abreast of technological developments in this area. New and more modern mines have been developed which would require extensive modifications of our existing minesweepers if they were to be successful at all in carrying out these tasks. In addition, new methods of sweeping are being developed.
At this time, minesweeping continues to be a very low priority operation. Consequently
February 21, 1966	COMMONS
we have decided to declare four of our oldest minesweepers surplus, and the six remaining ships have been put in a state of preservation until disposition studies have been completed.
The hon. member for Calgary North inferred that we were wild-eyed innovators to substitute gas turbine engines for steam engines in the four DDH's in the shipbuilding program. He must have been talking to an ancient mariner. Gas turbines have built up a reputation for reliability in aircraft application which is not surpassed by any other form of propulsion in the world. Canadians trust their lives to these engines every day.
Reliability is not an accident. It is the result of extensive testing and development. This work can only be financed on the logical expectation of an engine builder that large numbers of engines will be sold. This expectation leads to production line techniques and extremely high levels ef quality control. The quantities of engines manufactured leads to lower costs for a higher quality of end product.
The navies of the world are now starting to capitalize on all the work that has gone into the testing and development of these engines. The Royal Navy started in this field in 1947. Since that time they have been followed by the West German, the Danish, the Italian and the Russian navies. In the United States, the coast guard has been the pioneering service. So far a total of 57 warships are built, or in the course of construction, and in addition a 48-ship building program is in progress for the U.S. coast guard.
All of the earlier propulsion plants combined gas turbines with some other form of prime mover, for example, steam or diesel. However, studies of the operations of these ships have shown that the operators prefer to use the gas turbine plant rather than another prime mover in the ship.
As a result, the tendency is toward the use of all gas turbine power plants. The U.S. Navy is in the preliminary stages of discussing with industry the design and construction of some 18 to 24 fast deployment logistics ships. The Royal Navy announced earlier this month that a Blackwood class frigate, HMS Exmouth, would be fitted with all gas turbine machinery to complete by the summer of 1968.
Gas turbine marine propulsion offers a number of operational and economic advantages. A brief list of the more important of these include lower over-all weight, greater endurance, markedly higher power in a given
DEBATES	1563
Supply-National Defence space and hence greater speed, reduction in the number of operators and maintainers and lower maintenance costs. A detailed study of all facets of gas turbine engines has demonstrated that for the Royal Canadian Navy the gas turbine propulsion plant is best for installation in its helicoper carrying destroyer program.
In this context, it might be noted that by comparison with a steam plant, an increase of over 60 per cent in horsepower will be possible from the gas turbine engines without a corresponding increase in cost or size of the vessel.
To this end, the Department of Defence Production, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, has instructed two leading aircraft firms to proceed with the design of the DDH propulsion plant on a competitive basis. The results of this competition will be used to select the propulsion equipment to be purchased for the DDH at a firm fixed price, with guarantees of performance, and a fixed delivery schedule. This has never been accomplished before in Canada for this type of naval vessel.
The hon. member for Calgary North raised one or two points in respect of organization. He made reference to the change in organization at Canadian forces headquarters. It is true that since the special committee on defence was briefed on May 26, 1964, that the positions of vice chief of defence staff and chief of operational readiness have been combined, and the name assistant chief of defence staff has been changed to deputy chief, plans, with no change in function. This combination was contemplated from the outset and its implementation ends an interim situation which was required for the transition.
The second point was that the lines of communication from commands are more complicated than previously. This is not so. The integrated command structure, providing for command of the defence forces to be centralized under a single chief of the defence staff who exercises control through functional commanders, meets the aim of integration of reducing overhead and increasing efficiency. It reduces the over-all number of commands and places each functional responsibility under a single commander.
Commanders are responsible to the chief of the defence staff for the operational and support service functions. Provision is made for commanders to communicate directly with each other on all matters of mutual interest and concern.
1564	COMMONS DEBATES	February 21, 1966
Supply-National Defence
Lines of communication to Canadian forces headquarters are the same as before, that is, through the defence secretariat to the appropriate branch. Because commanders are able to concentrate on their prime responsibility the performance of objectives should be enhanced.
A number of questions have been raised about the level of defence expenditures. The hon. member for Calgary North said that defence expenditures had not in fact been reduced. In the fiscal year 1963-64, the first year in which I took over the defence program and when defence expenditures were based on the program which had been worked out when the hon. Member for Calgary North was in office, the expenditures amounted to $1,607,971,000, excluding special payments into the pension account.
In the following year 1964-65 I was able to reduce expenditures to $1,522 million and the estimate which you have before you for
1965-	66 is $1,550 million. The reduction from the 1963-64 level of actual expenditures in 1964-65 was therefore $85 million and the reduction in 1965-66 from the 1963-64 figure, based on the estimates before you is $57,900,000.
This is a total saving in two years from 1963-64 level of $143,700,000. This has been achieved notwithstanding civil and military salary increases costing at least $80 million during these two years, and increased cost of equipment due to rising prices. For a fair comparison, the increased costs will have been absorbed in present expenditure levels. The real saving therefore actually exceeds $100 million a year.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Sherbrooke suggested that defence expenditures should be further reduced. He may not be aware that the defence expenditure as a percentage of the total federal budget has declined from 24 per cent in 1954 to a forecast 18 per cent for
1966-	67. Few if any other countries have reduced defence expenditures proportionately to this extent. Canada as a sovereign nation makes a contribution to world order through a number of alliances; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, our partnership with the United States in continental defence and through our adherence to the United Nations charter. Canadians are a proud people with proud traditions and want to do their share to assist in preserving some semblance of order in a troubled world. If we are to

continue to perform the tasks we have undertaken we must have trained men and women and good equipment. It would not be possible to reduce defence expenditures further at this time without substantially reducing our commitments to the alliances I have mentioned.
The hon. gentleman also suggested that the university naval training division at Sherbrooke should be reinstated. I am sure he will appreciate that an increase in commitments is not compatible with a reduction in expenditures. I took notice of his suggestion with regard to providing additional opportunities for French speaking recruits. I should like to reassure him that a number of steps have been taken and a number more are contemplated to provide greater opportunities throughout the whole service for men and women whose mother tongue is French.
In so far as the balance of our expenditures between cost and maintenance on the one hand and capital on the other hand is concerned, I must admit that I had expected to arrest the downward trend on capital account during the current fiscal year. No member of the committee deplores more than I do that this has not been done. The money was available but it did not get spent. I will not go into the reasons for this but I must assume full responsibility. I can assure hon. members, however, that we will stop the downward trend that began in 1954 and next year the percentage on capital account will be substantially up, notwithstanding rising personnel costs. This can be seen if we consult the blue book for the next year.
Now that the long term trend has been reversed every effort will be made to increase the proportion of the defence budget spent on equipment during the next few years to the point where it reaches an acceptable level. The men and women of the Canadian armed forces need the right equipment for their assigned roles, and I mean to see that they get it.


