1966-11-04

CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

["Mr. Speaker, last week the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) inquired whether the government was considering something in the nature of a memorial to the children of Aberfan, Wales, and indeed to all the people in Britain to indicate the profound sympathy Canadians have felt following the heart-rending tragedy in which the village lost nearly an entire generation of children.\nInformation now received indicates that steps are being taken by the British authorities to rebuild the destroyed school and to provide for other rehabilitation. A public fund is being raised in Britain, and it has already reached proportions which will ensure that the future educational needs of the children of Aberfan are cared for. There would thus appear to be a limited requirement for direct assistance of this kind. The disaster's tragic effects have been in human terms.\nWhile recognizing that nothing can compensate for the deep personal loss suffered by the families of Aberfan, the government has sought some means of expressing Canadian sympathy which would be a fitting gesture in memory of the children. In this connection we have felt also that it would be most appropriate if such a gesture also honoured\nthe memory of the 19 Canadian children whose lives were lost in the terrible accident at Dorion, Quebec, last month, on October 7.\nThe government, therefore, has decided to make a gift of $100,000 to the United Nations Children's Fund, in memory both of the children of Aberfan and of the children who died at Dorion. UNICEF will, I am confident, use this money to bring hope and health to children living in the underdeveloped countries of the world. I am sure this will be recognized and appreciated by the parents of Aberfan and Dorion alike as a most appropriate way in which we, as Canadians, can express our sympathy for the tragic loss of these children."]
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table order in council P.C. 1966-2099 dated November 3, 1966 transferring the ministerial responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters).



Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, last week the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) inquired whether the government was considering something in the nature of a memorial to the children of Aberfan, Wales, and indeed to all the people in Britain to indicate the profound sympathy Canadians have felt following the heart-rending tragedy in which the village lost nearly an entire generation of children.
Information now received indicates that steps are being taken by the British authorities to rebuild the destroyed school and to provide for other rehabilitation. A public fund is being raised in Britain, and it has already reached proportions which will ensure that the future educational needs of the children of Aberfan are cared for. There would thus appear to be a limited requirement for direct assistance of this kind. The disaster's tragic effects have been in human terms.
While recognizing that nothing can compensate for the deep personal loss suffered by the families of Aberfan, the government has sought some means of expressing Canadian sympathy which would be a fitting gesture in memory of the children. In this connection we have felt also that it would be most appropriate if such a gesture also honoured
the memory of the 19 Canadian children whose lives were lost in the terrible accident at Dorion, Quebec, last month, on October 7.
The government, therefore, has decided to make a gift of $100,000 to the United Nations Children's Fund, in memory both of the children of Aberfan and of the children who died at Dorion. UNICEF will, I am confident, use this money to bring hope and health to children living in the underdeveloped countries of the world. I am sure this will be recognized and appreciated by the parents of Aberfan and Dorion alike as a most appropriate way in which we, as Canadians, can express our sympathy for the tragic loss of these children.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) raised the question of the use of a simultaneous translations system in proceedings before the Canada Labour Relations Board. Based on information which had been given to me I stated at that time that I understood simultaneous translation had been used at the last meeting where the two languages were being used. The fact is that simultaneous translation equipment has been ordered and on the last occasion an interpreter was used, but actually there was no simultaneous translation. I wish to correct my earlier statement and express my apologies to the hon. member for Sherbrooke if he found my statement embarrassing in any way.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the amalgamation of the navy, army and

November 4, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry air force into a single service and will provide the flexibility to enable Canada to meet in the most effective manner the military requirements of the future. It will also establish Canada as the unquestionable leader in the field of military organization.


Mr. Churchill:: Nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a first time, now?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Defence now in a position to confirm the report in the press that the two Germans who were shot by order of a German court martial were operating in the Dutch underground after deserting the Germans and going over to the allied forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I can make two suggestions in this regard. Perhaps the question could be placed on the order paper, which would enable a more detailed reply to be made or, failing that, I shall make a statement some time next week.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not in a position now to make a general report on this subject? Apparently the press have again obtained some information from his department.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I gave the press no information in this regard that I have not given the right hon. gentleman. I am willing to make a further statement next week if that is the desire of the house.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the Minister of Labour a supplementary question

as to whether it would be mandatory upon automobile manufacturing companies to contribute to the maintenance of employees who are displaced as a result of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement. In reply the minister said "Yes, but to S.U.B. only."
In view of the fact that S.U.B. payments are established under a collective bargaining agreement and the companies pay into the fund in lieu of wages to the employees, does the minister's statement mean that the companies will contribute nothing to the transitional assistance benefit fund and that the entire burden will be borne by the treasury of Canada?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct under the existing arrangements, though I understand that some discussions to which I have not been a party have taken place with some of the automobile companies. It is my understanding that the T.A.B. fund announced by my predecessor, for the assistance of individuals who might be thrown out of work as a result of the automotive agreement, was to be and is to be paid by the treasury. I also understand there will be no contributions to this fund by the automotive companies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that last June the former minister of labour said that, since these automobile companies are receiving handsome benefits from the government to the extent of some $50 million per year they ought to contribute to the maintenance of these men during an adjustment period, will the Minister of Labour consider requiring the companies to make some contribution to the maintenance of those who are displaced from employment as a result of this Canada-U.S. auto agreement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I will discuss this matter with my predecessor and other interested colleagues and see what, if anything, can be done.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fantastic statement the minister has just made, that the automobile companies are now going to be let off the hook under the T.A.B. plan, notwithstanding the very large benefits they have received, I wonder whether he would consider making a statement of this matter on motions so we can adequately discuss it.
November 4, 1966


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will give consideration to the suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Whether I should be the minister to make such a statement if we decide to make one, or whether it should be one of my colleagues, remains to be seen. But I will certainly consider the suggestion.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State, whoever that may be. Will the minister present to C.B.C the compliments of the House of Commons and advise the management of that august body that the house is in session and has been for some time, that several committees are meeting daily and important matters of public interest are under consideration, and that even a passing reference to the house in C.B.C. radio and T.V. news items might be appreciated by the Canadian taxpayers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to bring this matter to the attention of the C.B.C.



REQUEST FOR GREATER SPEED IN MOVEMENT OF TOUGH GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the absence of the minister perhaps his parliamentary secretary would take netice of the question. In the minister's new capacity as minister in charge of the wheat board I wonder whether he would consider asking the wheat board to give special consideration to the movement of tough grain off the prairies because of the severe weather conditions. If this movement is not speeded up the result might be that the tough grain will not reach the driers soon enough. Special consideration has been given to this problem in the past, and I should like the minister to consider action to speed up the movement of tough grain from the prairies to the lakehead ports for drying purposes.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the hon. member's question and bring it to the attention of the minister at the earliest opportunity.



STUDENT LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister would advise the house when the government expects to introduce amendments to the student loans legislation in order to meet the constructive criticisms made of the plan by the Minister without Portfolio in Toronto on Wednesday.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: When the government is ready to amend the legislation, we will give due notice.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question that was put to me by the hon. member for Skeena on October 20 and November 1 about the 1966 sets of uncirculated coin. I stated on October 20 that the hon. member's suggestion would be considered. I have asked the mint to accept further orders for 1966 of uncirculated coin up to December 15. I have approved an announcement to this effect but am not certain whether it has yet appeared in the newspapers.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask, as a supplementary question, whether the Minister of Finance, in furthering the desire to increase the income of the government, would consider making the gold coin for next year a proof coin, as it is referred to in the trade, in order that these coins might be allowed entry into the United States, thus increasing their sale to that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take this suggestion into consideration, Mr. Speaker. There are, of course, limitations in the American law about the circulation of gold coins.

November 4, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



AMALGAMATION OF FORCES-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I wish to clarify it. We have been approached by mining companies requesting miners but, to my knowledge, we have not been approached in regard to the particular case of miners from Aberfan.']
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence-who has delivered a copy of the bill to me and I thank him for the courtesy-whether, first reading of the bill having been given, the minister would consider submitting it to the defence committee or to another appropriate committee for the purpose of a detailed examination being made of it, and also for the purpose of affording an opportunity for a full examination of the warmly worded self eulogy which he just gave in announcing first reading?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government that the bill be referred to the standing committee on defence immediately after second reading. There will then be ample opportunity to hear all outside witnesses who wish to give evidence or express their views, and there can be the most thorough and thoughtful consideration of the details before the bill becomes law.
I hope the right hon. gentleman will facilitate the passage of the bill through the second reading stage so that we can get to the committee and examine the details which to him and to all hon. members on all sides of the house are of such importance.


An hon. Member:: What arrogance.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister not realize that second reading is approval in principle, and those who oppose either unification or "amalgamation", as it is now called, will have no opportunity of voicing their views?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that this is not really a question.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to a delightful personality-


An hon. Member:: He's not here.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. But before asking my question I wish to express my appreciation of the announcement made by the Prime Minister to donate $100,000 to the United Nations Children's Fund. I think this was a very wise and thoughtful move.
My question to the minister is as follows: in view of the announcement by Premier Duff Roblin of Manitoba of the shortage of miners in the northern portion of that province, has consideration been given to offering special assistance to the miners of Aberfan, Wales, who may wish to immigrate to Canada to obtain employment in the mines of northern Manitoba?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the answer is no, but if any of those miners choose to come to Canada as landed immigrants, we will deal with their applications very expeditiously. They can also probably take advantage of our passage loans scheme.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether he has been approached in this regard by officials of the mining industry?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, not particularly in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, will you permit me to make another comment?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to complete his reply he may do so.


Jean Marchand: I wish to clarify it. We have been approached by mining companies requesting miners but, to my knowledge, we have not been approached in regard to the particular case of miners from Aberfan.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether it is his intention to issue a new white paper on defence to indicate what he means by the amalgamation of Canada's defence forces, an expression which was not used in the white paper which we have all been studying with great care?
November 4, 1966	COMMONS


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, amalgamation is the unification following integration of the three forces. I think that if my hon. friend reads the bill, it will be evident to him just exactly what is intended. I am very grateful for his expression of interest in getting along with second reading of the bill, and I think perhaps the government will facilitate that intention if it is really the wish of the hon. gentlemen opposite that we do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Will the minister be interested today when I make a full exposure of his concealment and his misleading of the public and the House of Commons with regard to defence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PU3LIC SERVICE PAYMENT OF BONUS TO BILINGUAL EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell me if the government, through treasury board, is getting ready to issue an order setting the amount of the premium for bilingualism and the terms of its application, especially with regard to civil servants in the administrative support group?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the matter of parity of United States and Canadian automobile prices been turned over to the committee on consumer credit, as indicated by him in the house on October 5?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why the committee should not deal with this matter if it so desired.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In this
DEBATES	9541
Inquiries of the Ministry connection would the Prime Minister, when the car manufacturers are invited to appear before the committee, make sure that the Studebaker and Volkswagen companies are invited?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That, of course, Mr. Speaker, is up to the committee.


John Alfred Irvine: A supplementary question. The Prime Minister stated that there is no reason why the committee should not discuss this matter. I believe that according to Hansard for October 5 he indicated that this matter would be turned over to that committee. I am wondering whether that has been done.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no reason why this should not happen, Mr. Speaker, but it is a matter for the committee to decide.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister indicate to the house when there will be introduced the resolution, and the legislation to follow, dealing with the plan of the government for deposit insurance, which is so tied in with the study of Bill No. C-222 that it is now going to make the work of the committee on this bill very difficult so far as representations are concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if you recall, I answered a similar question from the hon. member for Kamloops a few days ago. Perhaps I can add this, that the general points in the legislation are being discussed with the provincial governments pursuant to an undertaking that I made that we would have prior consultations with the provinces. As soon as this is completed the resolution will be introduced.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. In the light of that reply would the minister consider placing on the order paper a continuation bill under the present banking act? I am sure that he will realize that it is impossible to get through all the hearings prior to the November 30 deadline under the present act.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A bill to extend is now being drafted and will be put on the order paper, I should think about the middle of the month.

November 4, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry NATURAL GAS



REPRESENTATIONS BY GREAT LAKES GAS COMPANY BEFORE U.S. FEDERAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the report of the presentation made yesterday by the Great Lakes Gas Company, a subsidiary of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, to the United States federal power commission to the effect that the recent agreement between the Canadian government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in no way alters the original proposal which the federal power commission has had under consideration since last April? In view of this could the Prime Minister explain why this is so completely contrary to what the right hon. gentleman and other members of his cabinet have stated to this house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have seen only a press statement to this effect. I will take steps to inquire whether this press report is an accurate representation of what was said on the record.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister give the Hon. "H.M.C.S. Forrestall" permission to keep on calling the Admiral "Admiral" and not "General"?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If it is all right with the Admiral it is all right with me, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of external affairs. Will the minister while in Moscow point out to the Russians that with the decline in the strength of the Canadian navy the surveillance of Canadian waters and the check of Russian vessels offshore will in future be carried out by the United States navy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot accept that question.
(Mr. Sharp.]



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he received protests from the Canadian railway companies with reference to the further cancellation of carriage of mail contracts with the said railway companies in areas where other forms of transportation will not benefit the public?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Not to my knowledge, sir.


James Russell Keays: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consult with the Postmaster General with reference to certain contracts to be negotiated in the near future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be delighted to.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue, and is similar to some which have been asked regarding the Volk-swagen-Studebaker deal. I would ask the minister whether Motor Coach Industries of Winnipeg used import credits to import trucks made by an entirely separate company in a foreign country?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, having no knowledge of this particular transaction I shall have to take the question as notice. However, I should add in answering the question, that under the automotive pact there is nothing to stop any company from importing cars made by any other company.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Ont.)):: Mr,
Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of current indications by major farm machinery companies in Canada of immediately implementing a general 4 to 5 per cent increase in prices of
November 4, 1966	COMMONS
farm machinery, can the minister say whether it will be government policy to actively discourage any increase, pending a report of a commission set up to investigate this matter,


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no official notice of this matter, though I have had representations today from farmers' organizations to the effect that a price increase was contemplated.
I shall get in touch with the farm machinery companies and see whether that in fact is so.


Mr. Starr:: Stop it right away.


Harold Warren Danforth: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister does ascertain that such action with respect to price increases is contemplated, will the government actively discourage such increase?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is hypothetical.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General both in his ministerial capacity and as acting house leader. In view of the fact that it is almost two months since a notice of motion was placed on the order paper dealing with the potential removal of Mr. Justice Landreville from the Ontario Judiciary, and in view of the fact that this whole matter casts a cloud on the judiciary in general, can the minister assure us that this matter will be dealt with soon, so that it can be disposed of.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I had a short opportunity to discuss this matter with the house leader. I understand that negotiations will take place with the other parties regarding membership of the committee. But I shall take the matter in hand, and pursue it.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Solicitor General whether he is now in a position to give even an interim report in regard to the
DEBATES	9543
Inquiries of the Ministry security situation so that justice will be done by removing suspicion from all employees of departments of government.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I said yesterday about this matter. The authorities are following the traditional line of completing the investigation that may affect the necessary decision. The matter is being pursued expeditiously.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say whether the government has found evidence of social relations between employees in the surveys and mapping branch and diplomats in the Russian embassy.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say more than I have said. The customary and traditional thing is to let the investigation come to a conclusion, and then make the necessary decisions. That is the course we are pursuing.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister. A few days ago on orders of the day the Acting Prime Minister indicated that consideration would be given to referring to an appropriate committee the several questions and issues affecting animal welfare, such as are put forward by humane societies. Has a decision been made in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter was drawn to my attention only a few moments ago. I can only say that I shall look into it at once. It seems to me that the appropriate committee for this purpose would be the committee on agriculture, but I shall make inquiries.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In his absence would the acting minister take it as notice. Now that the wheat board has been transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce I wonder whether the minister would consider the advisability of discussing with the wheat board the raising of the

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
potential quota, so that farmers may meet the rise in machinery prices that is about to take place.


