1966-11-09

THE LATE MRS. SYDNEY J. SMITH

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know hon. members would want me to take a moment of the time of the house to express our deep sympathy to our distinguished colleague, Mr. Speaker Smith of the Senate, on the sudden passing of his wife. Mrs. Smith was a generous and warm-hearted person, friendly and cheerful and endowed with a deep sense of dedication and devotion to duty. She contributed generously to parliamentary life and she will be sorely missed by all.
To Mr. Speaker Smith and to the members of his family we extend the assurance of our heartfelt condolences in their bereavement.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	Is the Pakenham farm operated by George D. Brown a test farm as laid down in the January 14, 1965, news release?
2.	If the answer to the above is yes, will the government produce account books for the two years the farm has been in operation so that the economics of the model can be examined?
3.	If the answer to the first question is no, how many test farms have been set up as suggested in the January 14, 1965, news release and where are they?
4.	Does the government own the farm on which this experiment is being carried out at Pakenham and, if so, does it consider it typical marginal farm land?
5.	To the knowledge of the government, does George D. Brown have hired help on his farm and, if so, who pays them and how much?
6.	Are there any other cattle on the farm other than those owned by the federal government?
7.	In the experiments carried out with grade Holstein cows, what beef breeds are being used, how many cows to each breed, and why are grade Holstein cows being used?
8.	Are the cows milked and do they nurse the calf at the same time and, if so, is a thorough accounting done to realize the net gain?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The farm test has been in operation less than two years of the three year experimental period. Reports of the economics of operation are planned for publication following the conclusion of the experiment.
3.	N/A.
4.	No, the farm is owned by Mr. Brown.
5.	George D. Brown has hired help on his. farm but this help is paid for by Mr. Brown and the rate of pay is not known to this department.
6.	There are no other milk cows on this farm. Mr. Brown does, however, buy feeder cattle periodically and finish them for market, strictly as his own project.
7.	The beef breeds used are Charolais and Hereford. The former is used for artificial breeding purposes and the latter for breeding those cows which have not conceived artificially.
The basis of the experiment was a Holstein-Charolais cross for use by dairy farmers having grade Holstein cows.
Grade Holstein cows are the bases of the majority of dairy herds and the Holstein-Charolais cross was used to produce big meaty calves as rapidly as possible.
8.	The calves are separated from the cows in the evening and the cows are pastured during the night with a milkout in the morning. The calves are then turned back with, the cows.
A detailed accounting is being done with, respect to the economics of operation.


TOTAL ISSUE OF 3 PER CENT BONDS
Mr. Winkler: 1.	What was the total amount of the 3 per cent bonds issued in 1936?
2.	As of the last fiscal year, how many of the bonds were in the possession of the original purchasers?
3.	How many of the bonds now in existence are allegedly held by speculators as suggested by the Minister of Finance?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: :
1.	$55 million.

November 9, 1966
Questions
2.	Almost half of the perpetual bonds is held in bearer form and since these bonds may change hands frequently without the changes being recorded it is not possible to answer this question in respect of bearer bonds. Relatively few of the registered bonds are still in the names in which they were originally registered. There were 4,698 registered holders as at September 15, 1966, of whom 330 were original registrations.
3.	The Minister of Finance noted in the house on October 5 that perpetual bonds are marketable bonds and that, as such, purchases in recent years have been made at market prices which were substantially below the original issue price.


DAWSON CITY-KLONDYKE RIVER BRIDGE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to build a bridge across the Klondyke river at Dawson city to facilitate transportation of asbestos from the Clinton Creek Mine?
2.	If so, will this bridge be built in time for the commencement of production next year?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1 and 2. It
is presumed that the hon. member is referring in his question to the Yukon river since a highway bridge already exists over the Klondyke river near Dawson city, and a bridge over the Yukon river was at one time considered in connection with the asbestos mine. Since a new ferry and an aerial cableway across the Yukon river will be constructed and installed before the end of 1967 to facilitate transportation of asbestos, there is no need to construct a bridge for this purpose at the present time.


NOVA SCOTIA MANPOWER ALLOCATIONS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the present population of Nova Scotia?
2.	How many persons are presently in the labour force in Nova Scotia?
3.	How many persons are presently engaged in national defence and supporting services and industries in Nova Scotia (a) in the armed services (b) in civilian jobs?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secrefary of Slate):: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and National Defence as follows:
1.	Estimated population of Nova Scotia, at June 1, 1966, was 760,000.

2.	Number of persons in the labour force in Nova Scotia in the week ended September 17, 1966 was 254,000.
3.	There are 14,339 armed forces personnel and 7,314 civilians directly employed by the Department of National Defence in Nova Scotia. There is no way of determining the number of civilians who may be employed in supporting services and industries.


ST. ANDREWS, N.B.-RELOCATION OF FEDERAL OFFICES
Mr. Flemming: Is consideration being given to relocating the following federal offices and personnel now located in St. Andrews, New Brunswick (a) the Fisheries Protection Branch (b) the Fisheries Inspection Branch (c) the Fisheries Research Board?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: (a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Ormiston: 1.	How many offices have been set up in Canada to provide information regarding the Canada Pension Plan?
2.	Where are these offices located?
3.	What are the names of all persons staffing these offices?
4.	What salaries are paid to these persons?
5.	What rentals are paid for office accommodation?
Return tabled.


NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO-BIDDERS ON FEDERAL PROJECTS
Mr. Reid: 1.	How many Manitoba construction firms have been successful bidders on federal government projects in northwestern Ontario in the last five
years?
2.	Do these firms pay the current wage rates in effect in these areas and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.

Mr. Real ' Caouette (Villeneuve):	Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State replied to me concerning question No. 910, which is still on the order paper and dates back to March 1. He said that the matter was being considered thoroughly by
November 9, 1966

the various departments and that I would get an answer in a few days. This was a few weeks ago. Today, can the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister tell me when a reply to that question will be supplied?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the answer given last week was accurate and still holds good.


Mr. Caouette:: This does not answer my question.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 179 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations respecting confidential papers and the authorization of the Ontario and Manitoba government authorities.
Would Your Honour call notices of motions No. 166 and 178?



CORRESPONDENCE OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT IN THE CONSTITUENCY OF COMPTON-FRONTENAC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 166-Mr. Lalulippe:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department and any citizen of the constituency of Compton-Frontenac from January 1, 1963, to October 12, 1966.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 179-Mr. Schreyer:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all ceorrespondence between the Government of Canada and the Governments of Ontario and Manitoba with reference to the problem of pollution of the Winnipeg river.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 178-Mr. Hales:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between any department of the government of Canada and the Studebaker Company of Canada and the Volkswagen Company of Canada concerning the importation of cars.
Motions for Papers
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this motion in its present form is not acceptable because it would require me, as Minister of National Revenue, to produce customs invoices and other documents, the production of some of which is prohibited by law, and some of which have been treated as confidential between taxpayers and the tax collector of Canada. That these documents are confidential has been traditionally recognized by this house. However, I would produce voluntarily from the files any documents that the law officers of my department judge not to fall into these categories.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I accept, on those conditions.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the minister is it the pleasure of the house that this notice of motion be deemed to have been adopted?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion on my undertaking, because if such a motion as this were passed it would create a precedent for producing documents, some of which by law are not allowed to be produced, and some of which have been treated as confidential. I have given my undertaking.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Dropped.
Ord^r discharged and motion withdrawn.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to notice of motion No. 176, for the past two weeks I have been contacted by members of the government who have given various reasons why this motion should be stood. That has not happened this week. I wonder if the hon. gentleman concerned would let me know why the government is not prepared to produce the papers and information requested in notice of motion No. 176.

November 9, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Translation]	just maintained silence, the question would


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I understand have been asked. Will the Prime Minister that the minister-	now, regardless of political consequences-


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I would ask the hon. members who presented these motions concerning Trans Canada Pipe Lines kindly to give me another few days to assess what is involved here, and I promise to give them an answer next week.


Murdo William Martin: The only difficulty with regard to the hon. gentleman's suggestion is that a further opportunity to discuss the issue covered by this notice of motion is not likely to arise. If the minister could give us some assurance that we shall be able to discuss the matters contained therein I would be glad to agree to his proposal. But it appears to me that the only opportunity we have to discuss this matter arises during the present debate.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only observe that the house has found a way to debate this matter in recent days and I am quite sure hon. members will find another way in the future.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I would ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that, generally speaking, editorial comment across this country indicates support for the stand which is taken by the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -that the bill regarding unification should, following first reading, be sent to a committee for investigation, and in view of the support from the president of the Navy League of Canada this very day, and the support, for example-hon. gentlemen opposite jeer, I notice-from a paper which has always supported the Liberal party, the Ottawa Citizen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to ask the Leader of the Opposition to put his question.


John George Diefenbaker: With the assistance of those opposite. If they interrupt, it requires an answer, I have to elucidate. If they had
[Mr. Martin (Timmins) .1


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -direct that this should be done?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I appreciate the right hon. gentleman's absence of concern for political consequences but I can only tell him what has already been told the house, that the government feels the normal procedure should be followed in this matter, that is, second reading; and, after second reading, if the house so decides, the bill will go to committee for detailed discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I would ask the Prime Minister why it was that when the transportation bill, that complicated measure, came before the house it was sent to a committee before second reading.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is not the time to explain why that procedure was followed. It will not be followed on this occasion.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: In
view of the fact that second reading implies approval in principle of legislation, and in view of the fact that members of the defence committee have not had an opportunity to examine this matter fully, does the Prime Minister not think it would be reasonable to follow the course which was followed in connection with the transportation legislation and send the subject matter of this bill to the defence committee, thereby enabling the house to get on with other business?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The subject matter of this bill has already been sent to a committee, when it was exhaustively examined.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Sending the subject matter of this bill to another committee at this time would, in effect, kill the bill. We propose to proceed with the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: As a
supplementary question to the Prime Minister, would he not consider a reasonable settlement and discuss with the Minister of
November 9, 1968



National Defence the possibility of immediately reconvening the committee on defence with a view to referring back to it item 1 of the estimates, so that there can be a reasonable and detailed study made of what is involved in this bill without in any way endangering the status of the bill itself?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I still think the best course, for reasons which have already been given more than once in the house, is to get to second reading of this bill as quickly as possible, where it can be given exhaustive examination as to principle, and if the house accepts the principle of it, it can then go to the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: If the house accepts the principle-which it won't, so far as the official opposition is concerned.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just said that this matter had been discussed at great length in committee sessions. How can he reconcile that statement with the minister's own statement to the last session of the committee that no final decision had been taken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This appears to be an argumentative question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is a good supplementary question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister says he wishes to get to discussion of the defence bill as quickly as possible, may I ask him whether this means that it will take priority over old age pension legislation, medicare, National Housing Act amendments and increases in veterans pensions? I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not reconsider the appeal I made to him the other day that these very important items, which have been on the order paper for a long time-


Mr. Hellyer:: You have been holding them up all week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -be given-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member ask his question?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am asking if the Prime Minister would agree to having these items given priority over this amendment to the Defence Act, in view of the fact that a great many Canadians will be adversely affected if this other legislation is not passed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this particular bill has already taken priority over these matters because of the decision taken by my hon. friends opposite to debate it on interim supply almost indefinitely, but that does not mean that the legislation itself will take priority over the other bills mentioned by my hon. friend.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: As a
supplementary question, I would like to ask the Prime Minister when we can expect the legislation in regard to old age security pensions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when the house is ready to debate it, it will be here for debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. This was hardly a supplementary question, although it might have been a related question.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: As
a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will return to the hon. member in a short while.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister whether he will reconsider his decision and refer the unification bill to the defence committee before second reading, now that he has established full control over the Liberal caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that there is no substantial difference between the question now asked and one asked earlier today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes there is, Mr. Speaker; I added an additional feature to my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

November 9. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning gold production in the Malartic-Val d'Or area of northwestern Quebec.
In answer to a question of mine, the minister said the other day that he was keeping in touch with Quebec provincial authorities. Has there been any further development since that time, and when the minister says that the federal government is prepared to help stabilize social conditions in Malartic, what steps is the minister now taking to help the province solve this problem in the Malar-tic-Val d'Or area and vicinity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the question, as put by the hon. member, is too general in nature to be asked at this time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will put my question in another way. Did anything come out of the talks between the federal and provincial governments to help the gold miners at last?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my officials are now in touch with the officials of the Quebec department of labour. I have already expressed the view that it was not possible at this time to increase federal aid to gold production, but my department is in touch with the officials of the Quebec department of labour to review the ways at the disposal of the federal government to bring about a settlement of a problem which is essentially a social problem.
The hon. member for Villeneuve knows as well as I do that there are in the legislation of the Department of Manpower and Immigration all kinds of ways which could be used in the present situation.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he any information to pass along to the house regarding the
[Mr. Churchill.)
discussions taking place between the government and the postal workers of Canada, and also between Air Canada and the Association of International Machinists?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in the house earlier this week, both parties to the conciliation board have agreed that the three members of the board should continue to act as mediators in the Air Canada dispute. These mediation proceedings are still going on; the parties are together today, I believe, and are prepared to continue to negotiate. As long as the parties are acting in that way I feel it is better that this course be followed than that the government intervene.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The hon. member for Northumberland has asked about the postal workers. This is not the direct responsibility of the Minister of Labour. This matter does not come within the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and, therefore, the question could better be answered by one of the members of the government more directly involved.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board. I should like to ask him whether he could report to the house on the situation regarding the government's dealings with the postal workers.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, my officials met with the postal workers this morning. I anticipate meeting with them this afternoon at about 3.30 p.m. I also hope to meet this afternoon with the Public Service Alliance which represents more than an equal number of civil servants in group "D".