Mr. Groos:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thank you. The hon. member for Calgary North raised a question about a shortage of pilots and alleged that the shortage was related to early retirement of aircrew in 1964. Some facts concerning the 500 might be helpful in clearing up the confusion to which the hon. member referred. A surplus of aircrew had been built up at the time of the Berlin crisis in 1961, even though there was no demonstrated requirement at the time, at a total cost to the Canadian taxpayers of several hundreds of millions of dollars.
February 21, 1966	COMMONS
The absence of a real requirement was soon recognized by the air force but the matter was not taken in hand until 1964, when a recommendation was made for the release of 500 aircrew subject to special benefits being available. Of the 500 aircrew released 284 were pilots, 89 of whom were short service and coming to the end of their contracts in any case. Of the remaining 195, 31 were already over age and the remainder, 164, were all within two years of retirement, due to age. In the normal course almost all would now be out of the service or on retirement leave.
It should be appreciated that forecasting pilot requirements in the civilian economy was difficult if not impossible at the time. Nobody foresaw the extent of the world shortage that now exists. The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority was 100 per cent wrong on the short side last year when it forecast the need for civilian pilots.
At the same time I want to deny that there is a serious shortage of pilots in the R.C.A.F. at this moment. As of December 31 our pilot strength was 2,325. The current R.C.A.F. establishment calls for 1,720 positions for which it is mandatory to have qualified pilots. In addition there are a number of staff positions in which it is considered desirable to have pilot experience. Nevertheless it must be recognized that the number of pilots leaving the service is increasing and if allowed to continue unchecked could create a serious shortage.
I might advise the hon. member for Saskatoon that discussions have been held with the pilots and measures are being recommended which we hope will be sufficiently attractive to keep an adequate number of highly qualified pilots in the service. One other point he raised is in respect of the requirement of pilots to work 70 hours a week in the air division in Europe. Their estimated work week including standing alert is estimated at 68 hours a week. This is very demanding indeed. While standing alert, however, they have a considerable amount of time which can be used in personal pursuits within the limitations of the alert, and many young airmen are taking advantage of the opportunity to further their studies and increase their academic standing in order to be better qualified, in the broad sense, for executive and other positions which might be opened up to them in future years.
It has also been alleged that there has been a serious decline in recruiting. Actually, the number of recruits taken into the service in
DEBATES	1565
Supply-National Defence 1965 was only about 5 per cent lower than the previous year. If one takes into consideration the booming economy, virtually no unemployment, the high salaries in civilian life for people able to absorb technical training, as do our recruits, plus the fact that our young men and women stay in school much longer, this small change should not be considered inordinate. Indeed many businesses requiring large numbers of personnel experienced even greater difficulty in 1965.
Reference was made to the shortage of naval personnel. It is true that more men are required, particularly in some technical trades. One of the basic problems is very directly related to former practices, however. It used to be the custom to take skilled personnel from one ship's company immediately or soon after returning to port and send them back to sea as part of another ship's company in order to have sufficient trained personnel to keep the ships in operation. The effect of this overwork and high sea-to-shore ratio for skilled and technical trades was a serious decline in morale.
To overcome this problem a new cyclic system of manning the ships was put into effect. It provides amongst other things for a better shore-to-sea time ratio for personnel. This improvement in working conditions has been well reecived and naval re-engagement rates, which were already higher in Canada than in the navies of our major NATO allies, are improving. The other side of the coin, however, is that more skilled tradesmen are required to man the same number of ships. Improved working conditions and the relaxation by the navy of many of its ancient and restrictive rules governing other ranks should assist in overcoming this problem in time. It is not a problem that can be quickly overcome due to the long training cycle and the extraordinary competition for manpower at all levels.
A large part of the discussion during consideration of these estimates has been in respect of our choice of aeroplane for the tactical ground support role. Most of the criticism has been irrelevant or inaccurate. We feel it is important for the R.C.A.F. to get into the ground support role, one which they performed admirably in the second world war but which they have not been directly involved in for some time.
The CF-5 has many advantages which particularly suit the Canadian requirement. It is light, relatively unsophisticated, relatively
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence inexpensive, easy to maintain, dual-engined and therefore very safe, and has a supersonic dash capability which gives it a self-protection within its own flight environment. A reasonable production-sharing arrangement is also available in respect of this aeroplane because of the large numbers of the basic aeroplane being produced for use in a number of countries around the world. The payload of the CF-5 is not a matter of concern; it can carry 3,000 pounds of bombs, and experience in Viet Nam has proved that with the high number of sorties a tremendous weight of stores can be delivered on target.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The range of the CF-5 is adequate for the kind of task we have in mind for it. In so far as ferry range is concerned, trans-oceanic ferrying is quite practical with aerial refuelling. The allegation that the C-130 is not capable of refuelling the CF-5 is, I am informed, entirely false. A version of the C-130B was developed by the United States forces as an aerial refuelling aircraft and is in service with the United States marine corps today. The refuelling equipment carried in this aircraft can readily be installed or removed as required so that when the aircraft is not being used as a tanker it may revert to its primary role of transport aircraft. Preliminary flight evaluation of the CF-5 against the C-130 aircraft has demonstrated the feasibility of employing this aircraft for the Canadian forces as an aerial filling station. The R.C.A.F. is procuring inflight refuelling equipment for the CF-5 similar to that installed on the United States aircraft that were flown trans-Pacific to Viet Nam.
Incidentally, the United States Air Force has offered to make a reciprocal arrangement with us similar to that which we have for the air transport fleet, whereby they would refuel our planes being deployed in various parts of the world and we would make our capability available to them in our area.
Another criticism that has been made of the CF-5 is the ground roll, that is the length of runway required for take-off with a full load. Unfortunately, and this seems often to be the case, the figures which have been used publicly are those for the basic F-5A's. The Canadian CF-5, with its more powerful engine, will require 20 per cent less runway for take-off. The length of runway required for the Canadian CF-5 with a full load is less than is required for the CF-104 in use by our air division in Europe, and also less than the

DC-8 under similar loading conditions. This is not really a very good comparison, however.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, give us the figures now on the runways that would be required.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be pleased to do that before a committee where you can get all the details of the standards, etc. It has often been suggested that one should not try to compare apples and oranges, but in this case comparing the CF-5 with the DC-8 is like comparing an apple with a pumpkin.
Another allegation has been the suggestion that the CF-5 requires a particularly level runway when carrying a bomb load. I am advised that this, too, is patently false. Although the CF-5 would normally be employed on conventional runways, flight trials have demonstrated that this aircraft is capable of being operated off sod fields and that the armament selected for the Canadian forces provided ample clearance between the lowest bomb and the field surface when operating under these conditions. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, experience with the F-5 in Viet Nam indicated that the Canadian CF-5 will be absolutely first class in the ground support role.
An interim report of the so-called Skoshi Tiger tests of the F-5A in Viet Nam has been received. While no final conclusions have been drawn as to its over-all combat effectiveness a considerable number of sorties have now been flown, beginning with the first day of delivery in Viet Nam. The experience so far enables the following observations to be made:
1.	A high sortie rate per aircraft per day has been achieved.
2.	An extremely low maintenance rate expressed in terms of man hours per flight hour has also been achieved.
3.	Despite an initial problem of ingestion of foreign objects in the air inlet duct they have not had a complete engine failure in flight. I might say parenthetically that the cause of this damage was primarily the ammunition provided, and other aircraft using the same ammunition had similar problems.
4.	The F-5A has performed to all model specifications.
5.	It is proven to have outstanding accuracy in stability as an ordnance delivery vehicle.
6.	Pilots report that they like its simplicity of operation and control responsiveness in all conditions of flight and that it is exceptionally easy to fly during a refuelling hookup.
February 21, 1966