Lawrence T. Pennell: In
the absence of the minister I shall take the question as notice and bring it to his attention.



CROP INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he tell us if the British Columbia government took advantage of the federal Crop Insurance Act to set up a crop insurance scheme for the farmers of that province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member to put his question on the order paper, because I fail to see its urgency, at least from the way it is worded.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is still the minister's intention to introduce a mini-budget in the month of November and, if so, on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the financial measures, or the budget, would be related to the approval by the house of the legislation with respect to pensions, because this will be the principal reason for bringing down a budget.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)

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;
(b) 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 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.
['Order. The house will now resolve itself into committee of supply.', '\nThe house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair:']
Barry Mather: When the house rose at ten o'clock last night, Mr. Chairman, I had begun making a few observations on the state of our northern affairs. I said at that time that the north, our north, is populated by very few people, and that, in fact, the population of our north is equal only to the crowds attending a couple of football games in Vancouver.
We have a number of administrative bases around this big area scattered from Frobisher Bay in the Arctic to Inuvik in the Mackenzie area of the west. The point I put forward and
November 4, 1966

still would like to mention is that in my opinion the principle of integration and unification can very well be applied to northern services. It is true to say that we have a large number of governmental departments operating in these small communities. In the main they are doing good work, but I believe they could operate more effectively, and for the least cost, if the services were pooled or integrated.
A good deal has been said on the subject of northern education. A good deal has been done, and progress has been made. It is encouraging to note that while nine years ago only 10 per cent of native children were being educated to our standards that figure today is 85 per cent.
Although this progress is encouraging, a great deal remains to be done in coping with the basic problems that exist. One of the things that struck members of the northern affairs committee who toured the north was that the children were being educated more or less in our pattern while their parents, until quite recently, had been living in tents and igloos. Today the parents are just beginning to learn to live in houses, and I believe the committee members who went there will not disagree with me when I say that a great deal more adult education is required.
Again on this subject, we should bear in mind that it is quite difficult to educate native children in the type of schools we have in the north. In those schools they learn about things they have never seen. They read about cows and chickens, for instance, but have never seen them. In this connection I have started a modest project which is to begin shortly in my area, namely a sister school. The children attending it will exchange letters and pictures with children in a northern school. In this way the northern children can learn more about the south, and the southern children can learn more about their brothers and sisters in the north.
Housing is a grave problem in many of the remote areas. The housing which is being constructed and made available to the natives is good and, I think, practical, but we are seriously behind in what we should be attempting to undertake. Housing in these areas ranges from very good to utterly disgraceful. In some places we visited it was almost incredible how people could survive living in hovels, and I strongly urge that we speed up our efforts in providing more decent, practical housing.
Interim Supply
Something else which could be done in the north comes under the heading of the federal physical fitness program, the objective of which is to encourage athletics and participation in sports. In places like Hay River we found that this program would be very beneficial in bringing the native children together in competition and co-operation with the children of the civil servants living there. We were told by the mayor of Hay River that many of the native children tend to keep to themselves, feeling that the white children have advantages over them. He also said that when a marina had been constructed in Hay River juvenile delinquency dropped remarkably. I urge that funds be made available under the physical fitness program to encourage sports participation between all groups of children in the north.
The high cost of shipping freight to the north is a grim fact of life for people living in the northern outposts. It is true that the various departments of government make different allowances with respect to rations of imported foods provided for their staffs, but because of these differences in ration allocations that fact alone irritates the various staffs.
The cost of freight shipments is really fantastic in relation to the cost of the products being transported. For example, a dozen eggs in some areas retails at $1.25. Let us say that an egg costs 10 cents. Of that 10 cents it is calculated that 4 cents represents the cost of the egg, and almost 6 cents represents the freight cost.
The idea I have, and which I think is shared by many members of the committee, is that, just as in earlier days we had equalization of freight rates in Canada, to provide the same degree of benefit to all Canadians east and west, we should now do something like that between the north and south in order to enable the people who live and serve in the north to do so under better circumstances.
In conclusion I would like to refer briefly to the Carrothers commission report. It contains both good and dubious ingredients. One of the good recommendations is that the deputy commissioner at some future date be appointed from the elected council. Another is that a ministry of public affairs be established for the north. This, in conjunction with an educational crash program, could provide great potential for good.

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
The decision not to divide the Arctic in two for administrative purposes is sensible. On the other hand I doubt that the recommended ten year testing period is practical. I think it is too long; five years would be adequate.
One point in the commission's recommendations of which I am highly critical is that which recommends that the top administrator be provided with additional powers and funds. Under some circumstances this would virtually make him a dictator. I believe the administrator should be elected by the people, or at least his appointment should be approved by the citizens of the north in a referendum.
The commission's report is vaguely critical of the department for its treatment of the Indian and Eskimo peoples, but it contains little mention of their land claims and treaties which are so important to them. The appointment of the executive may be necessary, but there should be council control over the executive. I think hon. members would be greatly interested to get the reactions of the people in the north to the commission's recommendations.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
In the main I think the report is good, but it has these drawbacks I have mentioned. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that we have very great problems in the north, no matter who is administering the area. Basically the problems come down to those of time and space. Modem science and modern transportation is beginning to bridge the problem of space; and education, together with useful employment, is beginning to meet the problem of time

that is, the difference between the old native outlook and the advent of our form of civilization. I think something good is being done in the north. I commend the minister as a very active minister in that regard. A great deal, however, remains to be tackled. Far from easing up in our efforts there, I think we should press forward with them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in rising to participate in the debate at this time I did not know I would have the privilege of using a new term in respect of this process that is going through the mind of the Minister of National Defence, and that what we should now talk about is amalgamation. I do not know whether this is an attempt to clarify the confusion which exists not only in his mind but also in the minds of all the servicemen and the public of Canada, concerning what he means or what he intends to do with

regard to the defence forces of Canada. What does he intend to do? Does he intend to put them into Kelly green outfits, with some sort of a hat? Or, how does he intend to torpedo or scupper them in so far as their effectiveness is concerned?
One of my very great friends, a former serviceman, said to me one day, "Yes, it is conceivable that Canada might have the highest paid mercenaries in the world, with all the loyalty and affection there is for the service of mercenaries". This is a serious reflection upon the state of the morale of Canada's defence forces, and is something which I feel the minister knows nothing about. This has to do with the morale that is required of fighting men who have gone through the experience of war. This is something which is being denied by those-and I do not question their motives at all-who feel that morale and a certain esprit de corps in a military unit is meaningless.
The millions, or hundreds of thousands of men in this country, who in the main are protesting against this, have gone through that experience. What is that additional something that is in a man's mind when, in the crunch, he has a particular incentive along with his colleagues and his unit-a pride in his uniform and a pride in the service? Those of us who consider these motives today are airily dismissed as being out of date by people who know nothing about it and who have not experienced it. All it would require is for them to have gone through some of the same experiences.
I am not talking about the integration of the command structure of the forces; that is a separate subject. A great deal has been said about this, and as far back as 1958 I have been saying that this would have to be done in certain sectors. That being so, however, I do not feel we should go at a gallop merely for the sake of unification and integration. Today we have had the warning from the required to mobilize, materiel command there were a crunch or crisis and we were required to mobilize, Materiel Command could not meet the strain. There have been men who have far more experience than the minister has had in military affairs, who understand the administration of armies, who understand the administration of armed forces or field formations and who understand all the difficulties, and these men in great earnestness say to the minister we should now pause to examine what we have done: Let us test it.
November 4, 1966

Interim Supply
There is a good deal oi good in what may have been done in so far as integration is concerned, but surely to goodness there is nothing to cause the minister to carry on at a mad gallop and refuse the advice of professional soldiers, airmen and sailors who have gone to the top of the service, not merely because of their years of service, not because of an old school tie, but because of their record of performance. The majority of these men were tested in the fire of battle and in the stress and strain of war, something the minister knows nothing about. This is the difficulty I find. I say that if these men tell the minister we must now pause and examine what we have done, that we must test it in exercises and that we must find the weaknesses, then he is nothing but foolhardy when he disregards this advice.
When we build a building do we test the foundation after we have put the roof on, after we have put the windows in, and after we have everything painted and ready for occupancy? That is precisely what the minister wants to do with regard to the Canadian armed forces. As my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops so ably pointed out last night in one of the best speeches on this subject, this matter gives us the greatest concern. Those men who were in command positions when the white paper came out-a document which apparently said a great deal more to the author than it did to the public-are gone, all gone. Why? Because they would not go down the straight and narrow confines of some undefined something which has been kept locked in the minister's breast, in so far as integration and unification are concerned.
The minister can dismiss this with an airy smile, if he wants to, but I should like to tell him of something which happened last week-and this has been repeated to me by many people. A corporal with many years service in the army came in for re-engagement and he saw his commanding officer. Incidentally, the commanding officer told me he was one of the best N.C.O.s he had. The corporal said "I have been serving in the Canadian army and I desire to re-engage in the Canadian army. If I re-engage am I re-engaging in the Canadian army or what am I re-engaging in?" The commanding officer said to him, "I am sorry, but I cannot tell you to what force you would belong if you re-engaged". He did not re-engage.
[DOT] (12 noon)


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for
Chicoutimi can laugh, but the information I have was given to me by a gentleman who has a great deal more experience than that hon. member.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Give us an example.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are many examples I could give in respect, not only of N.C.O.s but of officers at the junior and middle levels. This type of thing is happening throughout the services at all levels, and anyone who denies that fact is either deliberately misrepresenting the situation or is completely ignorant.


Paul Langlois: What is the percentage of this occurrence?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Whenever we refer to reengagement or re-enlistment the statistics can be confusing. We know these re-enlistments have been declining. The number of personnel in our forces has been declining month after month and the minister and those speaking on his behalf know they are wrong when they say our rate of recruitment is satisfactory. Could a recruit possibly replace efficiently a veteran of 12 or 15 years experience, whether he is an N.C.O. or an officer? The obvious answer is that he could not. Are we going to put recruits on our destroyers as technicians immediately after their enlistment? We know we are short of technicians because the minister finally admitted that more and more ships are being tied up because of the lack of trained personnel. That fact was denied for a long period of time. The members in this house were treated as carping fools by the minister and those who speak on his behalf, because we dared to point out these things.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for
Chicoutimi may laugh but I invite him to take a meaningful trip and visit these servicemen to find out what the situation actually is.


Paul Langlois: Mr. Chairman- [English]


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member should take his seat because I have the floor. He can

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
make his speech when I am finished because there will be plenty of time during this debate. He has not occupied enough of the time of this house as yet.


Paul Langlois: I hope you will hear my speech.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I invite the hon. member to make some contribution to this debate.


An hon. Member:: That would be sheer nonsense.


Paul Langlois: You will see.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let me tell the hon. member that if we continue in this fashion so far as national defence is concerned, it will take us at least half a generation to replace the trained men in order to maintain the standard of efficiency as it was 18 months ago.
Let me say this to the minister who criticized the speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops-


Paul Langlois: Mr. Chairman-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member has the right to his own opinion, but let me assure him that I base mine on experience, knowledge and communication.


Mr. Pugh:: The next thing will be conscription.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister has suggested that we should only debate unification. I suggest the minister has not one iota of an idea as to what he means by unification. This is a complete mystery, in spite of the fact there have been leaks and puffy articles by some of the establishment writers. Strangely enough, there have been some senior officers travelling around the country singing hosannas about the policy of unification, but none of them would dare criticize this policy because to do so would be to place themselves in peril. None of the senior officers criticized the unification policy publicly before retiring or being fired. Let me contradict the statement that has been made to the effect that Admiral Landymore was fired because he publicly criticized the minister. The minister is well aware of the chronology of these events. He knows that Rear Admiral Landymore was relieved of his duties or asked to resign prior to any public statement he made. The minister is well aware of this fact.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am glad to hear the minister say that, because perhaps now the press will correct the misconception it created. Any statement to the effect that Rear Admiral Landymore was fired after he criticized defence policy publicly is downright misrepresentation, because that did not happen. It is strange how the minister and his sycophants have been prepared to leave that impression. The minister has had other senior officers of the forces fired before they had even opened their mouths, including Admiral Dyer, General Fleury and General Moncel, yet he has the gall to say that these officers retired as the result of a mutual understanding.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to know who was the author of that gobbledygook, the minister or those who write on his behalf. I should like to hear explanations regarding some other retirements.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are not going to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have heard different versions as to what took place. It is indeed strange that only one man should be right and all the rest wrong. Many senior officers have retired who have not spoken up, but most of them will tell you privately that they retired ahead of time and were glad to do so. Some of these men possess more military knowledge and experience in the administration of military affairs in their little finger than the minister will ever possess, and that goes for most of his personal advisers as well. These men were dismissed out of hand because they dared to say that we should examine the situation to see whether or not the proposed path was the right one.
The cost of Canada's defence forces represents almost 25 per cent of our national budget. This is important from a purely financial point of view; yet they are prepared to deal in a cavalier manner with the whole structure and essence of these forces.
We are told today that we are discussing the details of unification or, as it is now termed, amalgamation, but we are not to receive any explanation until after we have accepted this measure in principle. Surely that is a mockery of parliamentary procedure. This is an attitude that can only be described as-I was going to call it intellectual arrogance, but I will not compliment it by that description. I invite the minister to
November 4, 1966

appear before the defence committee to explain his stand. Let us discuss this measure in a meaningful way with those people who are in agreement and those who are in opposition, so that we can truly assess it. Let us do that rather than accept it in principle in this house. The minister wants to play cards, but he wants to use a stacked deck. That is how sure he is of his position.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I challenge the minister to appear before the defence committee prior to our discussing this matter in the house. Then we could question him about unification and some of the things that have been done since mid-June this year. We should like to know the opinions put forward by men who counselled the minister three years before integration, in order that our study of this question may be complete. The minister received their advice-some of these witnesses gave this evidence to the defence committee-and then they were relieved of their duties. We want an explanation of this.
With regard to the defence committee reconvening and dealing with this question, the minister knows full well the shenanigans that went on at the time the committee was completing its consideration of the departmental estimates. There was a recommendation from the steering committee, composed of the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), the hon. member for Welland, the hon. member for Lambton West and the hon. member for Renfrew North, that the committee go into in-camera sessions to consider the evidence that had been presented to it in order to make a report.
This matter was under consideration. The chairman had brought forward that item of business, but he was prepared to accept a motion by a member who had rarely attended the meetings of the defence committee that the estimates should be reported back to the house forthwith without comment. I shall not deal with all the protests raised at that time. But I say that this was an inspired move, a coldly calculated move that brings no credit to the government members of the committee, its chairman or the government members of the steering committee, because they were prepared at that time to swallow their convictions and proceed against their own recommendation.
I want to know whether at that time the chairman of the committee had been informed directly or indirectly that Admiral
Interim Supply
Landymore's brief had been seriously amended. I have copies of the two versions of the brief tabled by the minister. As the one who was doing most of the questioning on the matter of morale in the forces, I can say definitely that the innocuous evidence the admiral was permitted to give in his brief with regard to the morale of the men under his command misled, and was designed to mislead, the committee. The minister must accept full responsibility for this; it was his responsibility all the way through. It was done, at the minister's behest, by someone else: He knew about it.
I say that if the chairman of the committee knew of this prior to the final consideration of the estimates, he was duty bound to tell the other members of the steering committee that he had received information that this complaint had been made. It is up to the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., to advise this house just where he stood in this regard and when he had knowledge of the amending of Admiral Landymore's brief. If that hon. member did know about it, I say it was his duty as chairman of the committee, which is responsible not to the minister, not to the government but to this house, to acquaint the committee of those facts. Knowledge of the facts could materially have affected the way the committee proceeded thereafter. I hope the hon. member will tell us in due course precisely when he knew that this brief had been amended.
The other night the hon. member for Leeds, as reported at page 9413 of Hansard, came forth with a most fantastic interpretation of the relationship of ministers to committees, and the status of committees. I suppose the hon. member believes that a committee should be just a little blueprint organization for ministerial ukases and ministerial views. This is what the hon. member for Leeds said:
I think the Minister of National Defence and his department have the responsibility to determine how soon the committee meets.
The minister and his departmental officials shall determine when a house committee shall meet?-what arrant nonsense. I would suggest that the hon. member for Leeds take another look at his position as a member of his house. If he wants to be one of a herd of docile cattle, let him be that; but I suggest that this is not the role of hon. members whether in the house or in committee. It is always interesting to see the transformation in attitude when an hon. member who was in