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I should like now to present a further supplementary question to the right hon. the Prime Minister and ask him whether the old age security legislation is ready.
November 9, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the hon. member repeat that?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I asked whether the old age security legislation is ready.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the same question that was asked a moment ago.


Mr. Ricard:: The Minister of Transport said the other day it is not.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Solicitor General. Is he aware of the program which appeared on the C.B.C. news at eleven o'clock last evening in which it was alleged that a private detective, at the urging of Mr. Pat O'Neill of the International Union of Pulp and Sulphide Workers, was able to get the R.C.M.P. to instal listening devices at a meeting of the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada? If so, is the minister having the matter investigated?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I have had notice of the hon. member's question I have asked for a full report on this matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At the same time would the Solicitor General review the reason for the death of the president of the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada, Mr. Lloyd Craig, a highly respected trade union leader in my riding, who died at about that time of shock and a heart attack.


Lawrence T. Pennell: As I mentioned earlier I have asked for a full report of all the allegations surrounding the matter raised by the hon. member.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: May
I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister agree that the time has come for the committee on justice and legal affairs to study the nefarious practice of wire tapping in this country?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I would like to say that about two months ago this matter was brought under discussion in the Department of Justice and by the officials of my department. However, I will take the hon. member's question under advisement and discuss it with my colleagues.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



EARL CAMERON-USE OF COMMENTARIES IN NEWSCASTING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who reports for the C.B.C. Would she ascertain from the C.B.C. the reason for the peremptory demotion of Earl Cameron who has earned for himself universal popularity and who has become known as the news broadcaster "Mr. Canada"?
At the same time will she ascertain why the technique for news programming is to be changed and a commentary substituted in place of straight reporting, which means that there will be a grave tendency toward partisanship if news is to be interpreted by an agency of the government?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly endeavour to find this out, but I am afraid it is unfair to characterize the C.B.C. as an agency of the government. As my right hon. friend knows from the time when he was the chief official of the country, it is impossible to direct the C.B.C. news as to our own views. I have never tried it because I was pretty sure I would be ineffective at it. However, I will try to obtain the information requested.


John George Diefenbaker: I congratulate the minister for never having interfered, according to her statement. I should like to ask this question: Will she not give consideration to expressing the view to the C.B.C. that to change news reporting to commentary has in it an inherent danger to objective reporting in this country.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. I know that the alternate network very often is not objective in its reporting, and some of us object to that. I will be glad to take this up with the president of the corporation and in this connection I will convey to him a copy of today's Hansard.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of standing order 39 to put a question to the Leader of the Opposition.

November 9, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
In his capacity as leader of the Conservative party, could the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether it is true that he-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I may be interpreting differently the provisions of standing order 39, but I do not think the member can put a question like the one he seems about to ask. It would be simpler to allow him to put his *question and then take it into consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, under standing [DOT]order-


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that his question must be related to a bill or a resolution now before the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, standing order 39 refers to a question seeking information:
-from other members, relating to any bill, motion *or other public matter connected with the business [DOT]of the house-
Now, my question actually refers to a public matter connected with the business of the house. Here is my question to the Leader of the Opposition: Is it true that the Conservative party, of which he is the leader, has firmly and irrevocably decided to maintain, to extend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should go any further. The question as put is obviously out of order, since it deals with the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition as party leader and is not specifically connected with the business of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will put it to him as the Leader of the Official Opposition. Moreover, I would like to point out that I have not yet directed my question which is as follows: Is it true that the Leader of the Official Opposition has taken the firm and irrevocable decision to continue indefinitely consideration of interim supply or until the government is ready to refer the new bill brought in by the minister to the special committee on national defence before passage of the motion for second reading.


Mr. Speaker:: I can only repeat what I said a moment ago, namely that this matter would require a statement from the Leader of the Opposition as leader of his party and not as a member of the house and, consequently, the question is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
{Mr. Gregoire.]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will admit that since his question has been ruled out of order, it cannot be referred for further discussion. If the hon. member will refer to standing orders, he will see that a member can ask that his question be discussed later when it is not deemed to be urgent.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau), I would like to say that the members of the opposition are sincerely hoping for his complete recovery in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister, in the minister's absence. Now that the cabinet has had a chance to study the results of the last federal-provincial conference, is the government now actively considering methods to obtain a basic constitutional reform including, but apart from, questions relating to a satisfactory amendment formula?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question of the constitution and what changes, if any, may be required to it in the future has been under consideration within the government through a committee of officials, in accord with the answer I gave on this subject, I think last May. That study is going on.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the strong representations made to the government a couple of days ago by the Public Service Alliance with respect to the need for a pension increase for retired civil servants, will the government take a brand new look at this urgent question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government has already looked at this question more than once, as my hon. friend knows. I will consider whether it would be advisable to have another examination of this matter.
November 9, 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister support the President of the Treasury Board in the proposition that this matter be referred to the joint committee on public service for study in the sessions of that committee which are now being held?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that question, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR INCREASED PRICES UNDER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his position as head of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that for the last five years, mostly under the pressure of the American government, farmers of the wheat producing nations of the world have had their prices held in check, would the minister now consider making a statement of government policy that we are in favour of the international wheat agreement being continued and that an immediate meeting of the council be held to see if we cannot get the floor and ceiling prices raised?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that every effort is being made to increase the floor and ceiling prices, and negotiations are going on at the present time. I will report to the house as progress develops.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Going back to my original question, I should like the minister, in view of the election results yesterday in the mid-western United States, whether he does not consider the time is now appropriate to apply pressure publicly on the American government to having a meeting of the International Wheat Council as early as possible to start dealing with this matter of increasing our prices?


Robert Henry Winters: All I can say is that every conceivable pressure is being applied on a world basis. I think the hon. member will take satisfaction in knowing that officials are at this moment negotiating to that end.
Inquiries of the Ministry ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN QUOTAS
On the orders of the day:


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question put previously about the wheat board. On November 4, as reported in Hansard at page 9543, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) asked a question about wheat quotas predicated on what he anticipated to be an increase in machinery prices. Without accepting the stated reason for asking this question, I may say that the Canadian Wheat Board's policy is to increase quotas as fast as possible, bearing in mind the grams and grades of grain needed to meet their marketing commitments. The board will continue this policy.



ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR GREATER SPEED IN MOVEMENT OF TOUGH GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked on November 4 by the hon. member for Acadia, (Mr. Horner) as reported at page 9539 of Hansard. The hon. member asked about the movement of tough grain off the prairies. The answer is that the Canadian Wheat Board is fully aware of the problem of high moisture grain in certain parts of the prairies. This problem is under consideration at the present time by the board, to determine the best action to assist producers in delivering their high moisture grain and to move this grain to terminal positions for conditioning.
At present the board is prepared to grant permission, on request from individual producers, for the delivery of high moisture grain in exchange for board stocks of dry grain which can be stored by the producer without going out of condition. Other measures are also under consideration, and the board has assured me that they will make every effort to see that high moisture grain is not allowed to deteriorate.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the minister referred to terminal elevators being used as soon as possible. I wonder whether the minister would inquire of the wheat board why the inland elevators are not used for this purpose, because I understand they are standing empty at the present time.

November 9, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that the wheat board would much prefer to use the elevators near the ports of export. But I intend to visit Winnipeg on Monday to talk over this and a number of other related matters with the wheat board, and I will discuss this point in more detail then.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the wheat board. I wonder whether when he is in Winnipeg next week he would discuss with them the feasibility of increasing the initial prices for grains delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board, and report back to us after he returns?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Shouldn't the minister see Senator Argue first?


Robert Henry Winters: I will discuss this matter with them, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I would ask the minister whether he has received a communication from Mr. Millard, a member of the board of trustees of the maritime unions, in which Mr. Millard denies having made the statement attributed to him by my confrere from Kootenay West just a few days ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question as asked is in order.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the Canadian Bankers Association representatives are now before the committee reviewing the Bank Act legislation, and other representatives of the banks will soon be before it, could I ask the Minister of Finance what progress is being made in the drafting of the legislation having to do with a federal deposit insurance corporation, and when we might expect to see that legislation, which it is important we should see

while those witnesses are still before the committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I answered a similar question put by the hon. member. I added, in response to another question asked by another hon. member a few days later, that we are now discussing the general terms of the legislation, although not the draft bill itself of course, with the provincial governments to ascertain their reaction. These discussions are now proceeding. I expect to have a report in a few days. Then the terms will be approved by cabinet and I hope the resolution will be brought before the house without delay.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
CHIBOUGAMAU-CHAPAIS TELEVISION SERVICE On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Can she tell the house whether she has made recommendations recently to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with a view to extending television services to the Chibougamau-Chapais and other areas not yet served by the C.B.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is very general in character and it seems to me that the hon. member could easily place it on the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to give a further reply to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning the sentence of imprisonment that was imposed on one Vigodda, relating to the Deloro Smelting Company. I am now advised that the prosecution was conducted by the appropriate authorities of the province of Ontario and that the sentence is under appeal by them.
November 9, 1966



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Is it a fact that the Canadian car manufacturers are experiencing considerable difficulty in meeting their commitments and obligations to the government under the Canada-U.S. car treaty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question can be asked in this way at this time; it is very general in nature. The hon. member might want to rephrase it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is the minister in a position to say whether the Canadian car manufacturers are experiencing difficulty in meeting their commitments under the Canada-U.S. car treaty?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian motorcar manufacturers are meeting both their commitments and their undertakings under the general automotive agreement. They are experiencing the kind of difficulty one encounters when hard tasks are set for accomplishment.


An hon. Member:: What about Studebaker?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is the minister in a position to accept the declining car sales in Canada and the U.S. as an excuse or a reason for not meeting their commitments?