7.	It is an uncomplicated, easy to maintain aircraft.
As might be expected, there have also been some deficiencies in the F-5A that will need correction. Members of the committee will be pleased to know that in every case the necessary corrections had been anticipated by the R.C.A.F. staffs and that these modifications have all been included in the CF-5 program from the outset. A final report on the Skoshi Tiger test program is due in April or May and I will be pleased to see that full information is made available to the members of the Standing Committee on Defence.
There has been a request for a review, Mr. Chairman, of the progress toward defining NATO force goals for the years ahead. You may recall that a decision was taken in the council of ministers held in Ottawa in May, 1963, to commence a study of strategy, force goals, and the use of economic resources. A study has been undertaken by the council in permanent session, constituted as a defence planning committee and working in co-operation with the major NATO military commanders.
In considering the question of strategy a theoretical discussion arose which indicated a rather sharp divergence of views. When these views were presented to the council of ministers in December, 1964, it seemed apparent to me that the divergence of opinion related more to the theoretical discussion than the real contingencies with which the alliance might be faced. With this thought in mind, I suggested holding a defence ministers meeting, with the object of examining the real situation in the hope that the wide areas of divergence would come into focus and the difference, if they existed, would prove to be largely irrelevant.
The meeting of defence ministers in May, 1965 proved more productive than had been hoped for. The informality of the restricted session assisted ministers in reaching a consensus and taking the necessary action to provide the political direction for the planning committee to continue its studies. It was the opinion of the ministers that force goals should not be unrealistic in calling for increases in manpower and expenditures obviously and demonstrably well beyond any possible implementation by member nations.
The council of ministers reviewed the progress of defence planning at the December, 1965 meeting. At this time I again urged that our goals should be realistic and attainable. I furthermore proposed that NATO long range
Supply-National Defence planning be realistically based on what each member country intends and can afford to spend, bearing in mind political, financial and economic factors.
You will recall on Thursday last, when introducing the Department of National Defence estimates, I spoke of the newly introduced integrated defence program and the many benefits that are accruing from this procedure of handling our defence program. You will therefore appreciate that I fully supported the United States proposal for a NATO five year rolling plan which would be adjusted annually to equate country defence plans with NATO military requirements in order to maintain a viable force which would operate under the direction of the major NATO military commanders.
The new NATO five year plan would contain an extension of these aspects of our five year program which are of direct concern to NATO. This NATO plan will consist of an acknowledged commitment by countries for a period of one year followed by a projection without commitment for a further four years. This plan would be subject to review and amendment every year, thereby containing more realistic data upon which the NATO military authorities can base the composition of their allocated forces.
I reiterate my earlier statement in this debate that our current studies concerning the reorganization of our forces will go a long way toward assisting the NATO military commanders with their tasks. In making future commitments we will keep in mind the realities of the present and also our desire to accept those future roles which will enable us to make the greatest real contribution to the peace and security of the world. Obviously, the reservations expressed by General de Gaulle will have to be carefully studied.
Probably the most serious allegation made in the debate was raised by the hon. member for Calgary North, and subsequently by a number of other hon. members, and it was the suggestion that service morale is at its lowest point in history. I disagree with that and I am certain that the vast majority of the armed forces feel the same way.
They remember only too well what they refer to as "the darkest days in Canadian defence", in 1961 and 1962 when that hon. member was Minister of National Defence and when his government's defence policy was known only for its procrastination, indecision, ineptness and downright stupidity. The nuclear issue alone, and the wrangling
1568	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence and wheeler-dealing in that dying cabinet because erf it, made Canada the laughingstock of NATO and brought shame instead of honour to the Canadian serviceman. These were truly the days of low morale in the Canadian armed forces, as the hon. member well knows. There was no rationale to defence policy, and the administrative and upkeep expenses of the force had been allowed to increase with complete disregard for the vital need of budgeting for new vehicles, aircraft and ships. The whole defence department was crying out for a new policy and a new lease on life for our service-men-the unwitting pawns of the indecision and mismanagement of my hon. friend's defence policy-to their rightful place of honour in our society.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Morale is not bad in the forces. The associate minister and myself have visited all of our major bases and I can make that statement with force and truth before this house. It is not one based on wild rumours and haphazard chats in a handful of ridings, but on the opinion of professional men who know what they are talking about.
Naturally there is concern, and some worry among our highly skilled tradesmen in particular, because wages in industry in Canada have never been higher and the shortage of skilled labour has never been greater in our history. Also our personnel are the best, the cream of the crop. They must pass tough recruiting and aptitude tests before they can enlist. Their basic training is excellent and they receive valuable experience on the most modern equipment in their respective fields during their service. They also, by selection, are the healthiest people in the nation, so it is no wonder industry is beckoning and welcoming them. Therefore it is only natural that they are concerned, as all other red-blooded men with superior qualifications would be, whether they should not take advantage of the present high demand for their skills. This, as I have always said, is the prime cause of their worry.
By the same token, we are doing what we can, as any sensible employer with a large investment in his employees would, to counteract this situation and to keep our people convinced of the long-term advantages of staying in the service. This is simply good business as well as being in the best interests both of the men and women in the armed forces and of Canada as a whole. We are not sitting around lamenting about the situation;
tMr. Hellyer.]
DEBATES	February 21. 1966
we are trying to do something tangible about it.
Several senior officers from Canadian forces headquarters and the area commands have had appropriate programs under way for months, along with my own staff and that of the associate minister.
The re-engagement bonus which my colleague announced last Friday in this house is one step in the process, and of course there are others under review to constantly improve and enhance the terms and conditions of service. With a voluntary force the conditions of service must not only be competitive; they must be a little better than average to help compensate for the extra expenses generated by the servicemen's necessarily nomadic life.
But it is nonsense to blame this honest soul searching by our service personnel on integration, and for purely political advantage to deduce that low morale is the result. Our military personnel had an opportunity to express themselves last November respecting the management of their affairs, and I would hardly call the result of the service vote one of no confidence in our defence policy. I must say at this point that I agree with my hon. friends opposite that the method of reporting should be changed so that the service vote is not reported separately. I will personally do everything within my power to see that that is brought about.
I look upon it, too, as undeniable evidence that our armed forces have good, long memories. They expressed quite clearly that they will not forget in a hurry the real days of low morale-the "dark days" of defence in the early sixties.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that in my opinion the philosophy of mobile forces as set out in the White Paper is sound for Canada at this time and for the years immediately ahead. The implementation of the policy in the White Paper is proceeding with dispatch. The integration of the armed forces will assist in the implementation of those policies. It will give Canada the most effective and responsive force of its size in the world and a clear margin of superiority for the money being spent. Our integration plans are the most exciting military reorganization going on anywhere in the free world at the present time, one which is being watched by all and admired by many. I have no doubt that it will become a pattern for the reorganization of military forces in other countries in the years ahead, and that we in Canada will
February 21, 1966