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
opposition finds himself on the government side of the house. I should like to ask the hon. member for Leeds whether when he was in opposition he subscribed to the theory that he expounded the other night with regard to when a committee should meet, and whether it should be at the behest of a minister and his officials.
I have spoken about the results of the minister's lack of communication as to what he means precisely by unification and integration. The morale of the forces is down; there are no two ways about this. This is the most regrettable thing I can possibly say, because I have great admiration for our defence forces and an ardent desire to see that they are the best possible, that they are men who will be proud to represent Canada and proud of their service and uniform.
The navy has been torpedoed; there is no doubt about that. The minister can shake his head, but I know some of the details of the minister's visit to Halifax and I know something about the reception he received. He has not convinced the navy that it has not been torpedoed, neither the ratings nor officers. The only reason the minister received subdued opposition was because of the sense of discipline and honour of the men concerned; otherwise his reception would have been much different.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They would have tarred and feathered him and thrown him out.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We are in a similar position in so far as the air force is concerned, although the situation in that service has not accelerated to the same degree as in the navy.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The minister does not know how he will man his CF-5's when and if they come into service, and that question has to be reviewed also. He does not know whether he can put in an airlift on the Hercules, when the R.C.A.F. gets its full complement, and whether he will find sufficient crews to man the aircraft. If the debilitating retirement from the air force continues, he will not have the crews and the back-up crews for transport command. This is the result of some of the nonsensical policies that have been carried out. The minister can grin, but if he could get rid for a moment of that sort of self-induced aura of righteousness, I would remind him of the days when he was sitting opposite as the defence critic, and the days of the famous disclosed plan. It was then as senseless as it

is now; the only trouble is that now we are unfortunately seeing some of those plans being put into action, or at least attempted.
I will say to the minister in all sincerity that I think his performance in this regard has been regrettable. I will be temperate in my language and only say that the minister's actions have in some cases been contemptible. Not only have they been contemptible to this house, but also contemptuous of this house. They have been contemptuous of the services and of the men that he leads as the Minister of National Defence. I would hate to be in his shoes and ultimately to have to account for the comments of the men who have retired. These are men on whose abilities our services of the future will have to rely. They have gone because they do not wish to have anything more to do with it. And what of the men whose sons are growing up with their fathers' military tradition? There are many such fathers, men who have just retired or are about to retire who have said to me: "I am advising my son not to enter the services."


The Chairman:: Order. I have to advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I will just complete my sentence. If there is anything that reflects more vividly the present state of morality in the forces it is the father who has a proud record in the services telling his son, "The services are not for you".


Mr. Groos:: Will the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but if the committee will allow me more time I will answer the hon. member's question.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Chairman, I arrived while the hon. member was on his feet and I did not hear his entire speech. However, I came in at a moment when he was referring to me. He asked when I was going to stand up and give an explanation concerning certain information which had been given to me by Admiral Landymore. I wonder whether the hon. member, who is the vice chairman of the defence committee and who was not in the house last night when I was speaking-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was.


David Walter Groos: I do not think you were in your seat when I was speaking. I was asked the
November 4, 1966

same question by another hon. member. I wonder if the hon. member for Edmonton West has read my answer which appears at page 9521 of Hansard. There is nothing further I can add to what appears there.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, may I just give a brief answer. First of all, I was in the house during the whole time of the hon. member's speech. However, my questions were much more precise than the question put to the hon. member previously. I asked him whether he had any direct or indirect information on the modifications in Admiral Landymore's speech, and at what time did this occur prior to the last meeting of the defence committee?


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Mr. Mongrain:: November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
in an attempt to influence the administration of the nation. Militarism should not be carried too far in our country. The minister made alterations, changes in the reports of Admiral Landymore, Admiral Brock or someone else; I think that was much more his responsibility since he assumes, with his colleagues of the cabinet, the responsibility for the defence of our country, and his responsibility is certainly more normal than that of an admiral who has not been elected to administer but appointed to look after the defence of our country.
The opposition complains, Mr. Chairman, that it did not have the opportunity to discuss these things, that it was not well informed. Well, I went to the source and I was shocked to find that there had been thousands of press releases, of witnesses summoned, that there had been at least a hundred meetings of that committee dealing with defence and that hundreds of witnesses had been summoned, in short that there had been hundreds of advisors around the minister to help him form an opinion and prepare his white paper. What more do we want? Let the government assume its responsibilities; if it meets with failure, it will be responsible to the Canadian people. But I believe it must assume its responsibilities, courageously, and not be impressed by those who have divergent views.
I do not say that everything suggested by the opposition is worthless, Mr. Chairman. There are worthy suggestions and I also think that the minister will be willing to hear them and take them into consideration in due time.
A few days ago, someone raised in the house an incident, which created a greater stir than it should have probably, concerning a newspaper report saying that this was, in fact, a kind of underhanded war against the change in long-standing habits, that some people wanted to retain, especially for the navy, its British protestant control. I found that fantastic and unthinkable at the time but the more I listen to the debate, the more I wonder whether another underhanded war is not being waged against those who were recently appointed to take charge of our Canadian army, who displayed discipline, who therefore accept integration and unification prescribed by the government, as every good soldier should do, in my opinion.
I wonder if all the criticism or filibuster that is going on would not be aimed precisely at waging a sneaky war on those people who see their duty and know that it is not up to

them to dictate government policy on defence matters.
Mr. Chairman, I believe there is an underlying preoccupation, that I might call instinctive, on the part of members of the opposition, which simply consists in bringing about the eventual downfall of the hon. minister and the government. It is only natural for the opposition to try and destroy a member of the cabinet, but the morale of the armed forces should not be sacrificed for this purpose; one should not resort to prompting the people responsible for our country's defence to rebellion in order to achieve this objective; it should not be achieved by undermining the sense of discipline which those who are responsible for our country's defence, under government orders, must have.
Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the official opposition is to be blamed for having sowed the seeds of insubordination among servicemen during this debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not at all.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I say it again, although this does not please the hon. member for Edmonton West, the hon. minister must assume his responsibilities-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We also have responsibilities.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: -and he must assume them with his colleagues in the cabinet.
I feel that these incidents will very shortly prove to be unfortunate for national defence services. I repeat once again that if the hon. minister is wrong, the Canadian people will call him to account.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is high time to quell this admirals' reform. I am one of those who support the firmness shown by the hon. Minister of National Defence, even though no one in the house can foresee the results of unification and integration. We are faced with a problem, but we must take everything into consideration: some things are sure, others are not. Once again, this is a situation where the hon. minister must accept his responsibilities, and I am one of those who mean to give him every possible opportunity to assume them. If he errs, we will call upon him to account for his action; that will be our role in due time. Mr. Chairman, that is all I had to say with respect to integration and unification of the armed forces.
I would now like to call the attention of the house to a problem which will undoubtedly have a local connotation, but it is of
November 4, 1966

such scope that it can have at least provincial, if not national, repercussions. Therefore, I want to raise it in the house.
The Department of Transport last year, undertook dredging operations in the St. Lawrence channel, not too far from my constituency, in what is called lake St. Peter. Thousands of tons of clay were dredged from the bottom of the channel, which is quite normal. But what is not normal is that the stuff was dumped along the shore creating a sort of isthmus or Sahara desert in lake St. Peter which resulted in extensive damage to nearby properties. This spoiled the landscape to the point where it now offers a view which is absolutely hideous. In view of the fact that this is along a main highway, the Montreal-Quebec highway, it is an extremely unpleasant surprise for tourists going through there.
Mr. Chairman, I mention this because it seems that virtually all means to correct the situation have been exhausted. As early as May or June last, I made representations to the Departments of Transport and Public Works on behalf of the owners of water lots who invested considerable amounts of money in them.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I have a list of the owners of water lots. This is a place where people spend the summer. Houses have been built there, some valued at over $100,000; others are less expensive, but all the property in this one little spot is worth at least half a million dollars. The access to the beach, the view and the scenery have been spoilt by a dump of refuse from the river and the lake. This is a very ugly sight for all who go that way.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a protest to the government. I have already asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pick-ersgill) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) to remedy the situation. I should like to say that I am dissatisfied with the answer I have received. I am told that the contractor is the one who made a mistake and that he is ready to spend $4,000 to $5,000 to correct it. The contractor certainly must have done this work under the direction of government engineers. It is incredible that there should be in this department such stupid engineers, who understand so little the importance of our beautiful scenery that they would allow it to be spoiled in this way.
I have before me a request signed by all the owners of water lots. I have the claims 23033-604
Interim Supply
and the figures. They had the damage assessed and up until now these claims have been flatly rejected. It seems that everyone wants to wash his hands of it. The Department of Public Works says that the one to blame is the McNamara Company Quebec Limited who did the work for the St. Lawrence ship channel division of the Department of Transport. And the McNamara company says: The fault lies with the engineers who gave us instructions; we obeyed them.
Mr. Chairman, I want to protest against that and warn the minister that we shall not stand such conditions any longer. We are going to take all legal steps available to us so as to obtain a review of the situation, unless the minister decides to do justice to the owners of water lots.
I am sure that if the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works were to visit that landscape, one of the most beautiful in the province of Quebec, and see the shameless and unimaginable way it has been marred, they would be shocked and would see that the necessary steps be immediately taken in order to remedy the situation at once.
I urge the government, before the water lot owners succeed in stirring up public opinion more seriously than they are doing now, to take the necessary steps so as to take care of this situation and so that those properties at least, which in some cases have been built at enormous cost and privation, be not depreciated for ever.
Mr. Chairman, those are the two things I wished to point out. With all possible discretion, I urge all those having suggestions to make in regard to unification, integration, to always consider, while making them, their actual possible effects upon the morale of this country's forces, upon the sense of discipline they should have and not to forget that this is a concern that should transcend partisan considerations.


Mr. Chaiterlon:: Opening with the remarks I had intended starting with, I hope that the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), who is behind the curtain, will listen, because I want to start by referring to the speech he made last night. I asked my colleagues in the house last night to let me know when the hon. member spoke, but unfortunately I was before a committee and could not leave. It was, of course, with eager anticipation that I read the hon. member's speech in Hansard

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
this morning. I was disappointed and, as a matter of fact, disgusted to read that he, the chairman of the defence committee, had nothing to say.
The hon. member made three points. The first one supported the stand of the Minister of National Defence to the effect that officers and officials of departments giving evidence before the defence committee may give only that evidence which the minister will allow them to give. I have been to hundreds of committee meetings where officials have appeared and given evidence freely. At any point where it appeared that a question from a member of the committee touched on a policy matter the chairman of the committee would intervene, or the official giving the evidence would simply say that the question referred to a matter of policy which he did not feel he should comment on. If the chairman of the defence committee is of the view that officials of the department may not give evidence even of facts, what is the value of calling such people before the committee? Are they to say exactly what the minister wants them to say about facts, or an interpretation of the facts? At any rate, this whole subject was the first point brought up by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.).
Next he was accusing Admiral Brock of playing politics. Mr. Chairman, people such as Admiral Brock and others who have recently retired have a duty, when asked by members of parliament from any party for advice, to give it. I say that giving advice when asked for it is to the credit of Admiral Brock. It is to the credit of the Conservative party that is has sought advice from knowledgeable people. Was General Foulkes who sought the Liberal nomination in Victoria two years ago playing politics by virtue of writing certain articles?
A few minutes ago when the hon. member for Edmonton West gave the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), the chairman of the defence committee, a clear opportunity to answer certain questions, he stood up but made no effort to answer those questions. The hon. member for Edmonton West had asked whether the chairman of the defence committee had any knowledge, directly or indirectly, of the fact that Admiral Landymore's testimony had been tampered with, or of the fact that any other officers' evidence had been tampered with. It was the duty of the chairman of the committee at least to bring this matter to the attention of the steering committee. He had a duty and a right, under certain circumstances, to call the defence committee into

being again and explain to it the knowledge he has. Surely every member of the defence committee ought to know to what extent he has been misled, or to what extent pertinent information has been withheld from him.
I think it was the duty also of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) to let his constituents know where he stands on the question of unification. To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) has made no public statement as to his position in this whole matter. Surely as an elected member he has a dual duty to let the opposition and the defence committee know his position in this matter. There have been many invitations to the hon. member to make his position known, but so far he has declined to do so.
Also, I should be interested to know the kinds of answers he gives to people writing to him. For instance, the letter I got from the air force officers association asks certain questions. A copy of the letter was sent to the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.).
Having referred to the speech of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) 1 cannot refrain from commenting on another speech made from the other side of the house by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. At the risk of mentioning that speech, and therefore upgrading it to the point where it is worthy of mention, I want to say that in my opinion that speech is the embodiment of inanity. What is wrong with the Conservative party's preparing a policy statement on defence, or preparing papers on plausible party positions relating to defence? What is wrong with consulting knowledgeable people to prepare our policy position? The position taken by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra contained the inference that there was some deep, dark, secret plot. In my opinion he did nothing but waste the time of the house.
As a contrast I found the speech by the Associate Minister of National Defence very interesting reading. I do not agree with what he said, but he had good, debatable points, and I commend him for the moderate manner in which he gave his views. What a difference there would be in our position with regard to defence today if the associate minister were the minister of national defence. I want to take issue, however, with one point he raised when, at page 9395 of Hansard he referred to an article written by General Foulkes which appeared in the Star Weekly Magazine of October 14,	1961, and wherein General
Foulkes says:
We need one single armed service under one supreme chief of staff in one uniform.
November 4, 1966

As the Associate Minister of National Defence has said, it is proper for him and for anybody else to seek advice from knowledgeable people, therefore it was proper for him to take advice from a person as knowledgeable as General Foulkes.
I suggest to the Associate Minister of National Defence, however, that he bring himself up to date. I refer to an article in the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, October 13, 1966 by the same General Charles Foulkes, from which I shall quote a few excerpts. First:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
One of the aspects of integration, which is relatively unimportant but which is causing some resentment in the services is the announced intention to force the servicemen into a neutral uniform by 1967. Perhaps this is to be part of the "centennial" celebrations to show that Canada still maintains, what a pundit once referred to, as "the best dressed, best fed, best paid, but poorest equipped force in the west."
Again 1 quote from this article by General Foulkes:
Since any acceptable integration scheme calls for the continuation of regiments of soldiers, squadrons of aircraft and flotillas of ships, the servicemen in these combat formations must continue to wear the appropriate combat uniform.
Again quoting from this article:
We should not be mesmerized by the idea that a common uniform will ensure a happy, contented and efficient integrated service.
Quoting still further from the article:
The minister has not been forthright in informing the services and the public of the true and real extent of the integration plot.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Associate Minister of National Defence being a fair minded person, as I know he is, will take some advice from the same person from whom he apparently took advice in 1961.
I contend that the Minister of National Defence has been operating by propaganda and press releases issued by some of the officials in his department. I maintain he has deliberately tried to confuse the people of Canada as to integration and as to unification. Even in the bill which he introduced today he avoided using the word "unification", and coined a new one, "amalgamation".
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a long editorial which appeared in the Daily Colonist on Sunday, October 2, and which I could not put better in my own words. It is headed, "Fiction and Fact" and reads:
One of the first things Mr. Paul Hellyer did when he became Minister of National Defence in April, 1963, was to establish what can only be described 23033-6041
Interim Supply
as a personal propaganda section in his office under former R.C.A.F. Group Captain William Lee.
Since that time Mr. Lee has been a very busy fellow indeed. Operating under the title of special assistant to the Minister of National Defence he has sent out what now must amount to tons of photostats, clippings or copies of every editorial, article or news commentary appearing in Canada or elsewhere which made favourable mention of his minister.