EXPO '67 REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CONCERNING ACCOMMODATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger Regimbal (Argenteuil-Deux-Moniagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as the minister responsible to the house for Expo '67.
In view of the spreading conviction that it will be practically impossible to make room reservations in Montreal during Expo '67, would the minister assure the house and the whole country that such is not the case and that all Canadians can go ahead with their plans to visit Expo, confident that there will be adequate accommodation available for them?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the minister should have the opportunity of giving such an assurance during the debate on the adjournment motion.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is he now in a position to tell the house the results of the investigation of his department into the manner of transportation used to bring the Mexican Mennonites into this country?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I
think this question pertains mainly to the highways act, which is not under my jurisdiction. As far as the Mennonites are concerned, an investigation is being carried on into this matter. I hope I will be in a position to make a complete report to the house in the near future.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $371,999,867.43, being the aggregate of-
(a) one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Items for Citizenship and Immigration. Defence Production, Forestry, Industry, Legislation. National Revenue, Post Office, Privy Council and Veterans Affairs, already provided for in Appropriation Act No. 6. 1966, and except Agriculture Item 35, Atomic Energy Item 5. Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Finance Item 15, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 40 and 70, Transport Item 103, and Loans, Investments and Advances Items L40, L75 and L80. for which no proportion is granted-$309,794,765.50;
(h) an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Public Works Item 65 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,600,000.00;
(c)	an additional two-twelfths of the total amounts of National Defence Item 35, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 20 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates-$3,175,900.00;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L30 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates-$9,166,-666.67;
(e)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (a) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before
[Stage Direction]
November 9, 1966
Interim Supply
the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a and Transport Items 102a and 103a, for which no proportion is granted -$26,276,101.92;
(f)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amounts of External Affairs Item 35a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L22a (Schedule
D)	of the said Supplementary Estimates-$11,304,-250.00;
(g)	an additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Secretary of State Item 40a (Schedule
E)	of the said Supplementary Estimates-$713,-266.67;
(h)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amounts of Finance Item 15a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40a (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$4,716,666.67;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total amount of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Loans, Investments and Advances Item L32b, for which no proportion is granted-$2,252,250.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two on this subject, in summary of my remarks made last evening. I was trying to point out at that time that the unification of our armed forces was a drastic change in the whole defence picture and would have effects on the very sovereignty of which Canadians have been so proud over the years. I was asking the minister to allow us the same privilege of which the associate minister availed himself and which he exercised in his speech to the house. The associate minister said that he also wondered whether or not this was the right policy. He paused, he hesitated, he consulted experts and they reassured him that this was the right policy. All we on this side are asking of the minister is the same right as was exercised by the Associate Minister of National Defence. We want to call in witnesses who we think are capable of giving us a clear picture of the situation. I do not know what witnesses the minister or the associate minister called in, but we see today all across Canada numerous former officers from the navy, the army and the air force coming forward and expressing grave doubts as to the whole idea of unification.
Editorials in every leading paper are questioning the procedure suggested by the minister. I could read editorials from the Calgary Herald, the Vancouver newspapers, the Globe and Mail and even the Winnipeg Free Press questioning whether or not this house should

pause to consider and hear evidence before voting on the principle of the bill.
Last evening the minister stated that all he wanted to do was to follow the normal course. I suggest to him that the normal course is the proper one to follow in a normal case, but at this time the house is being asked to break away from normal and traditional procedure. The house has previously departed from normal procedure in dealing with legislation. I remember quite well when Bill No. C-120, the new transportation bill, was introduced a couple of years ago. The Minister of Transport realized that it represented a drastic change in the whole transportation system in Canada and he asked for unanimous consent to delay second reading of the bill so as to send it to a committee for further detailed examination. He received the unanimous consent of the house and the bill did go to committee. It proved to be unworkable and was thrown out.
It seems to me this was a factual appraisal of a piece of government legislation. One might say it was democracy at work. This is all we ask of the Minister of National Defence. We beg him and we plead with him to let us examine this bill in committee. We have gone along with integration. I have nothing against integration of the personnel in the armed forces. However, we want to pause now and see whether this integration should develop into the ultimate unification or amalgamation of the services.
The Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister might well say that the opposition is terrible because it is using blackmail, that by prolonging debate on this supply motion we are placing the government in a dangerous financial crisis. We have nothing like that in mind. It is the government alone which has placed itself in this position.
Two or three weeks ago the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona asked that his motion be sent to a committee. He had to have the unanimous consent of the house, and it received the support of every member in this house, except the minister, who said "I alone refuse". That is where he made a grave mistake, and I emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that he was the only one to refuse unanimous consent.
There were many members on the other side of the house who agreed. In fact I think I heard even the Prime Minister say he agreed. The only one to say "no" was the Minister of National Defence.
November 9, 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is in control of the Liberal caucus.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He may well be. We are pleading with the minister to solve his own financial crisis and not to blame us for having created it. He alone created it some two or three weeks ago when he was the only one to rise in his place and refuse unanimous consent.
I say to the minister that he is not asking the house to take the normal course with regard to unification, that in reality it represents a drastic change. In those circumstances I think it is only wise to follow the example set by that venerable politician, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, when he suggested that before second reading the railway bill be submitted to a committee. Maybe the Minister of National Defence being a younger member in the house, does not have the political experience of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, but he should follow his example.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
For example let us look at some of the evidence as it appeared in today's Citizen in which appears an article written by Vice Admiral Rayner, who is just one of a whole host of 40 officers who retired earlier at a cost of nearly $1 million to the taxpayers. Vice Admiral Rayner had been a naval officer for 30 years but he retired of his own accord. This is what he has said about one of the matters mentioned last night, our sovereignty:
I think that the sovereignty of our nation is bound up with the question of unification.
This is a statement that cannot be dismissed lightly because this naval officer has had 30 years' experience serving his country. I am reading this article to help all those on whom the burden rests of deciding whether or not we should unify our forces, and this includes every citizen of Canada.
Then the Vice Admiral goes on to quote the following statement, and I think this is particularly directed to members of the House of Commons.


The Chairman:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, may I continue this quotation in fairness to Vice Admiral Rayner?
Interim Supply


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice Admiral Rayner continues by quoting these words, to which I believe he is directing the attention of hon. members;
I say it would be absolutely unforgiveable and indefensible if this house were asked to commit itself to this very important principle of unification, which the minister himself has described as a fundamental reorganization, before the views of qualified and experienced persons have been expressed.
I would ask all members of the house to consider that statement. The minister alone can resolve the position in which the government finds itself today. He alone can assure all civil servants across Canada that they will receive their pay on time. The burden of responsibility rests on him. Therefore I urge him to stand in his place and say that he is tired of the supply debate going on and on. Let him say that he has nothing to conceal, that he wants to reveal the facts and to send this matter to the defence committee. That is all we ask.
I will not hold it against him if he does this. If somebody says that he has retreated, I would say that he has become wise and has become wise not too late. This will save the nation an embarrassment, it will save the government from mishandling the affairs of the country, and it will bring about some degree of satisfaction to the admirals, generals and air vice marshals who are concerned about our defences and about the sovereignty upon which Canada depends so much.


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Chairman, in all modesty, I admit that I did not feel any special competence to comment in this house on the matter of national defence. However, I think that during these few last days it has become clear that the debate is taking a very specific course which goes beyond the field of national defence and, as a matter of fact, the debate is now rather on the question of national security. As a Canadian and as a member of parliament, I believe that I am bound to make some comments, more particularly because of two incidents that occurred last week end, which have shown me that there is more at stake than the matter raised up to now by the Minister of National Defence.

November 9, 1966
Interim Supply
The first was a rather dull speech given last Friday, I believe, by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain). I had intended to make a few teasing remarks to say the least, about him, but unfortunately I hear that he is not only away from the house but out of the country; I shall therefore contain myself in that respect. Still, I should like to point out that it is rather strange that that independent member should always find a way of supporting, and most staunchly, the positions adopted by the government. In every debate he always goes to the rescue of the poor little Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), of the poor little Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith). Running true to form, last Friday he went to the rescue of the poor little Minister of National Defence.
I feel that if he is to follow so steadfastly the Liberal stand he should not be ashamed -because one must not be ashamed-to be a Liberal, all the more so because, at the present time, it seems that the members of that party could use all the support they can get no matter where it comes from.
But the point I wanted to make with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, is that he claims he is willing to accept blindly and straight away the principle which is being defended here. That astonishes me for the particular reason that ever since that question has come up, more and more doubts have been expressed from day to day, from week to week and from month to month. There is also decreasing recruitment in the armed forces and an increasing number of resignations. Everything revolves on the debate on that principle.
Now, it has been established that the armed forces need approximately 109,000 men; we are getting closer to that figure all the time. To be logical, we must anticipate the day when the armed forces will comprise less than 109,000 men-perhaps 90,000 or 85,000-always because of a questionable principle. Now, the normal consequence, if 109,000 men are really needed in our armed forces, is that the vacancies will have to be filled and the only way will be through conscription. I can hardly believe that the member for Trois-Rivieres, as well as the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), would be ready to endorse without question a principle likely to bring about such a result.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Would the hon.
member allow me a question?
[Mr. Rfjgimbal.l


Roger E. Régimbal: I would be very anxious to hear the maiden speech of my hon. friend.


Paul Langlois: Just a question.
I would like to know in what story book you found that last phrase?


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Chairman, 1 think it is more and more obvious that members of the government are particularly good at living in a world of fiction, a world of make-believe. They have imputed all kinds of motives to us until now and I think little by little the message will get across that we are not here to enjoy ourselves, that they are raising a serious matter, a matter of principle which we will have to face. But we must not forget that it is also a matter for which they may have to answer one day, because they are taking a stand which is extremely difficult to defend and maintain; they may have to answer for it and we are surely taking down everything.
The second incident has to do with the fact that over the weekend I had the opportunity to meet a rather large number of air force officers and their wives. If the minister is under the impression that the whole matter is not creating doubts and weakening morale in our armed forces, I think he should make it his duty to go and see them. If he does not believe the officers he might listen more closely to their wives who are completely dismayed and are objecting more and more strongly to the measures which are to be imposed upon them, because they see that the opposition to the simple question which is raised give to understand that things are going on behind the scenes which can only play against them.
Strangely enough, in that group of 20 people or so, the only one who stood up for the minister's defence policy was a civil servant working for the air force. He had learned his lesson very well, obviously from that information source from which the minister gets the conviction he needs to defend his
stand.	.
Mr. Chairman, oddly enough that reminds me of the story of the fighter who was being clobbered round after round by a much better opponent. At the end of the first round, his trainer or second told him: "Do not worry, old man, he is not hitting you; your footwork is perfect, your defence is excellent." And so on until the eighth round. Always hearing the same thing, he asked his second: "Is it really true that he is not hitting me?" And the other one answered: "Yes." So the fighter said: "Well, watch the referee then
November 9, 1966

because someone is beating me up." I think that the minister would be well advised to listen a little less to his assistants and a little more to the people directly affected by the policy he wants to introduce.
Now, what is the question today? I think that at last the rather emotional tone of the first few hours of the debate has been dropped. I think quite frankly that the Canadian people, like everyone here, realize more and more that the question goes much deeper than Admiral Landymore, Admiral Brock or any other man.
The first question is unification. In spite of what the minister says, the meaning of that word is not understood at all, nor its effects.
He repeated several times last evening that it was simply a matter of following the normal trend of events.
I feel it must be realized that there is nothing normal in the present circumstances, because it is the first time in history, I believe, certainly in Canadian history and probably in American history, that such an attempt has been undertaken.
Then, since there is no precedent, I think it is entirely logical, before voting on the issue, to scrutinize as much as possible an entirely new principle and the minister is somewhat dishonest-Mr. Chairman, I apologize for using such an unparliamentary word, but I think you know in what state of mind it is used-to try to include, if you prefer, in a normal procedure, one which will create precedents which unfortunately are unknown to us.
It is in that sense that I maintain it is unfortunate to want us to accept a principle whose conclusions are unknown. And there again, the only thing the opposition asks is to be in a position to consider the question thoroughly before approving its principle.
They do not say it will be rejected. Above all, they definitely do not say "kill the bill". They only want to satisfy the normal curiosity of all Canadians and of all members of parliament who would like to know exactly what it is all about. This is therefore a unique fact.
But on the other hand, the stand we are taking is supported by precedents showing that the normal course is not necessarily always followed. Reference was made this afternoon to something which can be found on page 1057 of the Journals, and I quote:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

By unanimous consent, the Order being read for the second reading of Bill C-120, An Act to amend
Interim Supply
the Railway Act, the Transport Act and the Canadian National Railways Act, and to repeal the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act:
Mr. Pickersgill, seconded by Mr. Sharp, moved._
That the said bill be now read a second time.
And the question being proposed;
Mr. Mcllraith, seconded by Mr. Favreau. moved, -That the said bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
And the question being put on the latter motion, it was agreed to.
So we are not dealing with something new. We ask for special treatment in view of special conditions and circumstances before bringing in a unique form of national defence because we do not know enough about the matter.