be justifiably proud that we have been first in recognizing the significance of the technological age in which we live and its impact on military organization.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the most bombastic speech by a Minister of National Defence ever uttered in this chamber, I think, since the days of Sir Sam Hughes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You will remember that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not hear that interruption from the other side; I am willing to listen if you wish to repeat it.
When the minister opened his 45-minute speech tonight he said that he had been subjected to buckshot attacks on him during the course of this debate. Well, it certainly found its mark. He has been irritated by those pellets, as he showed tonight when he was stirred into activity. All day Friday when we were discussing defence policy he sat in his place smug, complacent, without any worry at all. Then over the week end the radio, television and press reports began to come in and he started to get worried.
When the attack continued today and the ineffectiveness of this minister was shown up by everyone who spoke on this side of the house, he decided to get his speech writers busy. Instead of giving us a speech earlier today he waited until 8.30 tonight to make his defence, and a very poor defence it was indeed.
It seems to me-and I hope the minister learns a lesson from this-that had he on Thursday night of last week given us some of the particulars that he has been forced to give tonight, it would have been very helpful to the debate. Tonight he attempted to answer some questions. He left most of the questions unanswered, and when he did not have a satisfactory answer he declaimed with a very loud voice to the claque of admirers behind him and made attacks on the member for Calgary North, who for unavoidable reasons is not here tonight. I hope the hon. member for Calgary North will have an opportunity to reply to these unwarranted attacks upon him.
Then this bombastic minister told us in the early part of his speech that he was not a rubber stamp minister. I do not know what he thought of his colleague of former days, Mr. Claxton. I do not know what he thought of Mr. Campney.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They were good ministers.
Supply-National Defence


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not think anyone would accuse General Pearkes of being a rubber stamp minister, and certainly not the hon. member for Calgary North. But this minister is not a rubber stamp minister: He is the boss. I suggest that now he has a chief of staff who is a rubber stamp and does everything that this minister says.
What I objected to in 1963 and 1964 was that he did not continue the council that would advise the minister, the heads of the navy, the army and the air force, plus the chief of staff, about military matters. He abolished that council and made it just advisory. He appointed a supremo, a chief of staff to run things. Now he is running everything himself. He is not a rubber stamp minister, but somebody in the department is now a rubber stamp, and it must be the chief of staff.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This is the conflict between two men that I said would happen, from experiences that they had in England many years ago. This wonder boy of national defence-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -has gone back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This wonder boy in the
opinion of the Liberal party has gone back to a system thrown out 60 years ago in Great Britain. Talk about being up to date, nobody is further out of date than this particular minister.


Erik Nielsen: And out of step.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is a bombastic individual and he will go on spreading messages that have little foundation to the Canadian people.


Erik Nielsen: He talks a lot.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He talks about other countries, and how they are admiring what he is doing. This is right from the horse's mouth. He is the one who has heard these other people on the subject. None of the rest of us has heard this from other countries. Where does this information come from? Why do they not tell us that we have the most marvelous minister that ever happened.
Our opinion is, on this side of the house, that we have the poorest Minister of National Defence that this country has ever seen. I think he is all bombast and no action. Tonight he did not answer the questions posed to him from this side of the house. What
1570	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence about the boast that he was going to save a great deal of money and funnel it into buying what he calls hardware. He did not answer the question, when the member for Calgary North said that the percentage going into the supplies of military hardware was down to 12 per cent, the lowest figure yet. He did not have an answer for that. That was the boast he made three years ago, and he has not accomplished that objective.
Yet he has spread the propaganda across this country that that was what he was going to do. It is false propaganda. He did not touch on the question of atomic weapons, put to him by members on this side of the house, and particularly by members of the New Democratic party. He did not answer that. He has atomic weapons now, with hardware that he said the United States had thrown away or discarded years ago. He is keeping the CF-104, the aircraft with the air division in Europe. He is keeping the Honest John missile discharger, or rocket. He has retained the Voodoos, and he has kept the Bomarcs. Yet in 1960, as I recollect his statement, he said these were useless, discarded weapons. However, he has retained them.
There was a long period before he had any atomic weapons for the CF-104. He has not told us yet whether they are available now. He did not have any atomic weapons for the Voodoos in this country for two years. He has not told us whether the atomic missile is available for the Honest John.


Erik Nielsen: They are negotiating.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He has not said whether the Bomarcs are to be kept in their useless post or not, but he placed atomic weapons on Canadian soil. He and the Prime Minister for three solid years have misled the Canadian people, because the Prime Minister said that he would negotiate out of the atomic weapons-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And he was supported by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of National Defence. These three ministers have misled the people of this country for three years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On Thursday or Friday when I asked the Prime Minister that question he said that it had been answered by the Minister of National Defence. I asked the Prime Minister if he had had success in

DEBATES	February 21, 1966
fulfilling his promise of three years ago, and he said that question had been answered by the Minister of National Defence. In other words, the Prime Minister was saying to us and to the Canadian people that his promise to negotiate out of atomic weapons had been fulfilled.
It was a false statement. The Minister of National Defence in his speech had said that he had made atomic weapons available to those various weapon systems-


Erik Nielsen: For political reasons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and this is the type of false propaganda that has been spread across the country, for political reasons, as my friend suggests.
On the subject of morale the minister declaimed at great length. You know, we must put our complete faith in what this minister says, or he is offended.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: The trained seals again, the old beavers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is offended if we do not believe him. His feelings are hurt. He said, "You are shooting buckshot at me and it irritates my skin." And he gets up to declaim and says that the morale of the forces is very high. He made a false statement here, in the absence of the member for Calgary North, saying that the morale of the forces was at its lowest ebb in 1960 and 1961. It is at its lowest ebb today. That has been brought out by the facts and figures from this side of the house.


An hon. Member:: Whom did they vote for?


Erik Nielsen: Whom were they told to vote for?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: That is no shame, that is true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would not mind having an investigation made with regard to the service vote in this country. It is rather strange that in 1958, when there was a landslide in favour of the Conservative party, 80 per cent of the service vote was still tagging along with the Grits. Talk about people being out of touch with what is going on with Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I withdraw nothing. Our servicemen do not get the full information as to what is going on in this country. This is
February 21, 1966

one of their complaints. They say they do not get the Canadian newspapers.


An hon. Member:: They get them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a clear indication that they are not kept informed, generally, as to what is going on in this country. They say so themselves. I have met them overseas.