J. Michael Forrestall: He got a new Xerox machine.


George Louis Chatterton: I think he would need more than one Xerox. The editorial continues:
These items, enclosed in O.H.M.S. envelopes and franked by the minister, have been pouring out of national defence headquarters into newspaper, radio and television offices throughout the country in an ever-increasing stream.
If it is to be assumed that this is not propaganda but simply information which is being dispensed by Mr. Lee then it must be assumed that if the material goes out under the Minister of National Defence's initial on the envelope the contents are factually accurate.
The validity of this assumption, however, can be quite easily challenged by a cursory glance at some of the articles which have gone out with the minister's official blessing.
As but one example: At the end of 1964 or early 1965 Mr. Hellyer's propaganda machine sent out a lengthy news commentary by the Ottawa correspondent of one of the international news services. The article was highly complimentary to Mr. Hellyer and made a number of assertions well calculated to appease any doubts the public may have held regarding the defence policy followed by the present government.
Apart from completely confusing the integration-unification issue the author makes the following points on which some editorial comment is justified.
Point: The new commander in chief of the armed forces has assembled a team of the best military minds available to mould the new single service force.
Comment: More than a dozen of the most senior army, navy and air force officers who were what must have been the best military minds in Canada at that time have now either been retired or fired.
Point: Mr, Hellyer presented the armed forces with a $1.5 billion Christmas (1964) present that included six new warships.
Comment: Four of these ships have not yet been ordered. In fact the orders for four ships comparable to the ones mentioned were cancelled.
Point: "Hellyer's greatest accomplishment, however, was winning the respect and admiration of the services for his radical face-lifting operation."
Comment: Mr. Hellyer's recent experience in Halifax and the fact that all three services are far, almost dangerously, under strength would seem to give the lie to this point.
May I interject for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to extend an invitation to the minister that he, perhaps accompanied by the chairman of the defence committee, visit the base

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
at Esquimalt. However, so that the public will not again be misled or confused, I would urge him to let the press accompany him so that we can have a first-hand account of the warm reception he will receive there.
Continuing to read from the editorial:
Point: Anti-submarine warfare operations have now been directed by a central command, thus showing how effectively Mr. Hellyer's integration policy is working.
Comment: A.S.W. operations have been carried out by an integrated navy and air force command since 1958-five years before Mr. Hellyer took
office.
Point: Two countries, one a major world power, will launch their own unification plans, based on the Canadian program. In 1965 "Hellyer, clearly, has been a pacemaker for his counterparts in other nations."
I suggest that the minister should read the white paper issued in New Zealand this year, which no doubt was drafted with some knowledge of what the Minister of National Defence has done in Canada, and he will see in that white paper that unification is categorically rejected.
The last paragraph in the editorial reads:
Point: "The greatest concern among military circles today (1964) is that Hellyer may be promoted out of defence and into another cabinet portfolio too soon."
Comment on this one is surely unnecessary.
For the benefit of those who are hungry, Mr. Chairman, may I ask that we suspend our sitting for a lunch hour?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. If there is to be any discussion on suspending the sitting under standing orders I will have to rise and report progress. Is this agreed?


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: A luncheon
recess would be agreeable to the government.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order. The house will now resolve itself into committee of supply.


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



[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:
(b)	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 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.
["Order, The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired."]
George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, before the luncheon recess I explained how the minister, through very clever propaganda, had misled and confused the people of Canada with regard to integration and unification. There
November 4, 1966

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
which was incomplete, inadequate and perhaps misleading on the basis of the information it received. As soon as it came to the attention of the chairman that the evidence presented to the committee, on which the report to the house was based, had been altered, it was his duty to notify at least the steering committee and reconvene the committee.
I feel very strongly that the government should seriously consider allowing this matter to be fully discussed by that committee. The committee, should be permitted to call these senior officers in the armed forces, who have left for various reasons and who disagree with the minister's policy, to give their evidence.
There are many questions which should be answered before this house is asked to vote approval of the principle of unification. I have a copy of a letter dated October 26 from the Air Force Officers Association of Vancouver Island which lends support to this suggestion. Let me read an excerpt from the letter:
Constitutionally our association must refrain from engaging in activities which engender political or pressure-group overtones. Our membership, however, has expressed a very deep concern that legislation about to be introduced, dealing with the further integration and the ultimate unification of the armed forces of Canada might prove detrimental to the defence of Canada.
It is the consensus of the association that before any further steps in this direction are taken by our government, the aims and objectives of such proposed legislation be clarified and defined for the benefit of the Canadian people. Accordingly, I have been directed to submit the following questions, all of which are considered to be deserving of public answer, to you:
(1) What is the meaning of 'integration'?
(2) What is the meaning of 'unification'?
(3)	What advantages will accrue under 'unification' which are not already in being under the integrated three-service system?
(4)	How will 'unification' increase service efficiency?
(5)	To what extent will the proposed 'unified' force be effective in the defence of Canada?
(6)	To what extent and by what means will 'unification' introduce financial economies to the taxpayer?
(7)	How will 'unification' affect service morale?
(8)	To what extent is the recent loss of many experienced personnel, at all levels of the three services, attributable to 'integration' and 'unification' policies already introduced?
The last sentence of this letter is as follows:
However, since it is impossible for the Canadian public to form or voice an opinion without first having available the information covered by the above questions, our association is obliged to urge

that such legislation be withheld until the answers have been provided.
There is great concern among the Canadian people about the steps the minister is proposing because it is felt they may permanently affect the security of Canada and the position of Canada in the community of nations. I urge the minister and the government, with all sincerity, to consider the referral of this question to the defence committee before asking parliament to give approval to the principle of a bill for unification. The government should not be hesitant in any way to do this. Surely, the minister and the government must consider this one of the most important measures to come before parliament because of its possible effect on Canada's future. Why should we rush this bill through to provide unification? As the Leader of the official Opposition has said, once an egg has been scrambled you cannot unscramble it.
Surely all members on all sides of the house will support the suggestion that this matter be referred to the defence committee before we approve it in principle. With all the sincerity at my command, I urge the minister and the government to give serious consideration to this request which has come from many concerned organizations and people across this land.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of this occasion to say a few words about a question which clearly has been of interest to this house. I refer to the automobile program and, in particular, recently discussed arrangements between the Studebaker and Volkswagen companies.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
There has been, it is quite clear, a large measure of misunderstanding in relation to the automotive program itself. I think it would be helpful if I were to set out simply and concisely some of the key facts in relation to this program, and try to answer some of the questions in rather greater detail than perhaps is possible on orders of the day. It has been asked whether the law allows a Canadian motor vehicle manufacturer to import vehicles duty free from a producer in any other country. The answer, quite simply, is yes. The authority for this under the present program is Tariff Item No. 95000, established by P.C. 1965-100 issued in the Canada Gazette and tabled in the house in February, 1965. To qualify for the right to import vehicles duty free, a Canadian vehicle manufacturer must meet certain clearly defined conditions described in Tariff Item No. 95000
November 4, 1966

and in the letter of commitment to the government.
The question then arises as to whether the legal right of a Canadian vehicle producer to import duty free from any foreign source was contemplated when the program was drawn up, or did it occur because of a loophole in the law? The answer is that the program was drawn up to provide specifically for this right. If the right to import vehicles duty free were limited to trade between companies which were affiliated by common ownership or control, or which were producing the same make of vehicle, it would have discriminated against many small Canadian manufacturers which do not have corporate manufacturing links abroad. Hon. members should know that there are more than 25 small Canadian vehicle producers right across the country which do not have corporate affiliates abroad and which produce their own makes, but which are now operating successfully under the program. Some of these independent Canadian companies have been actively exploring arrangements with vehicle producers in the United States and overseas countries which would permit them further to expand and specialize their Canadian production. I would ask whether there is any fundamental difference in terms of desirable economic results for such an arrangement between, say, General Motors and its United States parent or, on the other hand, an independent small producer in Canada and a firm in France, Italy or Germany?
Another question asked was whether Studebaker was the beneficiary of any special arrangement entered into with the government to enable that company to import a certain number of Volkswagens duty free. The answer is that no special arrangements were made to accommodate Studebaker in this respect. It was open to Studebaker, as it was to any other vehicle producer in Canada, to earn this right by meeting and fulfilling the conditions under the program. This gives rise, of course, to the question of how an arrangement such as the one we are considering, that between Studebaker and Volkswagen, helps Canada; or in other words, how does it help to meet the objectives of the automotive program? The key objectives of the automotive program are, as I think has been outlined on a number of occasions: to increase production in Canada; to increase employment in Canada; to increase exports from Canada; to make possible lower costs of production in Canada by encouraging large scale output and increased specialization, and
Interim Supply
finally, to help consumers in Canada benefit from lower costs of production which through the forces of competition in the market lead to bringing Canadian motor vehicle prices more into line with prices charged in other countries.
In order to qualify for the right to import automotive products duty free Studebaker, like any other company, had to increase its output and market its increased output at home or abroad. This Studebaker did in large volume. It expanded its production in Canada from 7,000 to 17,000 vehicles, a large proportion of which, of course, it sold abroad. In this way, it earned the right to import duty free a certain value of cars and original equipment parts. Studebaker, as I have already stated, was free to import cars and original equipment parts from any source. Some of these came from its affiliated company in the United States, and when its United States affiliate stopped producing vehicles Studebaker chose to import from Germany. Unfortunately, Studebaker did not find it possible to continue as a producer of vehicles in Canada, but for a period of two years Studebaker of Canada produced and sold more cars than ever before. The company kept 700 Canadians directly employed, and many more through its production in Canada of parts, materials and services. The automotive program, and the import rights which it made available, made it possible for Studebaker to carry on production in Canada from 1964 to 1966.
It has been suggested that the arrangements between Studebaker and Volkswagen had the result of increasing Volkswagen imports to Canada to the detriment of automotive production and employment in Canada. I would say to the committee that one can unequivocally state that this is not so. Sales of Volkswagens in Canada have been remarkably stable since the automotive program was introduced. What happened was that a limited number of Volkswagens, which would in any event have been imported to meet the taste of Canadians who like these small cars, were imported free of duty. Two points emerge from these facts: Canadian production and employment did not suffer in any way; and the automotive program is helping Canadian producers become more competitive so that they can compete more effectively even with duty free Volkswagens.
The question has also been asked: Who receives benefits from the savings in duty on automotive products imported free under the

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
program? Savings in the payment of duties are like any other savings in production costs as far as a company is concerned. Such savings permit a company to compete more effectively in the market place, and it is such competition which protects the consumer. I have on earlier occasions given the house facts about prices to show how Canadian consumers benefited from the program in the first two model years of its operation. In the case of Studebaker, which obtained the main saving from the arrangement with Volkswagen, the prices of its automobiles were trimmed in their last year of production. In the case of Volkswagen, it is interesting to note that in the current model year they raised their United States price but held the price line in Canada. I would ask whether it is too much to conclude that, in the final analysis, it is the Canadian consumer who benefits when customs duties are brought down.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The question has also been asked whether Studebaker is still entitled to import vehicles free of duty. The answer is no. Studebaker no longer qualifies because it is not at present a producer of motor vehicles.
In conclusion, I should like to reiterate the point I made earlier in relation to the legal right and the justification for the entitlement of Canadian vehicle producers to import vehicles from any source, always provided that they meet their production and other commitments under the program. Any Canadian vehicle manufacturer who meets the requirements of the program to achieve stipulated levels of output may import duty free vehicles and original equipment parts, provided he also maintains the required ratio of output of vehicles to sales of vehicles within Canada. Indeed, it is the exercise of this right which shows that the production, employment and rationalization objects of the automotive program are being met.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, have we reverted to motions? Is there no opportunity to reply to the statement just made?


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Calgary South.


Mr. Ballard:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in connection with the oil pipe line and I should also like to speak briefly about oil in Canada in general. First of all I should like to say that the decision of

the government to go along with the construction of the oil pipe line appears to be a reversal of government policy on this subject, in contrast to their policy with regard to the unification of the armed forces. The difference between the two policies is that, insofar as unification of the armed forces is concerned, the minister involved has completely ignored the advice of his experts. As a matter of fact, he has fired his experts and found another group of experts who would agree with the opinion that he holds. On the other hand I must congratulate the government for accepting the advice of their experts-the experts in this case being the National Energy Board-in connection with the oil pipe line. Many arguments, both in favour and against the construction of the pipe line, were placed before the National Energy Board which, after careful consideration, agreed to the construction of the line.
A lot has been said in the house about the various aspects of the construction, all of which were considered by the National Energy Board. After many days and weeks of sittings, the board come to the following conclusion, and I quote from the report of the National Energy Board of August 1966, page 6-31:
In an enterprise economy, an imaginative and constructive initiative, such as that underlying this application, is to be encouraged, unless there are clear grounds of public policy on which it is unacceptable.	[DOT]
Again, on page 6-32 the report goes on to say:
So far as supply, surplus over Canadian requirements, markets available to the pipe line, proposed facilities, economic feasibility and financibility are concerned, the board, having given due consideration to the evidence before it, the advice of its staff, and its own knowledge, concludes on balance and in general that the construction of the facilities proposed by Trans-Canada in relation to the Great Lakes project is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity, and accordingly is prepared, subject to the approval of the governor in council, to issue a certificate-
The point I am trying to make is that all the arguments that we have heard in the debate in the house have previously been considered by the National Energy Board, the government's experts in this field. They have weighed the evidence and come out in favour of the construction of the pipe line. Representations have been made to this board by many interested parties, by all the communities along the proposed northern route, some representatives of the New Democratic Party and of the Communist party who were
November 4, 1966