For all that, enough doubts were created, because of the parties which stood up on both sides, to justify at least an intelligent question on the cogency of the principle intended to be laid down. I do not think that the Canadian people will blame us for taking a position based on logic.
In the second place, I am under the impression that this is more and more a question of an omniscient, omnipotent minister who wants to push through his point of view at all costs, even at the cost of our system of parliamentary committees from which, in principle, members derived much satisfaction.
Why is he jeopardizing the parliamentary committee system? This was mentioned before, and I will repeat it briefly. It is on account of the deplorable way, justified or not-I doubt very much that it can be justified-in which pieces of evidence by experts were handled, which has become obvious. Of course, if there is the least chance that civil service experts appearing before a parliamentary committee will receive suggestions or orders to be followed in one way, or another, we must certainly lose our faith in any communication we might get from the civil service.
I believe that this is a serious disadvantage and, in short, a legitimate concern. More and more this strength, this determination, this stubbornness on the part of the minister are becoming apparent and, it must be noted, he has received very little support, up to now, even from the people on his side.
There is another important point. We have been accused by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), by some members, and

November 9, 1966
Interim Supply
by the minister himself, of undertaking a filibuster. Here again, I think that a very honest attitude would be to present the problem as it really is. One should realize, once and for all, that the attitude we take and the time we need to establish our position are at our own expense and not at anybody else's expense. I shall come back later on to the question of the civil service.
However, from a parliamentary point of view, we are entitled to a debate of 30 days on interim supply. So, the time that is needed to discuss this question, because it is worth discussing, is taken out of the time which we would normally devote to the study of other subjects during future debates.
The sacrifice is great, it is considerable. There is no question at all of a filibuster. In all honesty, I think we must consider-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I think it is not the intention of the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes to mislead the house by saying that 30 days are allocated for interim supply.
I should like to correct that statement and point out that we do not have 30 days for interim supply only, but 30 days for the study of interim supply, supply motions and estimates of every department.
Therefore, I think it is a good idea to correct the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal) and to remind him at the same time that every day passed on interim supply is a day lost with regard to estimates, which means so much less time to study the estimates. I simply correct my hon. friend to prevent him from uselessly misleading the house.


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Chairman, I accept the correction in so far as it is justified, and I should like to be able to look into this myself in order to ascertain to what extent the hon. member-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on another question of privilege, since the hon. member seems to question my statement. He need only ask the member in front of him, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who will confirm what I have just said, for the hon. gentleman is well versed in the matter.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.
tMr. Regimbal.]


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is he joining the Liberal party?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member, having made his point of order, should allow the debate to continue.


An hon. Member:: There is no point of order.


Roger E. Régimbal: Besides, on this whole matter, Mr. Chairman, I think that the position taken by the opposition wins more and more support in the press, in the general public and even in parliament. And I say this with all due respect for Mr. Pigeon who, I believe, is parliamentary correspondent for La Presse and who had essentially negative remarks to make on our proposal this morning, and with all due respect also for Mr. Gerard Pelletier, a Star columnist, whose article I found quite amusing when I read it last night.
In his comments on the house debate, Mr. Pelletier, the Star commentator, wrote and I quote:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

However, in spite of all their efforts to whip it up into a "national issue", to dramatize the problem and create an atmosphere of deep concern, they have not been successful at all.
First, it must be noted, of course, that the Tories are fighting this battle alone.

As a newspaperman, Mr. Pelletier perhaps has no right to be in the house, but if the member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) had been in the house a little oftener, he could have acquainted himself at least with the remarks of the members for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and Megantic (Mr. Langlois), which do not corroborate too much his assertions. He goes even further-

The N.D.P., the Creditistes and Social Credit, even the independents have refused to commit themselves-

Yet, interesting statements have been made by the hon. member for Greenwood as well as by the hon. member for Megantic-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes is asserting once again that the independents have refused to express their views. But, he does not specify on what matter, and I want to observe that when questions are called for consideration I am
November 9, 1966



always ready to express my opinion, even if I am an independent member.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member has no point of order.


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Chairman, I will not blame the hon. member for not understanding a thing, because I was quoting verbatim what Mr. Gerard Pelletier wrote in the Star.

They do have their reservations but they insist on distinguishing between a principle they approve and methods they don't like.

And I will give another short quotation even if it is not strictly related to the subject; my purpose is to show how the hon. member for Hoehelaga is aware of the facts when he says:

Seven committees are at work and they do form a quorum without too much difficulty-

Apparently the member for Hoehelaga was not in the house yesterday to see to what extent such a question could be questioned. Besides, everybody agrees, I think, it would be better to read a little less of Mr. Gerard Pellet.er and hear a little more of the member for Hoehelaga so that he might share with us his unfused knowledge which seems so obvious.
I also found unfortunate the intervention of the Public Service Alliance, which pointed out last night that the opposition should not delay the payment of civil servants' pay cheques over the weekend. I think it is an awkward way of putting the question since 97 members are involved and, with the other opposition members siding with them, there are a hundred persons against only one.
So, there is no doubt in my mind, and there should not be any in the mind of anybody, that the opposition comes from one man, stubbornly holding his ground, in spite of the fact that our request is so very simple. The matter could be settled in five minutes if he would only agree, because of its special character, to refer the matter to the committee before second reading. It is as simple as that. I am also under the impression that this same opinion is gradually gaining ground in the house, for agreement is already unanimous among Conservatives, and a lot of Creditistes 23033-616
Interim, Supply
and some N.D.P. members apparently intend to support us.
Concerning the Ralliement Creditistes, I am now referring to the squabble I may have had with the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) last night when I asked him if he had noted in Hansard the position taken by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois). He stated, as reported at page 9564. I am quoting him in English because he was speaking in English.

The minister has tabled his white paper and 1 must confess it does not contain many details. In fact. Mr. Chairman, if you will look at it closer you will see it does not contain any details and so it does not help us much. It does say there is going to be integration and unification, and that is all, leaving thousands of questions in our minds which need to be answered and as yet the minister has not answered any of them.

And, so as to justify his attitude he added, as can be seen on page 9566:

These are the things I wish to tell the minister today on my own behalf and, I can truthfully say. on behalf of a great number of members of our group. I expect the other members in my group have the same opinion because they are no more nitwits than possibly I am.

But apparently he had not taken the advice of his party leader.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a point of order. I just heard the quotation read by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes. He contends that last night the hon. member for Megantic was speaking on behalf of our group. I wish to tell him that what he was reading does not prove that the hon. member for Megantic was speaking on behalf of our group, but rather on his own behalf, since he said "On my own behalf". I wish the hon. member would keep that in mind and stop talking through his hat.


Roger E. Régimbal: I think all we have to do is to examine the situation as a whole-


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order. I only wish to say to the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, that it is preferable to have in the house groups of men capable of independent thought than people who, like sheep, all move together in the same direction, whatever the problem may be.

November 9, 1966
Interim Supply


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Chairman, this is probably the reason why the hon. member is the only one in his group. Since he is independent, it is not difficult to join his group.
Mr. Chairman, what we are asking for is simple, I believe. Our position can be easily understood. This is a principle with which we do not hesitate to become identified. I hope the minister will show good will and common sense and bring the debate to an early conclusion by simply agreeing to refer this question to the appropriate committee before second reading.
[DOT] (4.00 p.m.)


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I have a few grievances to air in the house, but on an entirely different subject from the ones stated by the previous speaker.
I should now like to call the attention of the house to a very important matter for the farmers and fruit-growers of my area.
In early June, two storms struck the area that I have the honour of representing in the house and caused extensive damage, to such an extent that according to a communication I received from the Societe Pomologique et fruitiere de Quebec, 170 farmers of my area have suffered damage estimated at approximately $2 million. Now, when I learned about this, I immediately got in touch with the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) to see whether he would contribute if the provincial government decided to give a subsidy to the stricken fanners; I was both disappointed and surprised by the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture since the members for the province of Quebec especially like to make us believe that he is the Minister of Agriculture who is most interested in the welfare and promotion of farmers in eastern Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I hear the members opposite cheering. When I have finished speaking, I will ask those members if they are still of the same opinion and if they would wake up to join me and plead the cause of our farmers who are abandoned and ignored by the present Liberal government.
Mr. Chairman, I was saying that I have been disappointed by the position taken by the government and more particularly by the Minister of Agriculture. We got a flat refusal. The provincial minister of agriculture made representations upon his federal counterpart

to obtain assistance, but he also met with a refusal, which is a clear example of the way the federal minister wants to assist farmers in the province of Quebec. We therefore met with a flat no.
Now, the same refusal was met by southwestern Ontario farmers who, in the summer of 1964, lost all or almost all of their corn and tomato crops. Excessive rain early in the season followed by a severe drought destroyed completely the crops of the farmers in that area. They also got in touch with the federal Minister of Agriculture and were turned down flat. They were given the same answer as that given by the minister to the farmers of the province of Quebec. It went more or less like this: a crop insurance scheme has been approved by the House of Commons and the help which can be given to the provinces must be given under that crop insurance plan.
That is the story for the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
I would now like, Mr. Chairman, to compare how the same Minister of Agriculture and his predecessor dealt with a problem absolutely similar to this one and involving the apple growers and farmers of British Columbia. I would not like any one to think that my words are dictated by spite or envy against the fruit growers of British Columbia, but 1 would like the same policy to be applied everywhere.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member continues to refer to the province from which I come as Columbie-Britannique. Its correct name is British Columbia.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Well, Mr. Chairman, if that can restore the good mood of my colleague, I am ready to accept his correction. But that must not prevent the house from realizing that there is a tremendous difference between the way the matters have been settled as far as the farmers in the province of my hon. friend are concerned and the apple-growers in my area and in south-western Ontario.
If hon. members want to refer to Hansard of May 3, 1965, the first answer given to a question put by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) was that there was a crop insurance program and that the assistance given by the federal government should be provided through the crop insurance plan, which would force the provinces
November 9, 1966

to participate in the crop insurance scheme voted in this house.
But there is a fact which we should keep in mind, Mr. Chairman; between the time the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary put his question and the time the matter was settled, a general election was called. At that time, the Liberal government, for political advantage, I think, granted a subsidy of $4 million to British Columbia for assistance to apple-growers.
I repeat it, I am happy that the farmers of another province have received assistance because anyone who knows about the damages suffered by fruit-growers when their trees are destroyed, knows that these damages are tremendous.
Fruit-trees take five to ten years before they yield as much as the ones which were destroyed. I was therefore happy when I learned that the farmers of British Columbia had received assistance from the federal government. But I think there is injustice and discrimination by the present Liberal government in the case of farmers of the province of Quebec and those of southwestern Ontario.
I ask Quebec members to convince the Minister of Agriculture that as long as he applies one policy for eastern Canada and one for western Canada, as long as he will treat the farmers differently because they come from different provinces, he will impair national unity.
I ask them to convince their colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, to discharge his responsibility with equal fairness to everybody. Nothing is more apt to create animosity among the various groups concerned than the way the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) has tried to settle those two different cases.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I would also like to deal briefly with another point, Mr. Chairman. I am now appealing to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) who intends to close down the unemployment insurance office of St. Hyacinthe. It is one of the oldest unemployment insurance offices; I believe it was in operation back in 1940, or 1941 at the latest. I recall, because of the daily contacts I had with the unemployment insurance people in that office, that the services rendered by those people were considered most important, just as important as they are today.
Now, Mr. Chairman, should this plan we have heard about materialize, it would cause additional expenditures to a lot of workers of
23033-616J
Interim Supply
my riding whenever they have to go and get their unemployment insurance benefits.
I would therefore ask the Minister of Labour to take the interest of my constituents into account and not close down the St. Hyacinthe unemployment office.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice some of the representations made by labour leaders in the province of Quebec, C.S.N. and C.L.C. leaders.
On two different occasions, those labour leaders met all members of parliament, Liberals, Conservatives, Independents, Credi-tistes, to submit representations and request our co-operation to convince the responsible minister to revise Bill C-170 and also the powers of the C.C.R.O. I have here the brief submitted to us. For the time being, I would like to recall, in a few words, what the C.S.N. said.
The membership of the C.L.R.B. includes three representatives of the C.L.C. and one C.N.T.U. representative. Now, the C.N.T.U. complains, anti rightly so, I believe, that they do not have the necessary representation. And here is what they say in their brief;
When an inter-union dispute arises between a C.L.C. affiliate and a C.N.T.U. affiliate, it is not exaggerated to repeat what has been written in the past, "that the dice are loaded against the C.N.T.U.'[DOT]
Well, I think hon. members from the province of Quebec should get together in asking the minister responsible to do justice to the C.N.T.U., which very ably carries out its obligations to the labour force. There should be no question about leaving any injustice, such as those that come to our knowledge, to be incorporated into legislation.
As far as Bill No. C-170 is concerned, well, according to the observations made to us at our meeting with Mr. Pepin and other members of the C.N.T.U., it is obvious that it must not be passed in its present form.
Bill No. C-170 has aroused reactions from all labour quarters and we must support them, because they certainly know the needs of their members and we must ask the minister and the cabinet to reconsider Bill No. C-170, so that it may be more acceptable and do justice to all the people concerned.
I should like now to quote an excerpt from the brief in question:
Bill No. C-170, if accepted in its present form, would represent a major interference with the freedom of unions and would still have a worse effect on the Quebec civil servants. That bill must be amended accordingly.