An hon. Member:: What do you say about morale now? What are you talking about?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the subject of morale. The morale of the services is at its lowest ebb. This is what I got everywhere, across the country. This minister is responsible for it. He tries to explain away his failure in recruiting, and he said it was only 5 per cent below-I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could have a little order, or do I have to contend against remarks of hon. gentlemen sitting opposite.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. May I ask the hon. members who are making interruptions to reserve their opinions and interruptions. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has the floor.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you. The minister says that recruiting is only 5 per cent below last year's figure, and he was explaining to us on Thursday, and through the press, that the competition from the economy was preventing recruitment.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Queens, speaking today on behalf of the Atlantic provinces, said the unemployment in that area would be sufficient to fill the gap in the armed services. So who is right? Are we to believe the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -or the hon. member for Queens? I will take the word of the hon. member for Queens any day as against that of the minister.
Then again, the fact that the associate minister had to announce on Friday that bonuses would be paid to buy people back and attract them to re-enlist indicates in itself the complete failure of the policy of the minister of defence. This is attributable to low morale and his actions with regard to those in the armed services. He threw them out. What officer is there in the services today who is assured of continuity of service? He has no idea what this minister, this great Poobah intends to do, this minister who is in
Supply-National Defence control of everything, who sets himself up to be a commander in chief. He says he is not a rubber stamp, but he has everyone else cowed into submission.
The men who are leaving the service cannot understand the indecision, the mix-up that prevails in national defence. They do not know where they are, and this is the substance of the complaints I have heard for the last two years.


An hon. Member:: Remember June 1st.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Woolliams:: On a point of order. Surely the hon. gentleman who now has the floor has the right to be heard tonight as against these people who are sitting in places where they do not normally sit and who feel they should yell and shout.


Maurice Rinfret: We are on the topic of national defence and there have been shouted remarks from both sides. I think this should cease. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has the floor.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A little noise now and again is all right, Mr. Chairman. But I see that the minister, fearful of his position, has assembled a claque around him tonight. They do not have the courage to get up and ask questions and present their case. They are doing it by noise and comment; but I do not mind that at all.
Now let us see what this bombastic minister has been talking about. In the course of his remarks he made a statement, and he keeps repeating it that the philosophy of the White Paper is the establishment of mobile forces. He speaks about the philosophy of mobilty as set out in the White Paper. He is creating in the mind of the public a feeling that there is a mobile force already in existence. Let us have a demonstration. Let him show us where this mobility is. For three years this minister has been in power. He has been talking about mobility for our armed forces as if this was something new. Well, 12 years ago hon. members will find these words:
My hope is that the Canadian army will become the most effective fighting force available within the NATO countries, and that it will have the full equipment for modern conditions: that it will have the mobility that is required for modem warfare, and that it will have the trained staff that is required in order to utilize to its fullest effect artillery and armour, infantry and engineers and so on. Equipped with the best of weapons, equipped with track vehicles for cross-country purposes, equipped with protective troop carrying
1572	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence vehicles for the infantry, and equipped with transport aeroplanes and helicopters, if those are found to be satisfactory for use in the field, equipped in this way, brought up to date, modernized, the Canadian army would be something of which we would be prouder than we are at the present time, although we are very proud of it.
That was my statement on May 20, 1954 as reported in Hansard at page 4931. I happened to be the person who used those words in the House of Commons-mobility, tracked vehicles, air supported, supply columns with track vehicles; and so on. Yet the minister now thinks he has conceived a new idea. He talks about the philosophy of mobility. I do not know of any idea which has a longer history than this question of mobility. And the minister has not yet achieved it. This is the philosophy, but what has he done? Our brigade in Europe just recently acquired the armoured personnel carriers which I have advocated for 15 years in this chamber. It is still not equipped with tracked supply vehicles; it is still not equipped with air support or air supply facilities. So it is not mobile. The minister pretends he suddenly came up with a brand new idea. His lack of experience shows, of course, in so much of what he says to us here.
As I have said, the minister has left unanswered more questions than he answered. I suggested to him in a question the other day that in order to have an effective fighting force now and in the future he should make sure that our senior officers and, if possible, our senior N.C.O's, should get some experience of what is going on elsewhere in the world. I suggested he should have observers from our forces in Viet Nam to study what is going on there. Had he taken this course we might have had a first hand report about the F-5 as used in South Viet Nam, and not a second, third or fifth hand report from the minister with regard to that plane. Why did we not have senior air force officers there to examine the effectiveness of this plane? Why did we not have senior army officers there to examine the effectiveness of the air cavalry division and the methods now being employed in that war which has been going on for a year with increasing intensity?
I am not suggesting that young Canadian soldiers be sent to South Viet Nam. I never used that expression. I was talking about younger officers and N.C.O's who within a few years are going to succeed the veterans of the second world war. As the minister said himself, second world war veterans are now getting on toward their late forties and fifties