Interim Supply
acting as interveners. The board dealt with these and came to the following conclusion, and I quote from page 6-3 of the report:
The board also considered the possibility, raised for consideration by the Lakehead interveners, that a different route through northern Ontario should be followed, but concluded that it must agree with Trans Canada that such a route appears under existing circumstances to be economically unattractive.
Mr. Chairman, when this decision was referred to the cabinet, first of all it rejected or overruled the decision of the National Energy Board. This caused quite a lot of consternation among the oil and gas producing centres of the country. There seemed to us to be no logic in the reasons given for the reversal of the decision.
A magazine called "Oil Week" dated August 31, 1966 quoted Premier Manning as saying:
Protection of Canada's national interest was met by the construction of the original line through northern Ontario. Having established this line there is now no need to build a second line along this route to serve communities in northern Ontario whose requirements are well taken care of. The important thing now is the far greater requirements of the consumers in eastern Ontario who could be more economically served by the shorter route through the U.S. Ignoring this aspect is completely contrary to the national interest.
The distributors of the gas were also concerned. Mr. Oakah L. Jones, president and general manager of The Consumers' Gas Company in Toronto asked the following question quoted in a news release: "Where do we get the additional gas required?" He also said:
Three principle factors appear to the distributors to be of paramount importance. First is the cost of gas in Ontario, second the price of gas to western producers, and third the question of limitation on exports and imports.
The members of the New Democratic Party in this house opposed this cabinet decision on the basis of the fact that it may be based on continentalism. In fact, they are trying to convince this house that they are very nationalistic. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said the following in this house on November 2, as recorded on page 9,461 of Hansard:
I intend to use all the influence I can wield to see to it that in the choice which the Canadian people must make in the next few years we come down not on the side of continentalism but on the side of a sane national policy.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that the agreement to construct this line is a sane, national decision. You would expect from the first statements of the members of the N.D.P. that they intend to build a China wall around Canada to prevent any exports from this country and possibly any imports into the country. It seems to me that the N.D.P. members are suggesting that no oil or gas be exported; but they do not apply the same set of circumstances to the export of wood pulp, the output of our gold mines and other minerals. They have selectively chosen oil on which to take a nationalistic stand.
It is also interesting to note that further on in the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam he said:
-It is only natural that the United States will be our best customer and that we will be her best customer. I hope that will always continue to be the case.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is really not in favour of coming down on one side or the other. He is trying very hard to come down on both sides of the question at the same time.
Another argument put forward by the members of the N.D.P. is the old bogey of international finance. They deplore the fact that so much of Canada's industry is controlled by foreign capital. Our country has been developed with foreign capital. If it were not for the investment of huge amounts of foreign capital in Canada, we would still be hewers of wood and drawers of water.
The chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Mr. N. J. McKinnon, in an address given to the Canadian Club of Toronto on January 17, 1966 had this to say about foreign investment:
First, there is world wide shortage ol investment funds and, in a nation as short of capital as Canada is, foreign investment should not be discouraged. Without foreign investment the pace of development will rapidly decline. A high level of capital investment to improve production facilities and to improve productivity is essential.
At this stage of development of our economy, Mr. Chairman, our destiny is tied for the time being to the investment of foreign capital. As an example of this, I received a press release this morning from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which lists the oil leases and reservations that have been taken up in the Yukon territory and Northwest Territories. It lists a lot of companies which are prepared to go into that territory and spend millions of dollars on

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
oil exploration. The work bonus promised in connection with these reservations is over $1 million; the cash bonus paid is about $150,000. We need foreign capital for this type of exploration.
I should like to say a few words about the effect that the construction of this route will have on my province of Alberta. The contracts in existence between the pipe line company and the purchasers of gas indicate that there are going to be 677 million cubic feet of gas per day pass through the line. This means that over a 20-year period 3.66 trillion cubic feet will be supplied to the Ontario market and there will be 1.8 trillion cubic feet available for export to United States communities contiguous to the pipe line in the United States.
This will be of great advantage to consumers in eastern Ontario or in Ontario generally. It is estimated that the price of gas in Ontario, in the Toronto area for example, will be about 5 per cent lower than if an alternate pipe line were built through northern Ontario. This will save the consumers of Ontario $44 million over the next ten years. I might also emphasize that this lower price will be shared by consumers of the gas passing through the present pipe line in northern Ontario.
The contracts to which I referred totalled something over four trillion cubic feet over a period of 20 years, and will not have a detrimental effect on Canada's future energy resources. At the present time we in Canada have gas reserves equal to 39 years' supply, or about 45 trillion cubic feet. At the present rate of exploration-and there is no way of foretelling for how long it will go on-we are increasing our reserves at the rate of one and a half to two trillion cubic feet per year. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it becomes obvious that it is essential, if we expect the oil and gas industry of Canada to be successful, that we have the markets for this gas as well as for oil.
The oil industry is a very prominent part of the economy of Alberta and it may be a very prominent part of the economy of Canada as a whole. Alberta became one of the well recognized oil producers in the world with the discovery in 1947 of the Leduc oil fields. Before the discovery of Leduc Canada's oil production amounted to about 21,000 barrels a day. In 1965 production exceeded
900,000	barrels a day, an increase of approximately 50 times. Independent studies have projected a possible ultimate recovery of oil

for western Canada of 50 billion barrels. This is exclusive of the Athabasca tar sands and the oil we expect to find in the Arctic islands.
A new oil discovery was made last year in the Rainbow Lake area. The discovery well passed through two gas-bearing and one oilbearing stratas into the Kegg River reef where they found a 250 foot net gas pay zone and a 435 foot oil pay zone. For people who do not appreciate the immensity of this find there are oil wells which do produce from a pay zone of four feet. This particular gas and oil well had 435 feet of pay zone and is the thickest pay zone that has ever been encountered in Alberta. This discovery has had a profound effect on the oil and gas business of Alberta, and there has been a tremendous increase in exploration and drilling activity in the general area of this discovery.
The impact of this discovery is well spelled out in the September 1966 issue of the "Monetary Times", and I should like to quote from an article headed: "Needed: A new oil policy".
The pot of gold at the foot of the Rainbow is the thickest pay zone yet discovered in the Alberta oil fields. The Rainbow Lake area, 400 air miles northwest of Edmonton, had been picked over by exploration crews and their findings seemed to demonstrate conclusively there was neither oil nor gas to be found.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Banff Oil gave the findings a new interpretation and gambled on a deep well which was spudded Jan. 11, 1965. Thirteen months later, Banff had completed 22 wells; 13 developed as oil wells, one as a gas well, eight were abandoned. Four oil reservoirs and one gas reservoir had been discovered on its lands. A sixth is shared with Imperial Oil. Leases which Banff had picked up at $1.82 an acre prior to its discovery sold at auction a year later as high as $6,250 an acre. A 20-inch pipeline was built and reserves projected of at least one billion barrels, an increase in Alberta's existing reserves, exclusive of the tar sands, of close to 15%.
URGENCY:	The Rainbow Lake discovery has
revealed a new oil province, extending from the northwest corner of Alberta to Manitoba. It has completely upset conventional interpretations of the oil geology of the plains. Probably most important of all, it has added a new, almost desperate, urgency to the independent producers' request for revision this fall of the national oil policy.
That is what I am talking about. I am talking about the revision of the national oil policy.
At the beginning of 1965, and before the discovery of the Rainbow Lake field, Canada had proven oil reserves equal to 22.65 years supply at the 1964 rate of production and proven natural gas reserves equal to 38.95 years supply at the 1964 rates. Oil and gas
November 4, 1966

reserves are growing much faster than available markets. The great need then is for additional markets for Canadian oil. We need an updating of the national oil policy. The statement of policy issued by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce for 1965-66 contains this statement:
The national oil policy, instituted by the Government of Canada, is serving the public interest and has shown its importance to Canada's economy and security.
In another place it says this:
Since, however, there is an import-export imbalance in crude liquid products, the Federal Government should continue to seek expanded markets for Canadian liquid petroleum and continue their policy of trying to improve the petroleum trade with a minimum regulation of the industry.
The national oil policy was enunciated in January, 1961, when this party was on the other side of the house, and called for the attainment of certain goals for the delivery of oil and gas liquids to Canadian and other markets on an inclining annual basis.
In 1960, the production capacity of western Canada oil and gas wells, under sensible conservation principles, greatly exceeded actual deliveries. Our primary producers were subject to what is called market pro-ration. At the same time eastern Canadian markets were using imported energy fuels which we felt could be partially replaced by western Canadian fuels. During 1960, Canada produced only 63 per cent of its total oil and gas consumption, the net balance being imported with the resultant adverse balance of trade. The hon. member for Northumberland, then minister of trade and commerce, asked the refiners in eastern Canada to revise their thinking on the use of western Canadian crude oil. At the same time, primary producers were urged to seek export markets. It was made clear to all concerned that the objectives of the Conservative national oil policy should be met. The 1961 target called for production of 640,000 barrels per day. This target was exceeded. The 1964 target was
850,000	per day and this target also was exceeded.
This represented a successful implementation of a national oil policy. This was a successful attempt to better the position of oil and gas producers in western Canada who had previously been victims of the lethargic or negative thinking of provincial and federal agencies. The effect on the previously staggering imbalance of trade was obvious.
Interim Supply
To re-cap, in 1960 Canada produced only 63 per cent of its oil and gas consumption. In 1965, Canada produced 80 per cent of its total oil and gas consumption. In both these years Canada was capable of producing its entire domestic consumption.
Oil is being produced in Alberta at a rate of about 42 per cent of the potential capacity of production. It is incumbent upon this government to update the national oil policy in order to improve our imbalance of trade with the United States, and to assist the oil industry of Canada to make full use of its potential production. In the meantime, I ask the government to impress on the National Energy Board the necessity for a continuation of the accelerated use of Canadian crude oil in Canadian markets, and for an acceleration of the use of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in the energy hungry areas of the United States. In this way, through a reduction of imports and an increase of exports, as well as the use of crude and product transfers, Canada will be in a position to produce as much petroleum and natural gas as is consumed in the domestic market in the very near future.
Any new look at the national oil policy should take into consideration the feasibility of a continental approach to oil and gas production. By this I mean that the United States and Canada would treat the oil and gas reserves of both nations as a single unit, and allocate production on a percentage of reserves basis. Both economic and defence considerations would be benefited if our two countries would think in terms of the continental approach to oil and gas. Based on reserve figures at the beginning of 1965, Canada would be permitted to boost petroleum production by 73 per cent over the 1964 level, a gain of almost 227 million barrels. United States production would be cut by about 7 per cent.
At the present time, Canada possesses 15 per cent of the North American oil reserves. But because of excessive imports and restrictions on shipments to United States markets, Canada produces only 8 per cent of the demand of the two countries.
The North American pattern of oil and gas production and supply should be adjusted by geographic and economic considerations-and for security reasons-to allow areas with greater reserves and productibility to increase supplementary supplies to areas which are failing to match discoveries with production or demand.

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
The development of the recently discovered Rainbow Lake field will greatly increase the known oil reserves. In fact, it may even double our known oil reserves. As you are probably aware, operators are allowed to produce their wells in direct ratio to the reserves of oil associated with the wells. Of course, the allowables are tied directly to the availability of markets. What this means is that the development of the Rainbow Lake field reserves will cause a decrease in the allowable production for most other wells in the province, unless there is a corresponding increase in sales of Alberta and Canadian crude. This means surely, if we wish to encourage new explorations in the oil industry, if we hope to open up new areas of the Canadian north, then some incentive should be given to oil companies to continue their exploration programs.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I suggest that the incentive which the oil companies need is an additional market for their oil. The government should do everything in its power to improve domestic and export sales of Canadian crude oil. It should bring up to date the national oil policy that was started by this party when it was in power.
At the present time Canadian wells pump
910,000	barrels of oil a day. Of this production 600,000 barrels go to the domestic market and 310,000 barrels to the United States market. In Canada we use about 1,100,000 barrels a day for our own economy, which means that we import about 500,000 barrels a day from foreign countries.
I submit it is illogical that we should be importing this much oil when one considers that the proven oil reserves we have are climbing at the rate of half a billion barrels per year. In 1961 we had a reserve of 4.2 billion barrels, and by 1966 we had reached a reserve of 7.7 billion barrels, or 30 years' supply. I should point out that these reserves of which I speak do not include the oil that we may expect to discover in the Arctic islands. They do not even include the oil that is known to exist in the Athabaska tar sands. The figure I have quoted of 7.7 billion barrels covers the known reserves.
Therefore, it seems incumbent upon the government to assist this industry, not through grants or such means, but by helping it to find a market for its oil.


Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to cover a variety of

subjects, but I do wish to speak about one subject, upon which nobody in this party has yet spoken, although we have been very patient in observing, patient in waiting, and I agree we will have to be rather patient in hoping. The subject is the integration and unification of the armed services.
Let me begin by saying that in any discussion a few rules must be established. Negotiations do not always work one way. One cannot be in favour of something just for the sake of being in favour of it, or be opposed to it just for the sake of opposing it. There must be reasons for the positions we take, and at the moment I have two major objections to proceeding with unification and integration. My first major objection is that, at the moment, I am convinced I do not know as much about the subject as Africans would in Africa, or the Russians in Russia. In fact, the latter may know more about it than many of us do. In those circumstances, it is up to the minister to give us some information.
The minister cannot say that I or any of my party colleagues have nagged him for information. I believe information should be freely given by him, or by any other cabinet minister who intends to change policy by bringing an amending bill of such dimensions before the house. The minister introduced his defence forces' amending bill today, but I do not think he can expect anyone to swallow it without some explanation. I speak on my own behalf in this respect, but I can say that many of my colleagues hold the same opinion. I have not asked all of them, but I intend to do so. However, I can honestly say that we will be looking for common sense, and for information which we can understand before we make any decision on the bill.
The subject of integration and unification has been controversial for the past two years, and the controversy is still growing. The minister has tabled his white paper but I must confess it does not contain very many details. In fact, Mr. Chairman, if you look at it closely you will see it does not contain any details, and so does not help us much. It tells us that 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.
I am not blaming the minister. He might be right or he might be wrong; I do not know. But before I vote on such a question, I would like to know more about it. This is the stand
November 4, 1966

that other members of the opposition have taken during the course of this debate.
The minister could easily get up and say, "I am the Minister of National Defence. I want integration and unification according to my understanding of it, and if it does not work it will be my political suicide." That is his affair, but it is not his affair if the result will be suicide for this country and the people. If the minister wants to be a daredevil he can, but he should not use the country as a race track.
In certain circumstances the minister may be able to look after his own skin, but if unification does not work and the minister then says, "I have made a mistake," who will correct the situation? It will be the Canadian people who will have to undergo the consequences. As members of parliament it is our duty to foresee the consequences, and prevent disasters whether they are created by this minister or another minister.
It is parliament's duty to find out everything about the subjects that are placed before it. It is parliament's duty to know what it is voting on, and it is its duty to inform the public what it intends to do on their behalf. But if we do not know that unification is going to benefit the people, then we cannot tell them. There are many questions that should be answered. I know that there are hundreds and hundreds of servicemen in all ranks who are dissatisfied. Are they dissatisfied for reason, or are they dissatisfied just for the sake of wanting to be against something?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We do not know and the minister will not tell us. He brings in a bill and tells us to accept it in principle. Well, if I do not agree with the bill, I will not accept it in principle; that is as clear as day. One does not accept a thing first, and then take a look at it afterward. You look at its first, examine it, and then accept it. This is the normal way in which to proceed. The Minister of National Defence could save a lot of time and effort in answering questions if he would get up and make a statement. He should tell the house exactly what he understands will be involved in integration. What will the effect be on the armed forces, and what will the economic effects be? The minister says it saves money. Another member says it will not. Whom am I to believe? I have to believe both at this time. If the minister believes it is going to save money, then it is up to him to prove that
Interim Supply
and give the figures in black and white. If there is going to be a saving of one cent, then it is one cent. If there is going to be a saving of $10 million, then it is $10 million. If there is going to be a deficit, then that is another thing, and I want to know that, too.
He should tell us how we are going to proceed, and we should know whether it is the right way. The people concerned, might be members of the armed forces, but still they are human beings. We do not treat human beings like we treat cattle in stalls. When it suits him to do so, the farmer puts the cattle in stalls. At least at a race course, the race horses have their places and cows have no place there. I like to think that the servicemen in the armed forces are placed where they will be satisfied and able to give the full measure expected of them. I think this has an effect on morale in the armed forces. The minister said that morale is good. Some persons I have spoken to in the armed forces have said, "I don't know-it might not bother me". Others have said that it does affect them. I have no way of finding out unless I start questioning everybody down the line.
The minister says that unification will be superior to what we have now. If that is so, we should know how much superior it will be and in what respect. These are things we want to know. How will unification affect the facility, the mobility and the fighting effectiveness of the Canadian armed forces. I am not necessarily blaming the minister, but it is time he stopped sitting and waiting over there, and started talking. He should tell us exactly what he has in the back of his mind. Mind you, I respect the Minister of National Defence. It takes a lot of backbone to do what he is doing. He is the top man in the armed forces but, let him remember one thing;-he has been elected by the people of the country. He is an elected member in this House of Commons and is on an equal basis with each of the other 264 members who are sitting in this house. He has an administrative responsibility, and it is our duty to find out exactly to what extent he is exercising that responsibility. We should know whether it is in good measure or not. It is our duty to find out. Before we can be in a position to know, the minister has to tell us what he intends to do. He should clean the air and get the cloud removed from above some persons in connection with this matter.