November 9, 196$
Interim Supply
And the brief ends this way:
We consider discriminatory some decisions taken by the C.L.R.B., as well as Bill No. C-170 in its present form. Such discrimination, if it affects the whole labour force, is even more serious for the Quebec workers.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I call upon my Quebec colleagues in all corners of the house, and also the others, so that we may unite our efforts to have accepted the amendments sought by the C.L.C. and the C.N.T.U., in the best interest of all the people concerned.


Mr. Neveu:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot would permit a question in connection with the speech he made a while ago?
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot claimed that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) refused to grant assistance or support demands in favour of compensation payments for the losses suffered by farmers, especially the fruit growers in his riding.
I must add that I myself am very concerned in the matter, since there are in my county-namely Saint-Paul-d'Abbotsford-a great many farmers who are very much dependent upon this source of income in order to survive and meet their obligations.
Would the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot elaborate on the minister's reply, particularly the one which motivated his refusal?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I would simply refer the hon. member to Hansard, October 26, 1966, page 9128, where the minister states:
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question raised last Thursday by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, I wish to inform him that I have received a letter from the Quebec Department of Agriculture, asking whether the federal government was prepared to contribute to assistance for apple growers, whose crops were damaged by a hail storm last June.
In my reply, I indicated to the minister that my predecessor and myself had made it clear to the provinces, last year, that, in the future, federal assistance contributions on account of crop losses would be granted through a crop insurance scheme.
Such was the minister's reply, and he made the same reply to the member for Okanagan-Boundary, and then granted $4 million to British Columbia farmers.


Louis-Paul Neveu: In all frankness, Mr. Chairman, I do not feel that this reply could be interpreted as being a refusal since, definitely, I feel-and he is a witness himself-that, under

the previous government, there have been policies favouring certain provinces, most of them naturally in western Canada, and that we, in eastern Canada, always had to resort to a sort of begging policy.
Other considerations must also be brought forward. I feel that, in order to be explicit and make the truth known clearly, it is partly true that one period was more difficult because of the strike by hail but there is also another very important factor in this analysis, and it is what I might call the "depolliniza-tion" or the periodic lack of pollen in flowers, one of the natural causes often very difficult to explain.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
All I know is that I agree, in principle, with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot when he says that farmers must be helped as much and as quickly as possible, because agriculture is a source of plenty. In years to come, farm production will not satisfy the demand, if we cannot assure the farmer of an adequate income.
I am very pleased to see that this government greatly favoured farm assistance, especially through its dairy policy and also its crop insurance plan. But I agree with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot no doubt and with his colleagues from Quebec that our farmers must no longer beg, because that is not interesting for anyone, it is even disarming in some circumstances. To avoid wasting time on petty matters of politics or haggling, what we need is a crop insurance legislation approved by Quebec and Ottawa, so that from now on our farmers will be able to survive and keep their operations going thanks to legislation which will guarantee their prosperity.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member for Shef-ford (Mr. Neveu) will not have to waste much time or breath to convince us that crop insurance legislation is needed. He w;ll recall that we were responsible for having the Crop Insurance Act passed. Therefore, since we had it passed, it means that we understood the needs of the farming community in that regard.
But the hon. member for Shefford can talk and try to play down the effects of the refusal of his Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), but the fact remains that the federal Minister of Agriculture, a Liberal, refused to the apple growers of Quebec and the farmers in southwestern Ontario what he gave to another province.
November 9, 1966


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I was unfortunately unable to be in the house during the whole of yesterday evening when the Minister of National Defence made another of his reassuring speeches to the house. However, the few times that I was present I noticed that not too many hon. members were in attendance, and perhaps I can be forgiven for suggesting that not everybody reads every word he says. Therefore, perhaps the house should have the benefit of taking another close look at what the minister said. The minister having been so careful to point out how fair and scrupulous he is, I think I should do the same, and I am sure he will appreciate a careful look at the words and statements he uttered last night.
For instance, as found on page 9714 of Hansard he said:
I have no fear whatsoever of further questions, and I fully expect that when we reach the committee stage hundreds of questions will be asked. This is a perfectly logical thing to happen.
The minister says he has no fear of further questions, but the truth is that his actions show he fears them more than anything. Certainly anyone who has no fear of further questions would expect questions to be asked and answers to be given when those questions and answers will do members of this house some good by augmenting their knowledge of unification. I therefore suggest it will be most entertaining to place the truth next to the minister's statements. He suggests he is not afraid of the questions, but the truth, which is evidenced by his actions, is simply that this is what he fears most.
As found on page 9715 of Hansard he said in another part of his speech:
Mr. Chairman, I cannot give the specific dates on which various views were made known but I assume they are known now in advance of second reading and therefore are fully available to my hon. friend in making up his mind in respect of the principle involved in this bill.
The minister says that the views are fully available but the truth is, as evidenced by army orders and by the action of the minister reminding the witnesses of their orders, that any serving officer in the forces is duty bound to keep quiet no matter how much he is opposed. He cannot make his views known and he cannot express himself. The only time he would be allowed to express his opinions would be if he were summoned before the house and given the protection of the house to speak the truth honestly and without fear of consequences. The minister says that all
Interim Supply
the views are fully available but the truth is he knows very well they are not available.
He said further:
The hon. member is therefore fully capable of taking his responsibility as a member of this house and in the knowledge of all the factors involved making a responsible judgment.
This is what the minister said but the truth is that hon. members do not have knowledge of all the factors. He knows that the only thing which conscientious members of the house are asking is that before they take the responsibility of voting they should have knowledge of all the factors.
On page 9716 of Hansard, toward the bottom of the right-hand column, the minister said:
Outside witnesses were called to give their points of view in respect to many matters, including the integration of the armed forces.
The minister had just finished telling the house that members should take their responsibility and that they had the advantage of all views on this subject. However, the truth is, and he revealed it here, that the witnesses spoke about integration but no witnesses were called and no points of view were expressed with regard to unification. Again there is a difference between what the minister said and the truth. If the minister were not so impressed by this sort of evidence, perhaps some of his loyal supporters might realize at some time or other how badly they have been misled by his statements.
I think the minister's regard for the importance of facts is significant because on page 9718 of Hansard he said:
I will send my hon. friend a list. There are many lessons to be learned. We, as individuals elected by the people of this country to do the best job we can, are perfectly capable, after having listened to all the arguments pro and con, of making up our own minds.
Mr. Chairman, I really think this is a most significant statement. The minister said, "after having listened to all the arguments." Does the minister not realize by now that it is not just arguments which are important? Maybe he is so swayed by the power of his own oratory and has such blind faith in his own omnipotence that we should all recognize and understand it, but I submit that arguments should only be used in amplification and clarification or to drive home the lessons which can only be derived from a thorough examination of the facts.
It is most significant that in his speech last night the minister shied away from such

November 9, 1966
Interim Supply
embarrassing terms as "facts" or "knowledge of the subject". He spoke about "arguments". He said, "after having listened to all the arguments pro and con." Are we to accept that sort of statement? Are we to vote on the basis of such arguments? I submit the minister is suggesting to the house that this is a sufficient basis on which to vote. That may satisfy the Liberal backbenchers. It may be that the minister has convinced himself that they are indeed meaningless ciphers who simply get up and say "yes sir", who have no background, no backbone and no courage or respect for their duties as individual members of the house. I would not use such terms in respect of the minister's supporters, and he certainly could not apply them to the members on this side.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The members of this house want the facts. They are open-minded enough to listen to all the arguments in order to get the facts straight, in order to make sure they appreciate their importance and that they are put in the proper perspective so that they can weigh the good against the bad. They want to make sure they understand the weight and importance of each item of information.
The members of this house should not have to listen to the specious arguments presented by the minister. The conscience and duty of hon. members can be satisfied only by giving them information first. Nowhere in the minister's speech does he claim that we have this information. His attitude was consistent with his course of conduct throughout the debate-that we do not need the information, that he has the right to deny us the information, that he has the right to tamper with witnesses in order to keep the information from us.
The minister's answer is that all that is necessary is for members to listen to the arguments and then make up their own minds. As reported at page 9718 of Hansard he asked whether the members of the opposition were afraid that their arguments would not stand up to examination in this house. This reinforces what I have said. It is not a case of whether our arguments will stand up but whether any arguments will stand up to a thorough examination of the facts.
According to the minister's statement in the house, he has shown us the facts. The truth is that we know he is desperately hiding the facts, and only the minister is puzzled why we do not accept his arguments. If there is one thing the minister should have

learned by now it is that his arguments carry very little weight in this house. It is his actions which mean something.
When the minister says that we have the facts or that he is willing to give us the facts, and then we see in truth that he is desperately hiding the facts and that the last thing he wants is an examination of the facts, I submit that only a man with the ego of our Minister of National Defence could still appear to be puzzled that we are not swayed by his argument.
Perhaps the most important part of this attempt to mislead the house is contained in the answer he gave, reported at page 9719, when he said:
-the normal procedures are available. If the committee is not satisfied I am sure it would not return a recommendation to this house which would result in third reading.
No matter how many times the minister has been corrected and no matter how clear the rules are, he still attempts to mislead hon. members by saying that we can send this bill to committee after second reading and can then call evidence and hear arguments as to the principle of unification. The truth is that in committee we would be barred from discussing what has already been decided by the house. While the hon. gentleman is not one of the oldest members of the house, he has been here long enough. While he can never qualify as an expert on the rules, certainly he has a modicum of understanding of them, and he understands that no opportunity will be given to call witnesses either as to the facts or as to the policy of unification once this house has adopted the principle of unification by giving second reading to the bill.
Let me make it clear once more that the minister is trying to mislead the house by suggesting that he is willing to have an examination of the facts after the bill has received second reading. The method he is suggesting to the house is: Pass second reading of the bill even though hon. members Will be effectively barred from getting the evidence and the points of view to establish the necessary facts to make up their minds before second reading.
The editors of many newspapers in this country have made the comment that it is silly for the committee to inquire into unification once the bill has already received second reading. This comment explains why this rule is so firmly embedded in our parliamentary procedure. It is the height of ridiculousness for the House of Commons to debate a matter
November 9, 1966