DEBATES	February 21. 196S
and will soon be retiring. The men who were 15, 16 and 17 in 1945 are now approaching the age of 38 and will soon be in their forties. They are inexperienced with regard to warfare and the way to get experience is by attaching observers to formations in areas where the struggle is going on.
I will use the minister's own expression. One has to be realistic about national defence. Much as we are doing in peace keeping and observer corps work, developing a kind of police force, this is not the primary purpose of our national defence forces, as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris pointed out the other night.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The primary purpose is to be effective in case of war, and you must have a high command that is effective in case of war. I pointed this out 12 years ago, dealing with the same subject:
If we do not train the senior officers, we face a serious situation in time of war. I stood in awe of senior officers for a large portion of my life; but with the passing of the years that awe has diminished very considerably .... It is essential for the high command, for divisional and corps commanders, to understand the use of all arms within the army. We had many experiences in the second world war of that, where people unfamiliar with armoured formations were not able to use them effectively. Repeatedly I told men under my command when we were engaged in exercises in England at which they grumbled: "Put up with it; do anything that you are told to do under these conditions because we are training the high command, and you may live a bit longer if the high command gets trained."
I take this very seriously indeed because I have seen enough of warfare to know that the high command can make mistakes. Of course, they are not the only ones who can make mistakes. Junior officers can also make mistakes, but the troops are in the hands of the high command. Let me just indicate what Lloyd George said about this during the first world war. I quote:
No amount of circumspection can prevent war leading to the death of multitudes of brave men, but now that generals are not partaking in the personal hazards of a fight, they ought to take greater personal risks in satisfying themselves as to the feasibility of their plans and as to whether the objectives they wish to attain are worth the sacrifice entailed, and whether there is no better way of achieving the same result at less cost of gallant lives.
That was based on experience. The quotation is from page 123 of a book called, "To Seize the Victory" by John Swettenham, covering the Canadian Corps in world war I. I commend it to every hon. member and I pay
February 21, 1966	COMMONS
my compliments to the author who has produced a very valuable work, one of great importance to anyone studying the art of warfare or concerned with the subject of national defence. That is what I was talking about the other night. It was on that subject I was questioning the minister.
With all his paper work, the minister's function is to provide an effective fighting force for this country, and that effective fighting force must be commanded by people who have knowledge of the conditions under which men have to fight.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Otherwise thousands of lives may be endangered. I am not going to recount and stir up the embers of past discontent by mentioning things which happened in the second world war, which in my opinion should not have happened, and similarly things which happened in the first world war. But I do know that if the high command is not ignorant of conditions under which troops fight, then the lives of those troops are in less danger. But if they are ignorant of the conditions, then lives are wasted. That is why I am so concerned that this minister, who so boastfully talks about what he is doing, fails to see this particular aspect of the problem.
Where are we going to be in just a few years time? Of course we will have good men in the services. Canadians make good servicemen, but what about the high command, the senior officers and senior N.C.O.'s? Will they know how to lead their troops in time of difficulty? We have to guard against times of difficulty. We do not know what will happen in this world, whether we will remain at peace or be plunged into war. Let us not sacrifice the young men of this country.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, the minister left unanswered a great many questions, and some of my colleagues will deal with them. He has given us another one of his bombastic accounts, pretending that everything is wonderful, but 1 think that things in national defence are at a lower ebb than they have ever been during my time here, and it is due to the attitude of the minister.
His policies do not stand up under examination. If his policies are good, he is not getting the results that he pretends he is getting across the country. There has been too much propaganda and not enough action. What the minister should do now is act as a subdued individual for a little while, and let
DEBATES	1573
Supply-National Defence him produce results rather than just talk about what is going to happen in the future.
On the subject of integration I am not going to say that some of the things that were done were not all right. I think they have been. I think in some of the services you can integrate, especially the supply factors, and you can change the commands around. This is not new. But to talk about a mobile command is a little ridiculous-a command which is charged with responsibility that any command in the past has been charged with-having the troops fighting fit and ready to move.
The minister has not dealt with the subject of unification. Is there anyone in the country who knows what he means by unification? He has never answered that question. Is he going to put everybody into the same uniform? Is he going to cut out the traditions behind the fighting men of this country? He may say, "This is all right; this can be done", but I tell him it is a dangerous course he is following. If he is being advised to do this, then I do not know who his advisers are or what their experience was in the second world war. Quite a bit depends on experience.
If the minister is going to wipe out regiments, if he is going to wipe out the navy and put the navy in the same uniform as the army, and do the same with the air force, then he is headed for trouble. This fear in the minds of many people now in the services has been affecting their morale. I don't mind giving the minister advice. I wish he would take some of the advice that is given him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Once you interfere with these historic traditions behind fighting troops you are causing damage. I know what some people on that side of the chamber say about tradition. They want to wipe it all out, but I am telling you that from the standpoint of fighting troops the tradition of a regiment means a great deal to them. It inspires new men joining a regiment to know the history of the past. Then they say, "We can do the same thing. We will uphold the honour of the regiment. We won't let it down. If this regiment can look back to three of its former members winning the V.C., then we are going to see what we can do to maintain the honour of the regiment." Is the minister going to wipe out all this and, if so, for what purpose?
An effective fighting force is what is required.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why not build on the foundation that you have, rather than try to change everything? If it is change for the better, fine; but if it is just change for the sake of change then that is stupid and silly, and I am afraid the minister is going along that path.
He uses these big words-integration and unification. We had unification in the second world war. Combined operations-what was it other than unification-the navy, army and air force working together under one commander? How many examples do you require of combined operations, which is unification of fighting forces? You don't have to put everybody in the same uniform. They will work together without that, as they have shown in the past.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of speaking during this debate until I heard the minister's speech tonight. I think something should be said about some of the remarks he made, and that the Canadian public should be told the truth, which has not been done very often in the matter of defence. They have a right to know whether or not their sons, and daughters in some cases, who go into the services will get a fair break, and whether or not they have been getting a fair break.
The minister said a number of things tonight that I think are not accurate. First, we have not really reduced expenditures for defence. For this year the amount is up approximately $24 million, and for the 1966-67 year, the estimates for which I hope will come before us shortly, the amount is up $11 million. Surely these represent increases.
It is also a fact that we do not have enough soldiers at this time to make up a fighting force. We heard some talk of supplying a group of soldiers-whatever you call 10,000 soldiers, and I was in the air force so I am not familiar with these army designations -but I understand it is impossible to accumulate 14,000 to make up a division, with its reserve forces. If that is true, why in hell are we spending one and a half billion dollars? I am not sure that we should not make a greater reduction in this regard-after all we are enjoying a peacetime period.
It has been generally agreed across this country that Canada should play a peace keeping role. Certainly the Prime Minister has highlighted this fact over the years. We should have a peace keeping force that is mobile, integrated and able to travel to any

part of the world, composed of men trained and equipped as well as any force in the world; but apparently this is not possible. Certainly we are not doing that. It is true that we have well trained personnel, but we do not have them in quantity to provide a peace keeping force. Because of the small foot we have in the door of NATO we have a few outdated ships, aircraft that are obsolete and early warning systems that are being closed down before we have paid for them.
In this country we really have not got any defence at all and the general public should be made aware of the fact. I am in complete agreement with the minister that he has done a number of worth-while things, but I am not convinced that integration, putting all service personnel into the same uniform, is the answer. I certainly think it is time that we did something about over-staffing at the top, and I think probably we should do a great deal more in that respect.
I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who said that the minister is not a rubber stamp. It is also fair that we warn the minister that it is not good enough for him to look to the rabble behind him who thump their desks at every opportunity. It is unwise for the minister to seek support for the acceptance of his new policies in the fact that the service vote went mostly Liberal. I have a friend who was a scrutineer in connection with the service vote during the last election. It would be very interesting to have one or two of those scrutineers appear before a committee to find out exactly what happened with respect to the service vote. I suggest that the minister and a great many members of this house would probably be shocked as soon as this information came to light.


Erik Nielsen: I doubt it.


William Arnold Peters: I give a certain number of members credit for not knowing the facts in this regard. I am sure they would not respond to the minister's remarks in the way they do when he speaks about the morale of the services if they knew the facts. When you have a dictatorship and there is only one name on the ballot, if you are going to vote at all you vote for the person named. I do not think the minister should take too much credit or place too much reliance on that majority of Liberal servicemen's vote, when talking of the acceptance of his integration policy. He should not use that support in his attempt to obtain the leadership of the Liberal Party, which would probably mean the
February 21, 1966	COMMONS
prime ministership of this country. I am inclined to believe that is exactly what he is trying to do.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is he alleging that there was some irregularity in the taking of the service vote?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am alleging that there was some irregularity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps the hon. member would give us some details of this irregularity, because that is a very serious charge.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I could give some details but I suggest this is a matter to be brought before the defence committee when it holds its meetings. My information is that on most occasions when there had to be a write-in of candidates' names there was only one name written in, and the consensus of these scrutineers is that there was only one name or candidate for whom the people could vote.
Mr. Chairman, in my riding I am known to at least a few people. I have been around for quite a while and I am fairly closely connected with some of the Legion organizations. It is therefore surprising to me that the minister is not aware that the sons of men who have served in various forces have an affinity to those forces and are willing to serve them and their country.
It is surprising that the names of individuals running for election during the last election were not known to the sons of those people who had served, when they voted overseas. I think this whole situation should be investigated.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister or the government should rely too heavily on the service vote which was overwhelmingly in support of the Liberal party to back up the statement that the morale of Canadian service personnel is exceptionally high. I think they will be fooling themselves if they do so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No one is saying that.