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
The committee will have to sit again, and it should do so as soon as possible so that those people who do have grievances may have an opportunity to state them. I am not speaking of a bunch of nitwits. We had confidence in one when he was an admiral, so why have we lost confidence in him all of a sudden? There might be differences of opinion, but members of this House of Commons should hear both sides so that they can arrive at the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as is said in a court of law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond Langlois: I am not saying that anyone lied, but I can rightfully say that somebody is clouding the issue. Some gentleman is making it very difficult for us to understand the situation. We have to bring those persons who have had administrative responsibility in the armed forces before the committee so that they can tell us what they think. In this way we will hear both sides of the story. Then, we will be in a position to discuss the bill and decide whether or not we can accept it in principle.
If it turns out that unification is going to be political suicide for the minister, that may be all right. However, if it is going to mean suicide for the country, then I do not accept that and I will not vote for that principle. 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 the 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. They want to find out things for themselves. The people of the country do not know what is going on. All they know is what they read in the papers. Somebody's shirt is being torn, but, the end result might be that it is the people's shirt we are tearing and they do not know it.
Before we make any decision on this matter I should like to know what it is all about. I think there are many other members in this house who feel the same way. I am not an expert in the military field, but some people are and these are the people we want to hear. The minister has given us one side of the story. He should tell us all that he thinks, and all that he hopes to achieve. We should have all the information so that we will be in a position to know whether this plan has any sense to it. If I think it makes sense, I will support him; if I think it does not make sense, I will not support him. Regardless of

what the minister or anybody else says, the end does not justify the means, nor do the means justify the end. Let the minister not forget this fact. If he wishes to have unification in order to switch everything around regardless of the effect, then I will not forget it.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, this plan has produced a lot of controversy and much dissatisfaction. I do not know what the whole picture is. Until these doubts are removed, there will be dissatisfaction. If the minister is truly convinced unification is right, then let him Stand up and say so. I believe he is convinced, because he has undergone an awful lot of hammering. Either he is convinced or he is awfully stubborn. If he is convinced, let him explain his point of view; if he is stubborn, that is for us to find out.
9 (3:20 p.m.)
In spite of what the minister may think, and in spite of what his advisers may say, we must find out the actual facts in the defence committee of this house. We must know the truth about this situation regardless of whether the minister's opinions supersede those of others. I hope the minister will take my remarks into consideration because when the time comes he will have to accept the responsibility for this move.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, the constituency I represent is not one of the most exercised constituencies because of this controversy raging over the question of our defence and military posture, at least on a collective basis. There are individuals who are anxious about the situation and who have expressed what I would classify as defensible positions in respect of their opposition to unification. On a collective basis, my constituency is perhaps not as sharply, closely or anxiously concerned about this issue as some others in this country, particularly those in our coastal areas which are concerned to a major degree for economic reasons. These maritime areas are concerned because a large proportion of our defence commitment is related to these areas.
I should like to make a few remarks on this question, because I wonder about the economic ramifications of a policy of integration and unification in respect of these areas. The hon. member for Megantic touched upon a subject that concerns me acutely. Let me elaborate on that subject at this juncture. There are certainly more than 20 critical defence industries located in the Halifax
November 4, 196G

area, and many others in other parts of Canada. These industries are extremely important to the maritime areas. The maritime provinces are dependent to a great extent on our military commitments and undertakings. The prairie provinces are particularly sensitive about this question of regional economy and the importance of maintaining viable economic practices in all corners of this land. We understand the plight of the maritimes with regard to integration and unification, and we want to know the extent to which the economy of the maritimes will be inhibited or crippled by the program now being pursued by this minister and this government.
National economic considerations are not priority considerations so far as the Minister of National Defence is concerned because he has superseding responsibilities to those which come within the ambit of other administrative departments. Nevertheless, I submit that there is an overlapping, and integration of purpose so far as the national interest is concerned. Having regard to this fundamental and far-reaching policy, with all its economic ramifications, this is an issue in respect of which the Minister of National Defence must surely consult his colleagues. There must have been some sort of a consensus on the part of the cabinet regarding the ramifications of this policy being pursued by the Department of National Defence. Surely, someone in the cabinet has raised this question or will raise this question next week, because there is some doubt as to the maintenance of a viable economy in the maritimes.
We are assured, and have been assured at various times, that a balanced regional growth and development in this nation is of importance. As I have said before, what is good for the maritimes is good for all of Canada, and this applies to western Canada, British Columbia and Quebec. This country cannot exist as an amalgamation of have and have not groups, with rich central regions into which is funnelled the industry and opportunity for prosperity.
As a Canadian from a part of Canada that is very sensitive to difficulties connected with regional industry and economic growth, I feel this is an extremely important policy. It is extremely important to the Atlantic provinces regardless of the pros and cons in respect of integration and unification. I want to make sure that the one quarter of Canada which makes up the maritimes does not suffer because of this move by the government. Let us
Interim Supply
preserve the economic livelihood of the maritimes which is directly or indirectly related to our national defence commitments. Let us not adopt any policy which will cripple or inhibit their ability to derive a livelihood.
We in the western part of Canada, as well as those in the central part, are very anxious to make sure that these military considerations do not inhibit the prosperity of our maritime areas. Let me make this clear, and I join with the arguments so eloquently expressed by hon. members in this house, the economy of the maritimes and Canada as a whole is of utmost importance. The economy of this country is equally as important as the policy now being pursued by this government.
Since the end of the second world war, we have observed unfortunate discriminatory pressures at work in Canada in terms of economic opportunities for our people. Some regions in this country have an extremely difficult time, and must run very quickly to keep up with the national standard of living which exists this year. Some areas have difficulty keeping up with the standards which existed one, two or three years ago.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I think that if the case for integration, unification or any other issue presented to the house by the government is proven beyond any reasonable doubt on economic and practical grounds, even though there may be some economic dislocation for regions like the maritimes, the program can be justified on the basis of long term benefits and results. But if the case has not been made out substantially to the satisfaction of everybody in this house and in this land-that it has not has been made patently obvious by the debate now under way-I believe that economic considerations should be given a greater priority in the thinking of the government than they obviously have been.
I speak from only a limited knowledge of the maritimes but from a deep sympathy for their economic problems because of the similarity between the maritimes and the prairies in this regard. I submit that the economic dislocation and disadvantages accruing from this policy may outweigh any and all advantages that the minister and his colleagues may think are available on a purely military basis. Members of my party and other parties in this house have argued eloquently, as I have said, against the military aspects of this program. I leave that matter to military experts. But I am an expert in the

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
underdeveloped parts of Canada. I am an expert in fighting for economic opportunity for those parts of Canada which, by reason of geography, are perhaps not as fortunate as others. This question is the one that burns most acutely in my mind at this time, as I consider the aspects of the integration and unification program.
I now want to turn to another subject. It is related to the problem with which I have been dealing, although the subject is entirely different. The tie-in comes precisely at the level about which I have been speaking, namely, the level of regional economic development in Canada and balanced regional growth. The other evening I listened with great interest to my good friend the hon. member for Port Arthur when he entered the debate on the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines issue. He dealt with the decision of the government and the National Energy Board to permit Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to build its line south of the lakes to feed natural gas into our rich eastern Canadian market. I sympathize with the point of view advanced by my hon. friend from Port Arthur, because he was advancing the same arguments for his region as I have, in slightly different words, advanced for my region of western Canada. He was pleading the case for northern Ontario, which is overlooked all too often by our industrialists, economists and government planners and is bypassed in the parade of opportunity and prosperity so prominent in parts of central Canada more fortunately placed by geography, climate and accessibility to foreign markets.
Although I sympathize with the position put forward by the hon. member for Port Arthur and his colleague the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, and though it parallels the type of argument I have previously advanced in this house on behalf of western Canada on other issues, I should like to take this opportunity to compliment the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the decision made regarding Trans-Canada Pipe Lines application to supply gas to the east via a United States route. I think this is a progressive, constructive and imaginative policy. I think it will be conclusively proven within a very short time of the pipe line going into operation, provided approval is granted on the other side of the border, that the new line will provide a trememdous new impetus and source of strength to the oil and gas industries of western Canada. As a consequence the entire Canadian economy will profit.

The southwestern Ontario industrial complex will benefit to an immeasurable degree by the new supply of natural gas which will be brought in to feed its booming industry. More than that, I believe that the new pipe line, if it comes into existence, will offer Canada a chance to make substantial improvements in its balance of payments position with the United States. Therefore, by all criteria I submit, and I suggest that a great many western Canadians will agree, that this policy is a great step forward and a great shot in the arm for the Canadian economy. I think the government is to be commended, and the minister highly complimented, for this imaginative policy and the imaginative, progressive decision which the minister made.
Under the terms of the agreement entered into by our government, there is no threat to Canadian sovereignty or our political or economic self-determination. In the last few days in the house critics of the decision made by the government have suggested that there is indeed an overt threat to our sovereignty and self-determination at the political and economic levels. I fail to see where this argument holds water. I fail to see where this argument can be justified, when in the precise terms of the agreement there is an airtight guarantee against encroachments upon our sovereignty, political and economic.
There is a provision in the agreement, as hon. members know, to loop the line through northern Ontario by 1970. I ask those members who have criticized the government for the stand it has taken: Where, in the terms and context of the agreement, is there any threat or loophole by which Canadian interests can be compromised? I wonder what the critics of this program want for Canada? The evidently feel it is somehow un-Canadian to pipe natural gas or any of our natural products through the United States.
The other night the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam referred to the so-called disadvantages of building this line through the United States. He said "we will lose the economic advantages, the impetus and the taxes" that would accrue from building the line through Canada. I hoped to be able to ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam directly about that comment today. I have not been able to do so because it has proven impossible for us both to be in the chamber at the same time. However, I will discuss this with him outside the chamber, after I put the question on the record: What does the hon. member think about the seriousness of losing
November 4, 1966

our own eastern Canadian natural gas market?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
He talks about the serious economic advantages that we will lose by building the line through the United States, the impetus to our economy and the taxes. What about the serious loss of that huge, rich and still unmeasured eastern Canadian natural gas market for which we are in a race against time and in the capture of which we are in a narrow race against interests in the United States?
I will ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and his colleagues who share his views on this subject, which is the more serious loss for Canada? I think the answer is that the more serious loss would be that huge, rich market which is still untapped, waiting to be served and waiting to fuel the economic boom of Canada in the 1970's and the 1980's. I will also ask the critics of the policy whether they feel it is uncanadian to take advantage of our surplus natural resources and commodities in order to improve our balance of payments situation with the United States. Provided that our proven and known resources are as inexhaustible as our natural resources are according to the estimates of the best professional experts, what are they for if not to make Canada stronger and richer?
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, in discussing the situation the other night, described himself as a nationalist. At the same time he pointed out that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is also a nationalist. I think all of us in this house are nationalists in that we are here to do whatever we can, to build a bigger, a better, a greater and a truer united Canadian nation. However, the term "nationalism" is not necessarily a panacea for all our real and imagined ills. I think semantics are involved here. There is good nationalism and bad nationalism. The nationalism of the 18th and 19th centuries is not necessarily good nationalism in 1966. Faced as we are with the realities of life on this continent and abroad, some of the principles that were perhaps highly admirable and laudable 100 or 150 years ago are simply not practical or good nationalism in 1966. In 1966, the best nationalism is a program that will make Canada strong, rich, wealthy and able to stand on her own two feet; able to increase her gross national product and her population to the point where we do not have to be anybody's servant, assistant or satellite.
Interim Supply
We have been given, through good fortune and fate, some of the richest reserves of natural resources of all types on the face of the globe. Only now are we reaching the point where we are tapping those rich reserves. It is in the exploitation of those reserves that true Canadian wealth and strength, and therefore nationalism, lies.
In considering the application of Trans Canada Pipe Lines the National Energy Board, the government and all members of this house, will have to face the question of geography. In certain contexts and situations, even in North America, I believe that to say that the lines of communication or commerce should be contained and confined within one's own national boundaries is perfectly justifiable. However, a big part of central Canada is virtually undeveloped, unpopulated and uninhabited. If that area had been richly populated, the situation would have been different. We have to try and make a situation work in this country in which we have pockets of population widely separated, and only connected by thin lines of communication. When considering how to move our products and our people from point to point, in many cases through such forbidding terrain and forbidding climatic conditions, we must realize we cannot always have the best of both worlds.
I think there is no comparison between the pipe line situation of 1966 and that of 1956, and any attempt to equate the two is a smokescreen.
I think the minister has been painstakingly careful in protecting Canada's interests. It is my view that the enlightened decision which has been made was a result of an appreciation of the fact that Canadians are non-partisan on at least one thing, that is they want to develop the greatest industrial muscle possible for this country to enable it to emerge with real political and economic strength as well as enduring national pride. I believe that the policy being undertaken with respect to our natural gas reserves is compatible with that goal. Any other course would be narrow, restrictive and reactionary.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks I should like to say one or two things about another area of concern, that is the area of education in this country. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle referred to this subject earlier in this debate. Like many members of this house, and many other legislators across the land I was deeply disappointed by the results of the recent federal-provincial tax sharing and tax structure conference in

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
so far as educational considerations were concerned.
We are in a criticial period, and therefore I believe that in the next few months the federal government will have to face up to its responsibilities in the educational field. I am talking here about financial support and assistance, not about interference. I would appeal for a revival of the bold scholarship and bursary program which was advanced by this government a few months ago and which now has been abandoned. I would appeal for the convening of a federal-provincial conference for the purpose of working out a constitutionally acceptable arrangement for government aid to education. We need money for teacher training and teachers' salaries. The amount being made available to the provinces, mine among them, in the next fiscal year is a pittance in comparison with what is required. Someone left that conference saying that the provinces were going home equalized in unhappiness. I think, from the point of view of responsibilities in the field of education, perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say they were going home equalized on the brink of disaster, for the crisis in education in this country is severe.
I will ask the government: What about the Deutsch and the Bladen reports? How can the government, in the face of those researched and documented conclusions, be so oblivious of the needs of the provinces in this top priority field? The federal government will have to assert itself more directly in the field of assistance for the training of our future generations and in supplying researchers and teachers. If they do not, I submit we will lose the race I talked about a few moments ago when I was speaking in economic terms of markets; we will lose our strength, identity and our Canadian self-fulfilment.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with the main substance of my remarks I should like to support wholeheartedly the protests from the opposition side of the house With respect to the minister's method of proceeding with the integration and unification of the armed forces. I shall have more to say about this in a later debate, but I would support their plea that the minister refer this matter to the committee on defence and allow the arguments for and against to be brought before that committee. In this way committee members will have a fuller understanding of the situation and will be

able to make a report to the house based on their inquiries, their hearing of the evidence and their deliberations.
Having said that, I support the former speakers who have dealt with the question of the government's latest agreement in connection with the Trans-Canada pipe line being looped into the United States and then brought back into Canada further on.
In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I start on a more or less philosophical basis. I am often in favour of something philosophically, but I frankly admit that when it comes to technical questions I have to rely on the opinions of experts. I intend to quote the opinions of one or two experts before I take my seat.
I was very much taken, Mr. Chairman, with this statement which was made some time ago by Professor W. L. Morton of the University of Manitoba, and I think that this is something which should be kept in mind. He said:
Canada has preserved and confirmed the essentials of the greatest of civilizations in the grimmest of environments. It is an accomplishment worthy of a better end than absorption in another and an alien society, however friendly and however strong in its own ideals. In that accomplishment and its continuance lies the relevance of Canadian history.
I think that that is the philosophy that motivates the members of this party when they take a strong position against the government's tendency to develop our natural resources, our industries and our society on the basis of continentalism.
I should also like to quote a short extract taken from the April 1964 issue of "Engineering and Contract Record":
The federal government must re-assert its clear obligation to frame national development policy for the best future of all Canadians. This requires urgent action to restate our historic policy of east-west sharing of wealth.
Speeches by present government leaders advocating integration of resources with the U.S. and massive exports of water threaten the economic independence of the country. Some sort of national policy on resource development is needed, but it should place Canada's national interests before any export plans.
The members of this group, Mr. Chairman, support that point of view.
This is the third occasion on which I have had the opportunity of speaking in this house in opposition to the government's policy of the day. The first time was on the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines bill. We failed to make this company into a public utility and lent a very wealthy corporation, if I remember correctly, $80 million to invest in this pipe line.
November 4, 1966