on second reading and then to send it to a committee so that members can get the evidence pertaining to second reading to see whether the principle is right. It does not need an expert on the rules but only a modicum of common sense to understand that the rule was evolved simply for the purpose of debating conflicting points of view. But once the house has approved the principle of a bill it is over and done with. You cannot retrace your steps on the next stage of the bill.
The minister says that the bill can be examined after second reading, that it is merely a matter of timing. What nonsense. An examination of the minister's speech will reveal some of the reasons we are unhappy about this situation and why we are looking for some evidence. The only statement before the house with regard to unification is the bare, unsubstantiated and unsupported word of the Minister of National Defence. No evidence has been put before the defence committee on the subject of unification. We have been given no expert testimony by any witnesses, and in fact many of the facts concerning integration itself have been hidden. When the associate minister says that unification is the natural step forward from integration, though the Minister of National Defence says it is a bold, new, entirely different step, he has nothing to support him but the word of the minister.
I thought that the hon. member for Simcoe North yesterday gave hon. members some very clear and valid reasons why it was so important to pause between the first fully tested step of integration and the next completely untried, unknown and not even fully explained step of unification. He explained why we have to stop and see what we have accomplished and why we should be careful before we go farther with such a bold, new and different concept.
Every member of this house who has listened to the minister must realize that the only evidence we have is his own unsupported word. I have gone through some of his statements in order to show the house what the minister said and what the truth is. I should therefore like to summarize a few points which illustrate why even the minister should understand that we in this house cannot feel that we would be carrying out our duty of checking the facts if we were simply to take the minister's word.
Interim Supply
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
For instance, everybody knows that the minister was anxious to keep the facts from the defence committee, even those facts dealing with integration. He also tampered with the evidence of witnesses and prevented the truth from getting to the committee. We know how desperately the minister has been hiding the facts, and that is why we cannot take the minister's facts as he presents them.
Second, the minister in his speeches in the house has said that it is the duty of the minister to say what evidence may be presented by people in his department. In other words, he says that he alone has the right to determine what facts we may obtain. Does that not contrast strongly with the suggestion that service people's views are known and that we have all the arguments at our disposal? On the one hand the minister says that the arguments are available to us, and on the other he says it is his duty to determine what evidence may be heard.
Third, we are dubious about taking the minister's word. He had the effrontery to suggest to the house that 95 per cent of service personnel are in favour of unification. I am sure all hon. members have had letters from people in the services and must know that the vast majority are disturbed, are against the minister and are very annoyed at what they consider a ridiculous idea. Yet the minister says that 95 per cent of the services are for this scheme. Since it is obvious that the information the minister has given us is misleading, we have the right to say: Let us get at the facts rather than listening to the minister.
Fourth, we cannot accept the bland assurances of the minister. We know that he systematically fired or forcibly retired certain officers from the top echelons of command who disagreed with him. He made life so impossible for other officers who disagreed with him that they retired voluntarily. We know that for all practical purposes the only people left to give advice are those wise enough to know that if they want to stay in the service they should tell the minister what he wants to hear, and those wise enough to make sure that their opinions are not heard. I suspect, were anybody to listen to conversations going on in officers' messes, they would find out much that officers are afraid to say publicly because if certain views were to be made known promotion would be jeopardized and life made intolerable. Yet the minister says that the service views are known and

November 9, 1966
Interim Supply
are available for all those seeking them. That is not in accordance with the facts, when one remembers what happened to Admiral Lan-dymore and others, and when one thinks of the infamous notice on a certain notice board saying that one cannot speak against or criticize the government but one can talk about public affairs.
Fifth, the minister says that this matter should be referred to the defence committee after second reading, knowing that the committee could not then do what it now wants to do. That committee wants information. On that one point members all over the house are yelling, "Give us the information about unification so that we can make up our minds." The minister says that we should get this information after second reading when he knows that it would be impossible to do certain things. Therefore the minister is manoeuvring to make sure that this information is never received. Why should we, then, accept the bland assurances of the minister that everything is all right, and that everybody will agree that he has been proven right?
Is the minister putting the opposition in a position where they will never get the facts? Is the minister bold enough to face the truth? When the minister says that the committee can discuss the principle of his measure, he knows that is not the truth. Is it not remarkable that during my speech this afternoon, when I have referred to what the minister has said and then pointed out what the truth is, the truth has turned out to be the opposite of what the minister has said? The minister says, "Accept your responsibility and vote on this matter." Does he want members of the house to accept their responsibilities or to ignore them? In truth, when he asks us to accept our responsibilities he is begging us to forget them.
Members on both sides of the house know what unification means and how much expert testimony has been adduced before any committee. Members know that it is impossible for serving officers and those on retirement leave to say anything against the government, because they are expressly forbidden to do so by law. We know that in the armed services people are afraid to discuss their ideas because they never know when somebody might report them with the result that they would be fired. Officers who have given many years of valuable service are entitled to promotion in due course. These officers know very well that those who do not agree with the minister

will not be promoted. The writing on the wall is clear.
This is not a personal attack on the minister. The difficulty is that those who want to vote for unification want to believe that this is a great forward step. The taxpayers of this country breathed a great sigh of relief when they heard we were to get more defence for less money. This measure presents a ray of hope that nobody is willing to give up easily. Nobody wants to give up on the idea that we may save money on defence. Everybody hopes that defence will not be as expensive as it has been or even more expensive. As a result every member of this house has been bending over backwards in order to believe in this ray of hope. Members have desperately wanted to believe in it, just as they have always believed that the hon. and important position of Minister of National Defence is one to be looked up to. They have believed that the minister's word could be accepted at face value.
If you cannot accept the word of a minister, whose word can you accept? I suggest to hon. members that never before in this house have they heard a minister accused of deliberately misleading the house day in and day out without half a dozen members on the minister's side jumping up and saying, "Withdraw, you cannot say that." Is it not a clear indication of the backbenchers' faith in the minister that we have not heard those words? For the first time in this house, for the first time in British or Canadian parliamentary history, a cabinet minister has sat in the house with a very serious charge over his head and has refused an investigation which is the only way to clear his name.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I wonder whether those Liberal backbenchers who sit silently acquiescing in the minister's action in keeping the facts from the people of Canada, realize how far they have sunk? Do they realize this is the only minister ever accused day after day of misleading the house while absolute silence prevails on the benches opposite? Is there a conspiracy among the Liberal backbenchers to abandon their standards whenever it is expedient? Isn't this a bright day in Canadian parliamentary history?
The facts speak for themselves. I hate to use that word because it makes the minister squirm so much. But please give us no more of these bland assurances. The minister's word is not worth a snap of the fingers in this house, and he knows it. We are not
November 9, 1966

misled. The members of his party are not misled, though they huddle together because they have no other hope.
I believe that members of this house have a duty to maintain parliamentary responsibility, to maintain the theory of responsible government. That includes the answerability of ministers to this house. They have a duty to make information available and to bring the facts forward. And we as members of parliament have a decision to make that until the government shows itself answerable to parliament it shall be denied money.
This is not a new system I have dreamed up. The history of democracy is a simple one. The king wanted money to run the country and the commons gradually acquired power because the only way in which the king could get money was to do what the commons wanted and rectify some of his abuses of power. Gradually the commons achieved power and greater responsibility until the present position was reached. For the last 200 years no one has questioned the proposition that before money is granted grievances must be redressed.
We now have a Minister of National Defence who tells us in effect that the democratic system must be set back a couple of hundred years. He will tell parliament what he likes. He will tamper with evidence so as to keep information from members. And we are supposed to accept his assurances no matter how worthless we know them to be.
I am sure the minister will find out before this debate is over that the constitutional check is still there-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: No money before redress of grievances. No supply to this government.


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


Mr. Yanakis:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up a few minutes of the time of the house, but not to follow the example set by the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition: they are now filibustering unification of our three armed services. I feel they are wasting the time of the house and stand to gain nothing by it, because the government is determined, more than ever, to prove that when a legislative measure is ready, is ripe, when the whole cabinet has approved it, it is in the interest of Canada and Canadians to go
Interim Supply
ahead with it. That bill will save millions of dollars in taxpayers' money, and that is what counts.
Naturally, one must recognize with regret the type of attitude and atmosphere that has prevailed for too long in this house. I am inclined to think that on the eve of the Conservative convention, where leadership will be discussed, a fraction of the members are trying to come to the rescue of their leader.
Mr. Chairman, by taking part in this debate, I intend above all to point out the advantages of a social measure and the considerable assistance the government has given in this field by amending the act governing the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and more especially section 16A. The amendment enables non-profit organizations to borrow, at a nominal rate of interest for 50 years, the money required to build homes for the old, and families in the low-income bracket to borrow towards the purchase of a home.
Mr. Chairman, this beneficial act is worthy of note. We know that since the amendment was passed, many municipalities have benefited therefrom and were able to alleviate a growing need. I am particularly pleased to see that it has extended its advantages to Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon, in my riding, through which, in due course, about one hundred older citizens will find lodging with all the comfort to which they are entitled.
As a result of this initiative, I would urge the town councils or social groups of the municipalities in the Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere district to avail themselves of those advantages by virtue of section 16A of the National Housing Act and offer their older citizens comfortable lodgings.
There is evidently the contribution of the provincial government, which guarantees the operation deficits if there are any and, often, the municipal council, which may co-operate either by providing a site, a grant, etc. This proves that is is possible to do tremendous things for the benefit of the people when governments at every level co-operate.
Out of 50,000 people in my riding, scattered in about 30 municipalities, many elderly persons receive $75 a month only and live in rooms, in solitude, and in heartbreaking conditions. Why, Mr. Chairman? It is not because the federal government has not made the necessary money available to the provinces and municipalities; it is not because the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is

November 9, 1966
Interim Supply
not willing to give its support and put its experience at the disposal of the parties concerned. It is because municipalities have not been urged enough to take advantage of legislative measures prepared for them in Ottawa.
The matter which should concern us today, is the lot of elderly persons, who cannot live alone or find low-rent apartments, and are forced to give up everything to go and live with their children.
Therefore, I congratulate the board of directors of the "Centre Desy" and I hope that this initiative will be imitated by other municipalities.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I think the initiative of the government should not stop there. We should also think of the young and the not so young who, while working hours are becoming increasingly shorter, do not have an adequate recreational centre where they could spend their leisure time. There are often complaints about juvenile delinquency, but what actual and concrete steps are we taking to amuse and distract them? They are now left on the streets in many municipalities, where they loiter in places of ill repute and learn all sorts of things.
I dare hope, Mr. Chairman, that the centenary year will be one in which the humane Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act will begin to promote the interests of our youth and provide for the building of cultural and recreational centres. I know that an unsurpassed effort has been undertaken during the last year to establish, in certain areas, cultural centres in co-operation with the provincial and municipal governments, as memorials to the centennial of the confederation. But how many municipalities will benefit from this? Very few. I consider that this is an injustice for the other Canadians. I would like to be in a position to grant every town in my constituency with a recreational centre suitable to their needs. For years and years, youth have asked the authorities for some help but in vain, and generations go by without a shadow of hope.
I am often invited in my constituency, to meetings organized to collect money for recreational purposes and, for example the parish priest of St-Barthelemi has asked me last week if the government intended to build or to help build recreational centres; as a matter of fact, many of my constituents ask me the same question.
[Mr. Yanakis.l
Mr. Chairman, I feel sad to note that in certain towns and villages large composite schools are being built to accommodate hundreds and thousands of students, while practically nothing is done in the field of recreation facilities, except a gymnasium or a recreation hall. Depending on the needs, we should build in the vicinity an arena with a skating rink, a theatre, a library, a bowling alley, a swimming pool and the like. Where one and all can take some recreation. Generations would pay for these facilities, over a period of 50 years if we would grant a loan to those localities similar to those of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I feel that to act in this way and not provide those advantages for the physical and moral training of young people is tantamount to irresponsibility, and our society should be ashamed of such conduct.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the city of Berthierville, in my constituency, which has already taken this initiative and has requested plans for a wonderful sports centre as described before, which will be close to the polyvalent school for 2,500 pupils which will be built shortly.
We have to find a solution to this urgent problem, and I know that each member of the house would support right away such a move to prepare better citizens for the future.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: Mr. Chairman, may I first call to the attention of the committee that the Minister of National Defence is absent, and the remarks I wish to make I would like to make to his face. In the event that he returns it may be necessary for me to repeat myself. May I also point out that there are very few government ministers in the chamber despite the fact that so important a question as national defence is being discussed.
The rules of the house require that any statements made by ministers or other members must be accepted. Fortunately the rules do not require us to believe the minister. Today the Liberal members must be very proud of themselves for showing they have some determination to back up the minister, but it was not so long ago when the minister stood alone, denying unanimous consent in order that his name might be cleared with respect to evidence given before the defence committee.
On that occasion the Prime Minister and all the other ministers were willing to have that matter cleared up. All I ask is, how can
November 9, 1966