Erik Nielsen: That is precisely what you have said.


William Arnold Peters: The response you receive from your backbenchers would indicate that these people believe there is high morale in the service as supported by the overwhelming Liberal service vote. I think that is a false premise upon which to base the statement
DEBATES	1575
Supply-National Defence that the changes in the service are being worked out to their advantage.
I do not think the minister is well advised, in coming into the house during a debate of this nature to outline the national defence program of this country as it is taking place at this time, to state that the changes are being made because somebody else made a mistake or somebody else was at fault. Let us not fool ourselves: Most of the policies of the defence department taken over by the minister were policies which remained from the second world war when the Liberal Party was in power. In my experience the Conservative party when it was in power did not change the defence policy very quickly, or at all. I think that government was advised by the same people who are now advising the present government. The minister may smile, but I am sure he is aware of the fact that sitting up in the gallery are those people who really decide defence policy. I am sure they advised the Conservative party in exactly the same way they are advising the Liberal party now.
I do not believe there is much change taking place now which was not inevitable. I think it is unfair to use a political argument in respect of a decision to scrap the Bomarc, to support the changes being made. Why does the government not admit that the changes are being made because of poor advice received by the department from its advisers?
If the minister has truly changed the policy of national defence I think he should concentrate on that change, rather than lay the blame on others. I think Canadians are very interested in this suggested reduction in the expenditures of the Department of National Defence. The public I am sure is interested in the role that Canada is to play, having a mobile force that can be moved into trouble spots in the world. That is a role that can be of great credit to Canada, but I have not heard anything said which would indicate to me that this is being accomplished. When we want to send someone to a funeral half way across the world we try to hitch-hike a ride with United States services, because we do not have any equipment to fly him there before the burial takes place. This is only a newspaper headline but it is something we hear about every day.
It is perhaps possible that we have planes which are suitable for the military role, and I am sure we do not have to carry our peace keeping force around the world as fast as that. But the committee has not-I have not, at least-heard the minister really speak of
February 21, 1966

Supply-National Defence the force in connection with which the Prime Minister won the Nobel Peace Prize. I refer to the role that Canada should be playing in the peace keeping field. If our efforts in this direction have been successful and the aims accomplished, I believe the minister has an obligation to say so. If we do not intend to carry out this role, we should also be told this.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
That these exchanges and the reluctance to answer very simple questions lead to a great deal of extended debate that is not necessary. The minister should be fair enough to realize that many hon. members who have spoken in the last few days have probably, like myself, received reports from a number of acquaintances in the services who believe that morale is not high and who have reason for so believing. Many of them left the forces because they were not sure they were going to have a lifetime career in the service; they believed this was no longer possible. I believe these complaints are legitimate and I strongly suggest that the minister consider them with at least some degree of respect.
I do not wish to hold up these estimates any longer but I do believe the minister should tell the country whether we are equipping ourselves for the peace keeping role that we hope to fill or are doing exactly what the minister criticized the former government for, and for which they criticized their predecessors in government, namely being like the tail on the dog and being wagged by the joint chiefs of staff who had a pre-conceived idea in regard to wars that took place a long while ago, and were not really willing to make changes. If this is the situation, I wish the minister would tell the committee, and if it is not the situation I think the minister should tell us this also.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think the type of forces being developed are just exactly those required to meet even more effectively in the future any commitments that might be made on them, ranging from the whole spectrum of reinforcing the central front to peace keeping activities. This is something that was brought out in our United Nations peace keeping activities in order to meet the requirements, whatever they were. These requirements have been different in every single case in which we have participated in United Nations peace keeping activities. The reason we have been able to carry them out so successfully is that we have 
such well balanced troops and equipment. The high mobility of our troops will enable us to carry out these activities on an even more effective basis.
I know it is ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman, but I wonder whether the committee would consider passing item 1 tonight on the understanding that when we reach item 15 I will answer any questions of concern to any individual member of the committee.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman. There is no great haste. The minister has brought this upon himself with his 45-minute speech tonight and his violent attack on the hon. member for Calgary North.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all noted with interest this afternoon the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that nothing would please him better than to be here at ten o'clock tonight. I understand that he is busy and not able to be here. I trust that the minister who will reply for him will be in a position to give a clear answer to the question which I have posed on two or three occasions.
The question I asked the Prime Minister last Thursday, which was not allowed on orders of the day and is therefore on the late show for tonight, had to do with the statement made on two or three occasions by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) to the effect that medicare payments would begin on July 1, 1967. In the light of that assertion by the minister, therefore, I have asked the government to give us an indication as to the date by which medicare legislation would have to be enacted in order to make this possible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me make quite clear what it is I am trying to get at. I am not posing a legal question or, as Mr. Speaker suggested last Thursday, seeking an interpretation of a statute. After all, there is no statute yet with respect to this matter. What
February 21, 1966	COMMONS
I am trying to do, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not be surprised at my trying to do this, is to pin the government down as to when it is going to act on this important measure.
There is not the time to go over the history of the Liberal Party with regard to health insurance or medicare. It dates back to a period before the Minister of National Health and Welfare was born. In fact for 47 years we have been waiting for action on this matter. More particularly in the last few years the Liberal Party, under the present Prime Minister, has been talking very aggressively about medicare. Last July we had four pretty good principles laid down and we were told these would be the underlying principles of the medicare legislation to be introduced by this government. It was, of course, promised categorically in the last election campaign, and it was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne on January 18 of this year.
But in this session, when we have tried to get a clear statement from the Prime Minister or from the Minister of National Health and Welfare as to when this legislation is going to be before us, we have been given a very general kind of answer. We are told it is hoped it will be brought before us at this session. We are are told the government's position is still the same as it was in the Speech from the Throne, that it intends to go ahead with the legislation.
I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare is here. He knows that for the government's own sake this is not good enough. This kind of general promise that it will be done if possible, this general statement that we hope to have it done, that is the kind of thing that leads to one session after another going by without action taking place. The minister knows how difficult it was to get him to introduce the labour code. When he did bring it in there were two things omitted, the fair wages and hours of labour amendments and a safety code. He knows how difficult it was to get the government to bring forward the Canada Pension Plan. I submit that what we need from this government, for the sake of the people of Canada, what the government needs to do for its own sake, is to give us a timetable and tell us when it intends to put medicare on the order paper. The government should tell us whether it is its intention that this session shall continue until medicare legislation is enacted. If not, let us all know that it is just so much talk.
DEBATES	1577
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when answering for the Prime Minister on this question, not to skirt around it, not to talk about the legal difficulties of fixing a date so many months ahead of July 1, 1967. I ask him to take this house, to take the country, into his confidence and tell us precisely what the government's plans are with respect to medicare. Surely the government itself must have a plan for getting it on the order paper some time in 1966 and for getting it passed by some specific date in 1966.
[DOT] (10:10 p.ra.)
We hear a great deal from the government house leader about the desirability of planning the session and timetabling our work. The time to plan things and to timetable our work is not when we get into some crisis. The time to do it is in advance.
Therefore, I give the Minister of National Health and Welfare tonight a golden opportunity. I hope he will seize it and will tell us when medicare will be put on the order paper, and by what date the government feels it must be passed in order that the promise to have it in effect by July 1, 1967, can be implemented without fail.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain to the house and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the Prime Minister wishes to express his regret concerning his absence this evening. He had indicated earlier in the day that he would like to be here, but it is now impossible for him to be here to reply to the question directed to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The hon. member asks the specific question, when it is expected the legislation on medicare from the federal point of view will be placed on the order paper. Naturally it would be impossible for me to make a clear declaration on that point this evening. Nor do I think it is a crucial question because it is the firm intention of the government to adhere to the four principles laid down by the Prime Minister last July at the federal-provincial conference.
The communique issued after the recent conference of federal-provincial ministers of health includes the following two paragraphs: In discussing medical care insurance, several provinces accepted the federal proposals and indicated their readiness to commence programs by July 1, 1967. Certain provinces, however, were unprepared to make definite commitments at this time.
February 21. 1966
1578	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion The Minister of National Health and Welfare again expressed the adherence of the federal government to the announced four principles, and its objective to commence federal contributions to provincial medical care plans on a nation-wide basis by July 1, 1967.
That is the statement that I made at the federal-provincial conference, and it still represents the policy of the government.
While it would be desirable to get this legislation through the house as quickly as possible, it should be borne in mind that from the federal point of view the legislation affecting medicare will be relatively simple because it will take the form of enabling legislation providing for payments to provinces within the framework of the four principles which have been enunciated by the Prime Minister.
It would of course be satisfactory and desirable to have this legislation on the order paper and to get it passed-certainly it would be my wish-as quickly as possible. However,
I have in mind that as Minister of National Health and Welfare I have certain prior commitments to the provinces with respect, first, to the Canadian assistance plan, which was targeted for April 1, 1966-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have not seen that yet either.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and also with respect to the health resources fund payments, which are to extend back to January 1, 1966.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have not seen that either.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These are two health and welfare items of legislation which must come first in this session, as I regard them as important legislation which is to be undertaken in the field of health and welfare.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired.
[Translation1