We lent this money at a very reasonable rate of interest. We then allowed them to pay off the loan and to reap all the benefits of this very profitable pipe line. It is also to be remembered that we built the eastern half of the line at our own expense. This situation created a very interesting debate in this house which led, without any question, to the defeat of the Liberal government in 1957. The Canadian people at that time grasped what was going on with respect to the development of this pipe line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Together with a $6 increase in the old age pension.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre says, together with a $6 increase in the old age pension. I give him credit; he is never far away from the old age pensioners and he has reminded me of that so that I would repeat it once more. And it is quite correct.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He follows us on this.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The next unfortunate demonstration of continentalism, Mr. Chairman, was when this government signed the Columbia River treaty after the Prime Minister had made speeches against the treaty which had been introduced by the former government, and after my hon. friend for Coast-Capilano had written articles in the Vancouver papers condemning the treaty. There, again, was an illustration of the somewhat differing points of view of the government, the members of this party and some other members of the opposition.
The treaty was opposed at that time, as we all know, by the late General McNaughton, some 30 to 40 well informed engineers, by trade unions in British Columbia, by farmers organizations, by the New Democratic Party and a number of other well informed persons, including Mr. James G. Ripley, editor of the "Engineering and Contract Record" and Mr. Larratt Higgins, the economic consultant for the Ontario Hydro.
Time is proving that these people were correct, Mr. Chairman. I shall never forget in the committee asking Mr. Williston if allowance were made for all contingencies, whether there would be ample money to build these dams. He assured the committee that there would be. There would be $55 million left over which would go toward the construction of the generators at the Mica Creek dam. We all know that things are turning out a little differently now.
Interim. Supply
In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I want to place on the record a letter received by the Minister of Finance from Mr. W. A. C. Bennett, the premier and minister of finance of the government of British Columbia. I have been asked to do this by a number of people in British Columbia who have not been able to get a copy of this letter. I do wish to make a comment on it. It is dated September 16, 1966, addressed from Victoria and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Sharp:
At the Tax Structure Committee meeting held in Ottawa September 14 and 15 I submitted certain specific fiscal requests on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding about these matters I would like to detail the requests for your consideration.
1.	$19,747,500 requested for construction subsidies for the provincially owned Pacific Great Eastern Railway.
We all know what the premier of British Columbia said about the profitable Pacific Great Eastern Railway in the past.
2.	appropriate sharing under the Trans-Canada Highway agreement for the Second Narrows bridge at Vancouver. Originally built at a cost of 24.2 million it is agreed that tolls collected reduce the shareable cost to $21.8 million.
3.	$30 million requested on behalf of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority resulting from increased costs of the Columbia River dams due to the imposition of the 11 per cent federal sales tax after the signing of the agreement.
I asked the Prime Minister in the house whether this sales tax was in effect when the government of British Columbia signed the agreement with the government of Canada respecting the construction of the Columbia River treaty dams, and the Prime Minister said yes. It was in fact in effect months before. Premier Bennett signed that agreement but did not know that this sales tax was in effect. Some of his senior officials at least must have known so that that statement is entirely inaccurate. Then he goes on:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
4.	Government of Canada credit to be made available to the British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority for its large capital construction programs. In such instances the government of the province of British Columbia would be prepared to guarantee any borrowings involved.
I am informed that the sum first suggested approached $100 million. He continues:
These are matters that vitally concern the citizens of this province and your early attention to their implementation would be appreciated.
Yours very truly,
W. A. C. Bennett,
Premier and Minister of Finance

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
That is a very different story from the one the premier was telling at the time of the provincial campaign.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he support the recommendations contained in the letter he has just read?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I beg your pardon?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Do you support the submissions contained in the letter you have just read from the premier of our province of British Columbia?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have to know more of the background behind this request. I shall have to make a further study of the situation before coming to a conclusion. Like the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I am giving the matter serious consideration. However, Premier Bennett has said British Columbia is free of direct debt.
I quote from the Financial Times of October 24 to demonstrate, shall I say, the unfortunate path we have pursued in being willing to approach these questions in the first place from a continental point of view. The article is entitled: "Bennett Reassuring, But Hydro Financing Doubts Remain". It reads as follows:
The Columbia scheme cost, with completion by 1973, was put at $410 million. The 1966 program calls for a total investment of some $321 million-a significant portion of the vaunted "B.C. boom."
Here are some of the factors which have given rise to doubts about the financing of the power projects:
On Feb. 15, Mr. Bennett appeared to reject Liberal urgings that he ask for federal aid for the projects.
I presume those were Liberal urgings in the provincial house, not in this house. Continuing:
Two days later, B.C. Hydro announced it had applied for a $75 million loan from the Canada Pension Plan investment fund to help with the 1966 $300 million program.
In April, a $25 million Hydro bond issue with a coupon rate of 5.75% got a sluggish reception on the market.
In May, Mr. Bennett reported after a visit to New York that B.C. Hydro could raise $100 million on Wall Street in the immediate future.
In June, he announced the underwriting of a $50 million U.S. issue. It is not yet clear whether this was a first instalment or a forced cutback in the $100 million forecast.
The N.D.P. opposition produced figures to support its claim that an extra $200 million would be needed to complete the projects on schedule.
That was in reference to the Columbia treaty projects. The article goes on:

B.C. Hydro's profit slumped 40% from the previous year, from $13.1 million to $7.5 million. Dr. Gordon Shrum, Hydro co-chairman, conceded that labour costs on the Peace project would rise by $25 million by 1968.
The article concludes with these words:
After winning the election, the premier embarked on his widespread program of spending restraint, and asked Ottawa for help with his cherished power projects.
I mention this to indicate the fact that those who were opposed to this project in the first instance are being proven correct every day, regardless of the article I read in the Financial Post written by Dr. Keenleyside, co-chairman of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, who said that there was a certain fluidity in the situation, whatever that means, and that this was the finest agreement ever signed by any government in Canada in all Canadian history with respect to the development of water resources.
At the same time I might mention that we have received nothing for the value of water used for irrigation, domestic or industrial purposes. I have seen figures published in California indicating that on this basis alone, on the basis of what this water is being sold for in the areas concerned, we should have been entitled to an additional $40 million annually at least for the use of the water for the purposes I have mentioned. I mention these facts to indicate that on two major occasions, in our opinion, we have taken the wrong direction.
I now want to deal with the pipe line debate. I must say that I do not feel competent to deal with the technical aspects of this question, but I will say frankly that I am convinced we should develop our natural resources in Canada, keeping in mind the needs of the Canadian people in this and following generations. To that extent I might be accused of being somewhat prejudiced in favour of my country.
I have here an article written by Mr. James G. Ripley who is a professional engineer and editor of the Engineering and Contract Record. The same gentleman wrote a very interesting article about the development of the Columbia river. That article was entitled:	"The Columbia River Scandal".
Numerous statements in this article are being proven correct as time goes on. Because of that I am inclined to listen to his arguments. He has a very interesting article in this issue which he wrote after the government had rejected the recommendations of the National Energy Board. The headline reads: "The
November 4, 1966

Pipeline Stays In Canada." The body of the article reads as follows:
In spite of the hysteria it caused in the gas industry, the federal cabinet's veto of Trans-Canada Pipelines' plan to build its second transcontinental line through the United States was based on sound analysis of economic facts and is a good decision for Canada.
Trans-Canada wanted to service its rapidly growing eastern Canadian markets by building a 989-mile pipe line through the U.S. from Emerson, Man., to Sarnia, Ont., is a 50 per cent partnership with a U.S. firm. The cabinet veto means that the new line likely will go through northern Ontario, along the line of the first pipe line, built during the fifties after a controversy similar to, though much more violent, than the present debate.
At first glance, the cabinet appeared to have ignored the work of the National Energy Board, which had approved the U.S. plan only a few weeks earlier. However, a closer analysis shows that the two decisions follow a logical sequence from one jurisdiction to a higher one, and are not really in conflict. Nevertheless, the cabinet move was unexpected, and it stirred the wrath of western gas producers and eastern distributors, who accused the Prime Minister of letting emotional nationalism prevail over economic facts. But they are wrong. The economic facts and the national interest both favour an all-Canadian line. The decision was the only proper one a Canadian prime minister could make.
Even the N.E.B. gave its approval to the U.S. plan with serious reservations. The board accepted the plan because it was the only detailed proposal submitted and because it offered a quick solution to an immediate problem of supplying gas to a market where shortages are imminent. But in its well-reasoned report to the government the board virtually wrote in its own dissenting opinion, which includes compelling reasons for looping the line in Canada. The report effectively demolishes several of the major arguments of the continentalists who have led Canada perilously close to the point of no return in economic integration with the United States.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Of course, after writing this editorial he was very disappointed by the change in the government's decision. He goes on to give the case for the United States plan at some length and, I think, with technical ability. I might say that this gentleman consulted other engineers. He is very careful when writing these articles. I know that when he was dealing with the Columbia river treaty he got opinions from groups of engineers. Some 29 or 30 engineers agreed with the opinion he expressed at that time. He is very careful in getting the facts on which he comes to a conclusion, and this is why he says the original decision of the government was the correct one.
I quote from his article as follows:
If the costs of the two alternatives are comparable and the effects on domestic gas markets and exports are not significantly different, the additional
Interim Supply
advantages of the all-Canadian route make it clearly the correct choice for Canada.
To start with, control of the system would remain with Canada, whereas the U.S. line would be regulated by the U.S. Federal Power Commission. A sobering preview of what the latter alternative could mean is contained in a current F.P.C. staff report on the Trans-Canada application. The report states bluntly that the commission couldn't care less about reducing gas prices in eastern Canada, and that its sole objective (as required by U.S. law) is to serve the best interests of the United States. The American section of the line would also be 50 per cent owned by a U.S. company and this would mean that operating decisions would both be cumbersome to make and would end up as compromises between U.S. and Canadian requirements. Trans-Canada's claim that the U.S. route would protect Canadian interests is not valid, compared with the alternative of a line 100 per cent owned and regulated in Canada.
Second, the difference to Canadian development, the so-called multiplier factor, is immense. The northern line would use pipe with 90 per cent Canadian content and $1 billion worth of construction and development would go to Canadian contractors. Also, at the end of the financing period, we would own this great asset outright.
Canada must continue to develop economically by closer east-west communication and the stimulus of the new pipe line through northern Ontario would add immeasurably to the depth of what is now the weakest link in the narrow transcontinental Canadian civilization.
Some critics have expressed fears that Mr. Pearson's reversal of the N.E.B. recommendation will damage the prestige of that board. It's hard to see why. In fact, the prestige of the board should even be enhanced. The board made an excellent technical analysis and no one has questioned its findings. The cabinet recognized the closeness of the technical comparisons and chose the Canadian route for reasons that were, by its own admission, beyond the board's jurisdiction. Had Mr. Pearson vetoed the U.S. scheme before the N.E.B. study, he could rightly have been accused of making an irrational choice. But he waited until the facts were in, and then made the final decision, that only a national government could make, considering the total effect on the entire country, now and in the future.
Let us hope there will be no reversal of this decision by a government which has a reputation for second-guessing itself. If there is, the government can expect an all-out parliamentary attack by Mr. Diefenbaker, a man who upset a previous Liberal government on the pipe line issue and who knows from memory the entire script of pipe line debate. But a more important reason for the government to stick to its decision is that it is right for Canada. That should be enough.
This article was written by James G. Ripley, but since it appeared the government has reassessed the situation and reversed its decision.
I must confess that I do not get a great deal of correspondence on a matter of this type which more seriously affects Ontario and eastern Canada but I have had engineers write me on this question expressing their

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
serious concern that the government has decided to reverse its decision. I hope that as a result of the concern that has been expressed by many hon. members on the opposition side of the chamber, and by a few members on the government side, the government will find valid reasons to reverse its decision once more before this debate is terminated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the week I made a few introductory remarks on national defence and at that time promised the minister I would give him chapter and verse with regard to his concealment of the facts and his misleading of the House of Commons and the people of Canada. That is what I propose to do today. It will involve reading certain excerpts from Hansard and from newspaper articles, and if subsequent material needs to be supplied I may enlarge on my remarks next week.
Through a program of surreptitious activity and concealment of facts and through misleading statements, the minister has left the Canadian people in a state of very great confusion with regard to national defence. Recently he has been assisted by what seems to me to be a conspiracy of silence on the part of our nationally owned broadcasting corporation which has omitted to mention anything that has transpired in the House of Commons this week either on its eight o'clock news broadcast in the morning or its eleven o'clock television news at night, which are the only times I have a chance to hear what is being broadcast by the C.B.C. If there is such a conspiracy, then all I can say is that we shall have to continue our efforts until we break through this silent treatment.
I know that the minister and his friends are counting on the apathy and indifference of the Canadian people, but if there are apathy and indifference on their part with regard to national defence the reason for it rests with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We have no control over the C.B.C. We do not exercise control over it in the House of Commons but we provide the money for it. But neither do we have control over the press of this country, which has done a far better job of conveying to the people what is going on in the house. The C.B.C. costs the taxpayers of this country $100 million a year but, as I say, it appears to have entered into a conspiracy of silence with regard to this issue at a time when we are facing a crisis in national defence.
Over the last three years the minister has confused the Canadian people and the House
[Mr. Herrldge.l
of Commons through his failure to give adequate information. The extent of that confusion is brought forcibly to our attention by an editorial in the last issue of The Legionary, the national magazine of the Royal Canadian Legion. This editorial has been quoted previously, and I want to refer only to two paragraphs. It is headed, "Integration and Unification-Legion Requests Full, Clear-cut Information". I quote:
We are, however, deeply concerned about the question of the state and condition of our defence forces at any given time. It appears to us that sufficient thought and planning have not been given to the important questions of tradition, morale and esprit de corps or, if so, the members of Canada's forces and the public have certainly been kept in ignorance.
I wish I could underline in Hansard those last few words: "The public have certainly been kept in ignorance."
The Royal Canadian Legion urges your government to make clear, without further delay, the detailed plans connected with the integration, and particularly the proposed unification of the forces so that the judgment made by Canadian organizations and citizens will be based on frank and comprehensive official information and fact, not on rumour and supposition, as seems to be largely the case at the present time.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have been a member of the Royal Canadian Legion since 1927 and I regret to say to my comrades in that organization that their activity is too little and too late. That is a phrase with which they are familiar from the period just before the second world war. We have debated the question of national defence in this house during 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966. During this period we have tried to get information on this subject from the minister. We have seen him pursue a course of destroying the armed forces and their identity. It is only now that people are awakening to the fact that what we were pointing out in those years is just about upon us and will become established if the minister is allowed to have his way. So I hope that the Royal Canadian Legion will pursue its investigation immediately, or by Christmas time or early in the New Year they will find that the Canadian defence forces have no resemblance whatsoever to the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force or the Canadian Army as they used to know these services. Fortunately those bodies still are in existence at the present time.
Other members who have spoken have read editorials which have indicated the confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the public with regard to these topics. Why
November 4, 1966

should the public and members of this House of Commons not be confused? This afternoon the hon. member for Megantic, one of the most alert members of the House of Commons and one who has been a member of the defence committee, said that he does not know what has been going on. He said that the minister was clouding the issue. He said, "Nobody seems to know what is going on". This is said from a member of the House of Commons who is alert, intelligent and well informed on most subjects. He says he has not been given full information. Newspaper editorials across the country have indicated the same thing. It is no wonder that the people have not had accurate information. I should like to quote now from the Ottawa Citizen of July 26. This is a statement by the Minister of National Defence; these are his own words:
Two years of carrying out integration policies have already resulted in cost-cutting of $143 million. I am convinced the savings will be even more substantial when the process is completed-in the vicinity of $150 million a year.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is misleading information. It was only a few days ago, on October 31, that the minister, to paraphrase his own words, said that there had been a drop of 20,000, in the number of people employed in the armed services and he raised the figure to 23,000 civilians and servicemen. He said at page 9350 of Hansard:
If we still had these additional 23,000 people to pay next year at current rates I would say we should have to find at least $150 million more in our budget than we will be asking for in present circumstances.
That, sir, is a complete refutation of the statement he made in the Ottawa Citizen on July 26 when he said that the saving was a result of integration. The fact is that the cost cut has resulted from a reduction in the strength of our forces. His statement to the Citizen was misleading. Whether it was deliberate or not I do not know. The minister is not here for me to ask him. If he cannot stand the heat he gets out of the kitchen, but I am not going to be inhibited in speaking my mind just because the minister happens to be absent. In fact, he has a habit of attacking people who are not members of the House of Commons and cannot answer him here. If anyone would like to send for the minister, I have one or two questions to ask him.