we believe the minister on any occasion when one considers what his past record has been? The minister denied emphatically that there was any tampering with the evidence of Admiral Landymore. Yet we have ample evidence that it was tampered with and that the minister was very much aware of this.
How can we believe this minister who, in a couple of days in all likelihood will be standing before some cenotaph doing honour to our war dead, to our veterans and to our different military units, when we consider what he is doing to the armed forces of this country? Yet in a couple of days time he will stand before members of the different units sanctimoniously trying to imply that he is very sympathetic to their cause.
Some few years ago when there was an amalgamation of militia units the minister said it was a disgraceful thing. Now that the minister has returned to the chamber I wish to tell him I have reminded the committee that under the rules it is necessary to accept statements made by hon. members in the house, but it is very fortunate that the rules do not provide that we have to believe the minister. His performance over the last several weeks has left us in the position where it is not necessary to enforce any rule about believing him because he has not told us anything we could believe, and his word from now on will be very much in doubt no matter what the subject under debate may be.
I was about to refer to his concern about militia units and 1 had said that in a couple of days time the minister no doubt will be standing before a cenotaph doing honour to our war dead, to our veterans and to the different units of our forces and sanctimoniously trying to put across the idea that he is very much in sympathy with their cause even though he intends to wipe out the past completely.
In 1959 it was a different story when it was intended to amalgamate the militia units. As recorded at page 5439 of Hansard for July 3, 1959, the minister said:
I, too, should like to pay tribute to the wonderful work which has been done by the militia throughout the years. As you know, Toronto has been the bulwark of many of the most famous and most illustrious regiments of this great land. Just this week we had a ceremony in front of the exhibition grounds in that city in which the 48th Highlanders of Canada trooped the colour resplendant in their scarlet uniforms, putting on a show which was magnificent and outstanding in every respect.
I interject here to say that this is what the minister wishes to do away with.
I think they deserve the honour of a tribute from all who had the pleasure of witnessing both their 23033-6171
Interim Supply
parades at home and of being grateful for their services overseas during two world wars. Like other Toronto units, they have distinguished themselves on the field of battle and won for themselves many battle honours.
I think it would be unfortunate if this great reserve stream of potential strength were to be diluted or materially diminished.
That was only a few short years ago, and now the minister intends to wipe them out completely.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not true and you know it.


Donald MacInnis: The
minister concerned himself with a few other matters at that time. In 1959 he also concerned himself greatly with the cancellation of the Arrow. He said that its cancellation was the worst possible thing that could happen to the military set-up in this country. But even then the minister was quite dishonest in his approach, because he was fully aware of the fact that his own government had made the decision to cancel the Arrow and held that decision in abeyance until after an election was called.
As record at page 5684 of Hansard for July 8, 1959, he said:
I think this is a matter which will cause regret to Canadians for decades to come-
That was in reference to the cancellation of the Arrow. I repeat that the minister was fully aware that his own government had made a decision to cancel the Arrow prior to the election that year but, to serve its own purposes, did not announce that decision.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not true.


Donald MacInnis: I quote the minister again, as recorded at page 5390 of Hansard for July 2, 1959:
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think history will record that this was one of the worst decisions ever made by a Canadian government.
As to the decision the minister is now making, I am sure he will have other thoughts on that later.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The minister talks about those things to which parliament is entitled. It is interesting to read what he said on the same day, July 2, 1959, as reported at page 5379 of Hansard. I read this out of context:
-or that parliament and the Canadian people who are asked to foot the bill have no right to sufficient information to be able to judge the merits of the government's proposals.

November 9, 1966
Interim Supply
That was his complaint as of that day. He went on to say:
The government may not want parliament and the Canadian people to know, but we have every right to know and it is a crying shame that we have to get all of our information from the proceedings of United States congressional and senate committees and other sources.
It was a crying shame that he was not provided with all the information he required. This Minister of National Defence has absolutely refused to listen to the advice of the upper echelons of the services. He maintains that he has listened to some advice. I would call to the minister's attention the remarks of the Associate Minister of National Defence the other day, who admitted that he was in a dilemma as to which way he should turn on this question and sought out and received the advice of a general. After receiving that advice, the associate minister decided that he was on the right track.
Why cannot the same thing apply to members on this side of the house who are also in contact with the upper echelons of the services and servicemen who continue to write to us and complain about the situation that exists today? Why cannot the Associate Minister of National Defence realize that he can seek advice from more than one general? I have stated in the house before, and I say it again to the Minister of National Defence, that I know of no other country in which the Minister of National Defence could enjoy the freedom he has enjoyed. It is my contention that in most countries in the world the minister would be serving a prison sentence and would be locked up behind bars for what he has done in the past in reference to defence matters. The minister should have been in jail in the past for what he has done in this respect.
This is not the first time he has ignored the advice of senior officers. This is an old story with the minister. He is ignoring them completely today. We could go back and show that he has ignored them before. I say again, Mr. Chairman, that in any other country he would be serving a prison sentence for what he has done.


Frank Howard: Don't go to St. Vincent de Paul.


Donald MacInnis: Why do
I say that, and why do I say he ignored the advice that senior officers gave him in the past? I speak of such senior officers as the supreme allied commander of allied forces in Europe, Admiral Smeeton, deputy commander of the Atlantic fleet, and General Calmel,

deputy chief of staff of supreme allied headquarters. The officers I have mentioned are the top officers of NATO.
I repeat that the minister should have been put behind bars because he definitely released information passed on to him at that time as classified information. Regardless of the responsibility he or anybody else wishes to take, when information is given to an individual as classified information it must remain so. But that is not the case with this minister. He took it upon himself to release classified information given him by the upper echelons of the NATO command. I repeat that this is a matter for which in any other country he would have been put behind bars. I invite the minister to rise now and deny that he did not perform this very despicable act.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I deny it.


Donald MacInnis: He denies it, although he failed to get to his feet to deny it. Because of his denial I throw the lie back in his teeth and will read what he said in 1963, as recorded at page 3425 of Hansard. This should be enough to prove to the members of the minister's party that they cannot rely on anything he says. On February 4, 1963, the minister said:
While one parliamentary press reporter was sleeping cozily in his feather bed, some of us spent our time actively engaged in finding out all we possibly could about the military situation. As hon. members know, we had the privilege of visiting our brigade headquarters at Soest, and also one of the wings of our air division. The air officer commanding came to discuss with us the problems of the air division, and we had a very frank and interesting discussion. Following that, we went on to Paris and spent a week there. We were interviewed by the supreme allied commander of allied forces in Europe. We were briefed by Admiral Smeeton, deputy commander of the Atlantic fleet, by General Calmel, deputy chief of staff of supreme allied headquarters. We were given more useful and up to date information on the military situation in NATO, including the Canadian commitment, in one week than the Canadian government has given to the people of this country in the last five years.
I would draw your attention specifically to the following words, Mr. Chairman:
A number of questions have been asked as to what our commitments to NATO are. I realize that this information is presumably classified, but I could never understand why it was, so I am going to take the responsibility tonight of saying what they are.
The minister has just denied having released classified information given to him by NATO commanders. I have quoted this passage for the benefit of the committee and especially the Liberals who have decided to
November 9, 1966

support the minister. There are the lies in black and white. Again I say that this minister has in the past refused to accept the advice of top echelon officers in our services and has taken it upon himself to release classified information. For these reasons, 1 repeat, he should have been placed behind bars.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Donald MacInnis: If the
hon. member is unable to hear me I would advise him to read my speech in Hansard tomorrow. This minister has continually refused to take the advice of the house. This minister and his government are once again attempting to blackmail this house. They are saying that if interim supply is not granted civil servants will not get their pay.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Donald MacInnis: I say to
the hon. member who has interjected-he has not got to his feet to say too much about this subject-that if he continues to interject I will give him the opportunity to get up and say something. If the civil servants do not get their pay, it is not the responsibility of the official opposition or any opposition party.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Oh yes, it is.


Donald MacInnis: The
pay of civil servants is the responsibility of the government, and they know how to go about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: November 9, 1966
Interim Supply
Edmonton-Strathcona risked his seat in making the motion he did. There were several attempts by a couple of backbenchers on the Liberal side to defend the minister's position but, as was pointed out this afternoon, it is very noticeable that not too many of them are rising to the occasion now.
As was also pointed out this afternoon, there was a time when this whole matter could have been cleared up to everybody's satisfaction by his own party, including his own Prime Minister, who were willing to adopt the procedure suggested at that time by the Speaker. The minister was the only member in this house who refused his consent. Was he supporting the Liberal backbenchers and his colleagues in the cabinet on that day? What is their intention today? Their intention is to stop the opposition by saying that the civil servants will not be paid and interim supply will have to be granted. This is pure blackmail. The minister is turning to blackmail to realize his desires. What are his desires in this respect? I do not know in what way the armed forces are serving the minister's purpose other than to promote him to a position which may become vacant before too long. I would remind him that he will meet with a lot of opposition from my own province of Nova Scotia which is also the province of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would remind the house that that minister, to serve his own purpose, has allowed some very adverse publicity to be circulated in the maritimes in respect of one of his colleagues in the cabinet. Is this the purpose that the minister had in mind in bringing in legislation on the unification of the three services?
Every day brings us more protests against the unification program. One retired admiral had some words of advice for the minister which were ignored by him. The minister's record in this respect goes back several years. Vice Admiral Rayner, who has recently retired from the service, has written a long article in today's newspaper. It is recommended reading for the Liberal party and it is certainly recommended reading for the Minister of National Defence, and also for the associate minister who decided to take a stand in this matter after speaking to only one person although previously he had been in a dilemma. Maybe he should question a few more people.
In the article to which I referred Vice Admiral Rayner said:
I say it would be absolutely unforgivable and indefensible if this house were asked to commit

itself to this very important principle of unification, which the minister himself has described as a fundamental reorganization, before the views of qualified and experienced persons have been expressed.
This very reasonable statement comes from a man with tremendous experience, a man who, I presume, has in the past advised the minister in respect of service matters. Why does the minister not go along with these reasonable requests? The vice-admiral goes on to say:
It is imperative that we avoid making the mistake that was made in 1964, when there was a public hearing in the defence committee before legislation was introduced into parliament for the reorganization of the armed services.
Although the chiefs of staff were to be abolished, none of the serving chiefs was called to give evidence. Thus the evidence of the top military specialists of that day was denied to the committee.
Yet we had previously appeared before the committee to give evidence on other matters. In my view, the failure to call the chiefs to discuss the implementation of the proposed reorganization has contributed directly to the present day situation.
Although references have been made to advice by the upper echelons in the three services and the minister has spoken in the light of this information, I and many other members of parliament have received letters and complaints from service personnel in the lower ranks, from petty officers, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates and gunners. They have all complained about the present situation of the armed services.
Vice Admiral Rayner goes on to say:
This procedure reminded me of the blackout in wartime Britain. Apparently we were to feel our way from lamp post to lamp post down the dimly lit and foggy street of integration.
It is time that the minister presented to the house the true facts regarding the position of the forces in respect of unification. As I have said before, probably the day after tomorrow the minister will parade before a cenotaph somewhere in the country in honour of the war dead and in honour of the regiments, the naval units and the air squadrons of which they were members. In spite of this, the minister wants to wipe out the whole history of the armed forces. I refer him to the statements he made at the time of the amalgamation of the militia units. At that time he thought it was a terrible thing. I remind him of the dishonest approach of his government in deciding to cancel the Arrow aircraft. I am referring to these matters because they are pertinent.
In referring to the decision of his own government to cancel the Arrow, a decision which was delayed until after the election,
November 9, 1966

the minister expressed the opinion that this was the worst possible decision that could have been made in Canadian military history and that it would be regretted for years to come. The minister shakes his head. Does he want more proof? He denied he had broken the confidence of senior officers and yet I can quote his own words from Hansard. I repeat, the minister shakes his head, but whom is he trying to impress? The minister made a denial a few minutes ago. I used his own words and threw them back in his face. Again I ask the minister to get up and to count on the fingers of one hand the countries who would let their defence ministers get away with what he is trying to get away with without putting them behind bars. I refer to countries in what we look upon as the free world. I would go further and ask what might happen to the minister in some other countries I can think of.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Admiral Rayner continues:
I assume that we were not called-
Before the committee that is.
-because I had expressed my concern to members of the government-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Just repeat what you said yesterday. That will be quite in order.