HEALTH AND WELFARE-WARNING ON PACKAGES OF CIGARETTES

Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maski-nonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) to my proposal concerning the dangers of smoking.
On May 15, 1963, Doctor M. R. MacCharles stated at a convention of the Canadian Medical Association, that excessive smoking was the main cause of lung cancer and that this disease was incurable.

The committee made up of 17 doctors, including cancer specialists, unanimously agreed that the situation had reached such alarming proportions that a wide publicity campaign should be launched among the public.
In January 1964, Dr. Luther Terry, a well known American physician, published a report which had been prepared by a committee of experts and stated that there was a direct link between smoking, on the one hand, and lung diseases, respiratory ailments and heart troubles, on the other. The report further said that cigarette smoking was such a serious health hazard that it was the duty of the American government to take appropriate steps in that connection.
According to statistics, Mr. Speaker, each day, 450 boys and girls ranging from 11 to 17 years of age start smoking. We all know that when a child develops that habit, it cannot do without smoking after two years.
In 1963, lung cancer made 2,500 victims in Canada and that figure is increasing at a fantastic rate from year to year.
While medical science is waging a lost battle to save those lives, the tobacco companies spend millions of dollars a year to increase their sales among adults and to entice a new generation into acquiring the smoking habit.
Although over $150 million are spent yearly for publicity purposes in North America, a very meagre sum indeed is spent in Canada to protect the public against that danger.
If the situation continues, according to a Canadian Medical Association report, cigarettes will be responsible for the premature death of nearly 100,000 children now attending Canadian institutions.
No one wants to deprive anyone else of smoking pleasure, providing he is aware of the risk involved but when the risk is hidden as in the case of cigarettes, persons should be warned by positive measures as in the case of certain drugs labelled with the word "poison". I ask the government, in the interest of the nation's health, to require the tobacco companies to label cigarette packs with the words: "Beware. Smoking may be harmful to your health".

Kon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the hon. member in this

February 21, 1966

important subject, which has been a matter of continuing concern to the department and to the present minister.
The hon. member directs our attention to a practice established in the United States of placing a warning sign on cigarette packages saying that smoking may be a health hazard. He suggests that action be taken in this country to follow this practice in the United States. A great deal must be said for the desirability and the efficacy in reaching the intended objective suggested by the hon. member; however, the authority of the government to do this, and jurisdiction under which this legislative action might be taken, will have to be examined.
I can tell my hon. friend that this very matter has been the subject of discussions with the industry, and that it is presently receiving the attention of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The department will take whatever decision on the point may be appropriate.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



VETERANS AFFAIRS-METHOD OF DEALING WITH INQUIRIES BY MEMBERS

John (Jack) McIntosh: This afternoon when I addressed my question to the minister I did so for the purpose of clarifying the policy of his department. I have received a letter from one of the pension advocates which is disturbing because it suggests that a procedure is now being followed completely different from the procedure followed in the past. I asked in my question this afternoon if there had been a change in the policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs, a change which the minister had failed to announce in the house.
I wish to be fair to the minister. This does concern only one particular case. However, I assume that if there has been a change in the policy followed, pension advocates are no
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion longer able to answer the letters of members of parliament. If the minister has adopted such a practice he is preventing the efforts of members of parliament to obtain justice for veterans and their dependents, whether from their constituencies or elsewhere in Canada.
I wish to be brief. Did the minister, or someone else in authority, issue instructions to the pension advocates who are supposed to present cases on behalf of the veterans that they are not at any time to answer letters from members of parliament, but that they are to refer those letters to the deputy minister of the department, or to the departmental secretary? If so, what was the reason for issuing such a directive?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: My answer can be very brief. No such directive has been sent. Certainly none has been sent by me. I would like to know what particular case is involved here. I have no knowledge of any case where a pension advocate was told not to answer a letter from a member of parliament. If there is a case, I would like to know about it and if the hon. member would let me have the letter I would look into the matter and reply to him.
I am sorry I could not reply to his question today. I think he understands the situation; the question was ruled out of order. I would have been glad to answer it, though I could have done no more than I have done this evening. I hope this reply will satisfy the hon. member.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Did the minister instruct anyone in his department to give this directive?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: No, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.


Tuesday. February 22, 1966