Mr. Habel:: We have heard enough of him.


Donald MacInnis: I always take a rest when you are around, Joe. You never interfere in anything. You never get on your feet here.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Don't worry about that.


Donald MacInnis: He is
the same member who failed to show up at a do in his own riding a couple of years ago.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member for Cape Breton South that his time has expired.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the hon. member just said that I was the member who had failed to appear at what I would call a Tory meeting. In the result the hon. member himself was there, and instead of his presence being a hindrance to me he improved my chances of being elected.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, on the question of privilege-and I am sure my hon. friend from the New
Interim Supply
Democratic Party also has a question of privilege here-this meeting was not a Tory meeting. There were two representatives from the Conservative party, two from the New Democratic Party but only one from the Liberals because the hon. member failed to show up to discuss a matter of vital importance to the welfare of his own constituents. The hon. member for Timmins could back that up.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, because I have been brought into this question of privilege I think I should put the record straight. I recall very clearly that that meeting was called by the Kapuskasing labour council, not by the Conservative party, the Liberal party or the New Democratic Party.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It was called on behalf of the N.D.P., or rather the former C.C.F.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Forreslall:: Not quite that easily, Mr. Chairman. If any hon. member opposite wants to speak next I will relinquish the floor to him.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has no support from his side of the house.


J. Michael Forrestall: I realize that. The debate has taken on a new and added emphasis today, indeed, during the past week. We have seen the achievement of one of the objectives of the opposition in the reaction of the press from one coast to the other. The objective to which I refer as having been achieved, and achieved in spite of the opposition on the part of government members, has been the shedding of some light on the implications and ramifications of what it is that the minister intends to do and the speed of the course he is following in order to do it.
It is not my intention today, nor has it ever been in the past, to bring personalities into this question, though it is suggested by the minister that this is what we are doing. It is much too serious a matter for that sort of thing. Without going into the purely regional aspects of the impact and effect of total unification, let alone integration, on one of our more basic economic services in the mari-times. there is much that can be said and much that still needs to be said to further the goal of informing the public of Canada of our fears and hesitations about granting the minister's request for approval in principle of the

November 9, 1966
Interim Supply
bill prior to its being referred to a committee for full and exhaustive study.
I hope the minister does not during the course of the next few days-indeed I am sure he will not-lose sight of one or two basic considerations. One of the principal considerations in our own sovereignty, the ultimate question of whether we are to muster and sustain our own defence forces or whether simply by default we are to turn this responsibility over to our neighbour to the south.
In the minister's 1964 white paper on defence he sugested quite strongly that the defence of North America is, indeed, indivisible, that it must be a joint undertaking by both the United States of America and Canada. I ask the minister not to lose sight of the possibility that some of us on this side of the house may be right in thinking that we as a nation are big enough, on the eve of our 100th birthday, to undertake our own defence and to meet the obligations that we have in a free world to the residents of Canada. Surely we are not to wipe out the efforts of 250 years and at the stroke of a pen end these things upon which our nation has been built. They are much more basic and of greater importance than the mere stroke of a pen which would implement the whim and desire of one man.
The question is of such great importance that the people of Canada, who are directly affected by the policy of the government of the day, must accept and respect this policy should it become law. In return for that respect the government should have some concern for their view, for their well-being and for their opinions. This has not yet been apparent in view of the adamant position taken by the minister, but I am still hopeful that he will change his mind and will come to realize that, in the absence of a reassessment of integration and its impact upon the services at this time, it would not be in the best interests of the country to rush headlong into the next step in the program, unification.
In the white paper on defence of 1964 the government made this suggestion in the concluding paragraphs:
In this paper no attempt has been made to set down hard and fast rules for future policy and development. The paper is a charter, a guide, not a detailed and final blueprint. The policy outlined in it is not immutable. It can be altered or adapted to meet the requirements of changing circumstances, national and international.
[Mr. Forrestall.l
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Surely, Mr. Chairman, this is a new concept. This is a new understanding of defence. This is an attempt to bring about drastic modifications of traditional defence concepts. Surely the spirit of this was broad enough to accommodate the real anguish, the real desires of the Canadian people. Surely the minister is broad enough to accept different points of view, to accept the possibility that he is not totally right, that somewhere along the line what may or may not be a good idea has run into snags, has run aground on reefs and needs reviewing. Surely what I have referred to suggests that, and not the rigid, immovable position put to us earlier today by the Prime Minister.
Surely the government can accommodate the possibility that there is another point of view, that possibly senior serving officers who have been discharged or released from the services may be right, and that possibly they are not hidebound by tradition. Possibly these men are concerned about national interests. Possibly they are true Canadians. Surely the government can accept this possibility. We do not yet live in a police state. Surely people who have points of view can be afforded a forum to express them and have them taken into consideration. Is that not the exercise of government?
I suggest that it is just possible for the government to be wrong. We may never be able to undo what we are being asked to do blindly. On this question mark the opposition parties and the government and its supporters on the other side of the house would leave themselves open to the charge of having failed to uphold the best interests of the nation if they permit the minister to pursue his course of action before there is a reasoned and rational review of this matter by members of the house and particularly by members of the defence committee.
All that we are asking, all that the emotion of the last week or so boils down to, is that the minister adopt a more reasonable attitude and let us pause now in the course of integration in order to reassess it. Let us see if the supporting civilian integrated services are compatible with the objectives of our national defence policy. Let us assess if the integrated command is able to fulfil our existing international obligations and the enduring obligations of the government to the people of the country.
I do not like to go into details or to inject parochial matters into debate, but the minister has suggested that Canada has the most
November 9, 1966

meaningful underwater detection force in the world. This is an interesting observation. It is true when one thinks of our ability to detect and track underwater movement. But the minister stops there. If the facts are alluded to by people questioning the minister he says, "I know better". Mr. Chairman, I know better. I know that ships are tied to the dock. I know it is not our role to keep them constantly at sea chasing submarines, real or imagined. What does concern me is our ability to put a ship to sea once a message is received through our tracking system that action is required. I make this point to emphasize the need to catch our second breath and take a look at the meaningful things in our defence posture.
I wish to refer to partially classified information and for that reason I ask this question in a rhetorical sense only. If the assumption behind the question is wrong I wish to be corrected. Let me put it this way. I should like to be satisfied that in the event of an emergency we can meet our commitments in the waters off our coasts, both east and west. I am not certain that we can meet them. Indeed, with the continuing falling of R.C.N. strength, the continuing rumours of lay-offs in our military establishments in Halifax, I doubt that we can meet our commitments. In spite of the gracious assurance of the Associate Minister of National Defence the other day, 30 people received notices today that they would be laid off on November 15, and 32 firemen at H.M.C.S. Shearwater were advised they were being transferred elsewhere as their role was being taken over by others. These things scare me.
Until we pause and reflect on integration and its impact on our efficiency and defence capability, we not only are not able to pursue with reason and understanding the measure to come before us but we shall be doing a great disservice to the people of this country by pursuing it. That the minister is in a difficult position is understandable, because steps toward the implementation of unification have been going on for a long time. The passage of the bill will make legal that which has already been done.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Before me I have a message. It may be classified, though it has appeared on bulletin boards in the dockyard, at H.M.C.S. Stadacona and possibly, one would hope, at military bases throughout Canada. Though the establishment where it appeared is an integrated, unified, or whatever name the minister calls
Interim Supply
it establishment, it is still a naval establishment. The document is dated Tuesday, November 1, 1966, and reads:
For the information of all concerned it is advised that an officers' integrated seniority policy has been adopted as follows:
Note the use of the past tense.
(a) Promotion to major and to higher ranks normally will be effected as vacancies occur.
And so on. Has the minister no feelings about these men who are to be transferred from the navy to something else? Mr. Bob Chambers, our beloved Nova Scotia cartoonist, has for a long time called it the "Nair-my", and perhaps he is right.
It is not our intention to let principles go by undealt with and unrecognized. These things must be brought to the attention of the Canadian public. This is the first and most useful opportunity we have had of doing so. The Canadian people must be told the extent to which the minister has gone in the field of unification and integration because ultimately the decision is theirs.
At regular intervals in military establishments in my area the authorities keep posting notices with regard to the disclosure of military information or opinions. I should like the minister to reassure those in the armed services that if they wish, and if they believe it necessary, they are free to speak to their members of parliament. My mail on the subject has been extremely heavy. If it were not for the consequences to the men and women who have expressed their fears about the results of integration and unification I would bring these letters into the house, dump them on the minister's desk and ask him to read them. There are nearly 3,000 of them.
It is interesting to note the sequence of events. Every time things get a little hot in the services and another blind step is taken toward furthering integration or unification I get a flurry of letters from young men and women who are deeply concerned about their future in the armed services. Shortly afterwards there invariably follows a notice calling the attention of members of the services to sections in the Queen's regulations prohibiting members of the armed forces from talking to people such as myself, I suppose. I will read one such notice into the record:
QR & O 19.36, 19.37 and 19.375 pertain to communications or disclosure of military information or opinions to individuals or news media. QR & O 19,375 provides that officers commanding commands, base commanders and COS may make suitable communications to news media on matters of interest

November 9, 1966
Interim Supply
concerning their commands provided no expressed or implied enunciation, defence or criticism of service, departmental or government policy is involved. Other officers and men are required to seek permission prior to disclosing military information or expressing their views on military matters.
Incidentally, I have a note from a young service officer in relation to the instruction I read earlier regarding promotion. He asks whether this is permitted at a time when parliament has not yet consented to the passage of some sort of unification bill, something, he adds, which he hopes will happen. He is referring to the command rank structure arrangements which are announced before even acceptance in principle has been given by this house.
The men in the services are deeply concerned. The hundreds and hundreds of letters which I receive on the subject all express real, not imaginary, concern, even though some of their fears may be based on a lack of full understanding. These men, in the particular instances to which I have referred, must ply their skills and trades at sea. No other form of work in this world, let alone in the armed forces of Canada, demands the skills, the temperament, the dedication which is demanded of men who follow the sea for their livelihood.
All we ask is a chance to pause, to stop this headlong rush. The minister said many times in the early stages of this program that this was a ten-year plan. Well, it was brought in two years ago and already we are into the final stage. What has happened to the ten-year plan? Where is it now? Has it been abandoned? Flexibility was another point. I am quoting now from a document called "Highlights Of The White Paper". I do not know where it came from. It speaks of flexibility to meet a wide range of possible uses. Yes, we shall all hear a lot at a later date about the real "sleeper" in the unification bill, the section dealing with the special force.
Does this refer to what the chief of the defence staff has said, I understand, on four occasions in Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and again in Toronto, namely, that the role of the Royal Canadian Navy is to be reduced to that of fleet transfer? "Sealift" is the word which is being used.
The minister sits there looking arrogant. He talks about pursuing his program. When will he call tenders for his four new ships?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: How does one look arrogant? What is the impression one has to give? I don't know.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister does not need to practice. It comes out all over him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the acting house leader that I presume that tomorrow the unification bill will be referred to the defence committee without receiving second reading in the house and we will be able to get on with other business. I am wondering what that other business will be.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, so that there will be no misunderstanding I had better put the business clearly on the record. It is proposed to call interim supply again tomorrow, to be followed by item 101, second reading of Bill C-241, to amend the National Housing Act, and then it is proposed to call item 82, house in committee of the whole on Bill C-227, the medicare bill.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 10, 1966