Mr. Winkler:: He has gone for the week end.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On October 31 the minister talked about the anti-submarine capability of
Interim Supply
our naval forces. Frequently he has talked about that. He said that they are superior to what they ever have been before in peacetime. This statement was refuted by the hon. member for Calgary North. It has been refuted by Admiral Landymore's testimony. Admiral Landymore has shown that although we have the ships and are getting ships and although we have the armament and the new devices for anti-submarine detection, we do not have the men to man the ships. This is what the minister said on October 31 at page 9350 of Hansard:
I state it as an incontrovertible fact. The antisubmarine capacity of the navy today is greater than it has ever been in peacetime and I will stand by that because I can prove it to the satisfaction of anybody who is willing to look at the facts.
Those are the words of the minister. Everything hinges on that word "capacity". I do not doubt for one minute that the ships are better, that the sonar devices are better than we had in the past, and that the detection apparatus is better for the anti-submarine role, but to tell the public that the anti-submarine capacity, or capability as he sometimes refers to it, of the navy is greater than it has been at any other time in peacetime is not accurate. We can have the ships but if we do not man them we have no capacity for carrying out an anti-submarine capability.
Admiral Landymore has pointed out that we are short 2,600 men with the present complement of ships, or 1,500 if some of the ships are decommissioned, and that by next spring, unless there is an immediate upsurge in recruiting for the navy, our complement of ships which can be put to sea and be active will be reduced until we have about 12 or 13. Yet the minister releases to the public the information that our navy has a greater antisubmarine capacity or capability than at any other time in peacetime. That is an inaccurate statement. Is it intended to be deliberately misleading? That is what I should like to ask the minister.
Now, sir, let me give you another example. As found in the Globe and Mail for Saturday, July 16, the minister, when replying to the hon. member for Calgary North who had suggested a royal commission, used these words:
This is unnecessary and would be a waste of taxpayers' money. The standing committee on national defence has thoroughly investigated all aspects of defence organization.
That is an inaccurate statement. The committee on national defence has not been given
957G

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
the opportunity to investigate thoroughly all aspects of defence organization. In the last few days we have had an exposure of evidence which was suppressed and not permitted to be presented to that committee. So, again you have an inaccurate and misleading statement by this Minister of National Defence. In the same issue of the same paper I should like to read the following words of the minister:
Long ago I called my commanders together and asked them if they could support my policies. They were given the opportunity of dissenting. I told them I respected their rights to disagree and I made it clear that they could leave with full honours. None did.
o (4:30 p.m.)
The minister admitted publicly that he did call his senior officers together and he did say, to put is in ordinary phraseology, either you go along with my policies or get out. He then said, according to this public statement, that none did get out. Yet we have before us evidence galore which shows that a number of senior officers were either fired or accepted early retirement because they could not go along with those policies. That is another inaccurate statement by the Minister of National Defence.
As far back as 1964 we discussed the question of integration and unification. We have now had a new word, amalgamation, and I suggest there is still another, fusion, which could be followed perhaps by confusion. That represents the policy of this minister.
In 1964 we discussed these problems. At page 5085 of Hansard for that year-I well remember the difficulties we had with the minister at that time-he said in answer to the hon. member for Calgary North:
X would like to repeat for my hon. friend for Calgary North something that I had thought would be self-evident to everyone, but which apparently is not. That is, we will still have, as I have said before, squadrons of ships, squadrons of planes, battalions of men, and it does not matter whether these are in three services or one in so far as their operational effectiveness is concerned-
He used those terms, "squadrons of ships, squadrons of planes, battalions of men" and he left the impression that there would be no susbtantial change and that we would still have an identifiable navy and an identifiable air force. Was that done deliberately or through stupidity?
On July 4 of the same year I entered into the debate and said, as recorded at pages 5114 and 5115 of Hansard:
In the second place we have asked him to explain what he means with regard to unification and

integration of the services. Does he intend to wipe out our three fighting services and attempt to make one out of them?
I then said:
What we fail to understand is why the minister, as a responsible minister of the crown, will not give answers to these questions. He sits silent with regard to the unification of the services. He has told us at other times, or his words lend themselves to this interpretation, that he intends to have just one service.
At the end of that paragraph I said:
But what does the minister mean? Is he wiping out the infantry regiments and the tank regiments which have a tradition behind them going back almost a hundred years?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is he retaining the highland regiments, for example? Why cannot he answer that simple question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I already have.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is he retaining the artillery regiment or is he wiping it out? What about the engineers? Then where does the air force come in, and the navy? Are these men all to be in the same service or is there some misunderstanding of what the minister has been saying? I submit these are fair and reasonable questions ... I make one final request to the Minister of National Defence. Let us have the answers.
That was as fair and as reasonable a request as I could make under the circumstances. We received no answer from the minister. We pursued these problems at different times. I will not give all the references, but on February 21, 1966, the subject of unification came up. Let us see how far we got that time. We were debating the final supplementary estimates and I said, as recorded at page 1573 of Hansard of that date:
The minister has not dealt with the subject of unification. Is there anyone in the country who knows what he means by unification? He has never answered that question.
At page 1598 of Hansard for the same year the hon. member for Acadia said:
Would the minister permit a question in respect of unification? Would he answer the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre last night? What does he mean by unification? Does he mean one force, one uniform? Would he explain this more fully?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Unification means one force. I think this is understood.


Mr.   Homer@Acadia: One uniform too?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think my hon. friend will agree there can never be one uniform that would cover all situations.
There we have a confusing situation. We are to have squadrons of aircraft, squadrons of ships, regiments, all without the loss of any identity. Will there be one uniform? The minister says there could not be one because
November 4, 1966



one would not cover all situations. That is the state in which the minister has left the matter time after time in spite of our efforts.
In a newspaper article there was a suggestion that Admiral O'Brien, appointed to the maritime command, had been given the assurance that the identity of the navy would not be disturbed until parliament had decided the issue. Headline writers do not have much space but the headline on this article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on July 21 reads:	"O'Brien Says Ottawa Gave Him
Assurance On Service Identities". When you read the article you find that it was only a temporary assurance, but the public reads the headlines and would think that the services' identities would be retained. On September 9 I asked this question, as recorded in Hansard at page 8253:
I have a question for the Minister of National Defence based on a statement he made in the House of Commons on May 12, 1964, appearing in Hansard at page 3188:	"There will, of course,
always be soldiers, sailors and airmen." I ask the minister if those words, "soldiers, sailors and airmen" as designating the different fighting components of the armed forces will be officially retained in the new model force which he is creating?
The minister then replied:
As I made very clear at that time, any force with the responsibilities which our forces now have and will continue to have in the years ahead will require soldiers, sailors and airmen trained in their particular professioinal capacities.
Then I asked him this question:
Will the soldiers, sailors and airmen in the new model force continue to wear uniforms of the style and colour so long familiar as distinguishing each branch of the service?
The minister then replied:
This is not the kind of urgent question which, under the rules, is ordinarily answered on the orders of the day.
Anyone who can get answers from the Minister of National Defence must be a superior human being, and I do not fall within that category. I found out, however, from the Ottawa Citizen of July 25, 1965, that a statement was issued by Rear Admiral William Landymore, retired, that he was informed in the spring of 1965.
Mr. Hellyer announced to us that he intended to implement a single walking-out dress and rank structure by July, 1967.
That information has never been given to the House of Commons by this minister. When I asked him the question which I just read on September 9 he brushed me aside by saying it was not the type of question that
Interim Supply
should be asked on orders of the day. One of his senior officers in 1965, a year and a half ago, knew that the minister intended to have a single walking-out dress and rank structure by July, 1967. He concealed that information from the House of Commons; he concealed it from the public. How can you place any reliance on a minister who does that? These are instances of misleading statements. I now come to a misleading statement made on August 30, 1966, when the hon. member for Vancouver East asked this question of the minister:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Would the minister inform this house whether in respect of officers of the armed services giving evidence before the defence committee of the House of Commons it is correct that their presentations are received by him and censored before they are allowed to be made to the committee of the House of Commons?
The minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker.
In other words, he said that he did not receive the presentations that people were going to make to the defence committee. Yet just the other day he admitted in the house that the senior officers who were to make presentations to the defence committee appeared before him or the associate minister with their presentations, which were reviewed. Was the statement of the minister that I have just read to the committee intended to mislead the House of Commons? It certainly did mislead the House of Commons because we thought he had not received Admiral Landymore and looked at his brief or had it reviewed before the evidence was given to the defence committee. Let me give you, sir, another example of a misleading statement. On October 27, as reported at page 9165 of Hansard, I asked this question of the minister:
Has the minister authorized one walking-out uniform similar in pattern, style and colour for all members of the armed forces?
The minister replied:
Not yet, Mr. Speaker.
Then we went on to talk about the walking-out uniform, and I asked:
Will the minister give a clear indication of what is government policy in this respect-
I was referring to a single walking-out uniform for the armed forces. The minister replied:
It was set out in the white paper in 1964.

November 4, 1966
Interim Supply
I said that it was not set out in the white paper, and I rose on a question of privilege and used these words:
We now have the Minister of National Defence saying that the program to establish a single uniform for all members of the armed forces was set out in the white paper in 1964. This, sir, is not true. Evasive and misleading answers are being given by this minister. I challenge him to substantiate his statement.
He did not substantiate it, and I say he misled the House of Commons with regard to that matter.
The minister has now reversed his policy as shown in the white paper. In the white paper there are three references to Canada's obligations. They are set out as follows:
The objectives of Canadian policy, which cannot be dissociated from foreign policy, are to preserve the peace by supporting collective defence measures to deter military aggression; to support Canadian foreign policy including that arising out of our participation in international organizations, and to provide for the protection and surveillance of our territory, our air-space and our coastal waters.
On the next page of the white paper those three objectives are repeated but in a somewhat different order. The first one is:
Collective measures for maintenance of peace and security as embodied in the charter of the United Nations, including the search for balanced and controlled disarmament;
The second is:
Collective defence as embodied in the North Atlantic Treaty;
The third is:
Partnership with the United States in the defence of North America;
Then, fourth and last is this objective:
National measures to discharge responsibility for the security and protection of Canada.
Then we find in the white paper a section on priorities on page 24. The priorities, to which we paid attention, are listed in this way:
1.	Forces for the direct protection of Canada which can be deployed as required.
2.	Forces-in-being as part of the deterrent in the European theatre.
3.	Maritime forces-in-being as a contribution to the deterrent.
4.	Forces-in-being for U.N. peace-keeping operations-
The minister has now reversed what he said in the white paper. He has put the United Nations peace-keeping operations at the top of the list; he is going to scrap the navy and air force as we have known them, make the navy just a transport vehicle for
I Mr. Churchill.]
army troops, and similarly with the air force. What is he doing about the defence of Canada, the defence of our coastal waters, forces-in-being for the defence of our land mass, and forces for use in the air? This is where the minister has seriously misled the people of this country and has reversed his policy.
Time and time again the minister has asked us to read the white paper, and time and time again I have read it. The only thing in the white paper upon which the minister can rely is the statement that he was going to form a single, unified force. But everybody in the country thought he meant a unified command, an integration of the support facilities below, and that we would have what we had in wartime, combined operations. All the time the minister meant that he was going to put all the forces together, fuse them, amalgamate them and put them in one uniform. He did not give that information to this House of Commons. I say to you, sir, that he misled this House of Commons, and if he were in his seat at the present moment I would say that he knowingly and deliberately misled the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two on this supply motion and in particular about the Minister of National Defence and his actions in connection with the whole question of unification and integration. I am following the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and for this reason what I have to say will have nothing of the strength of the argument that he put forward. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre dealt very fully with the confusion that exists in regard to this question. He proved how the minister has confused the house on the question of unification, and that this confusion began two or three years ago.
This brings to mind the first impression I formed of the Minister of National Defence when I served on the defence committee a number of years ago. I remember attending a confidential luncheon at which the minister made some rather frank statements. He followed them by saying, "Whatever I say at this particular meeting I do not want you to repeat outside. But if you do repeat it outside, I will of course deny making the statements, so you will be no further ahead." As far as I know, none of the statements made at that time was repeated outside.
November 4, 196G



I formed the impression then that the minister was being very frank in making statements which certainly clarified and explained some of the actions he took while a member on this side of the house. I thought then that if he continued in that frank way the defence committee could serve a very useful purpose. But I was soon disillusioned in regard to the initial impression I gained of the minister. Now, of course, the minister, rather than being frank and honest with members of the defence committee and the house, has been, if anything, the direct opposite. He has slid around, hidden and brushed under the rug just about any and every question he has been asked in the last two years. This is evident from some of the questions read to the committee by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the answers received to those questions.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is also interesting to note that on the question of unification the Associate Minister of National Defence was also confused. He said so himself to the house when he made a speech on the interim supply motion. He wondered, he stopped and he took a second look. He consulted the experts and he reassured himself. Mr. Chairman, in a sense this is all members of the House of Commons are asking. We are asking for the privilege to consult the experts so as to reassure ourselves before we proceed with the defence legislation which the minister introduced in the house yesterday. We are asking that the government give us the same opportunity and let us consult the known experts. We wish to reassure ourselves. We are all supposedly working for the good of the whole of Canada but some of us are working in doubt. Even the associate minister said he was in doubt. He paused, he hesitated, and once again he consulted a list of experts. Why can we not all do this? Is this asking too much?
The Minister of National Defence said we can call in all kinds of witnesses but only after we have approved in principle the bill he has presented to the house on the amalgamation of the three forces. Surely everybody understands that once we do this the door will be closed and we will not be able to reverse our decision. If evidence were presented to us which caused our doubts to grow to real fear that unification is the wrong step to take, then we could not reverse our decision and all we could do would be to drop the bill completely. However, in view of the single-mindedness of purpose which the
Interim Supply
Minister of National Defence has shown in the past few months I doubt very much, even if all the members of the defence committee reached the conclusion that unification was the wrong step, that they would be able to convince him.
I am pleased to see the Associate Minister of National Defence here although I would prefer to see the Minister of National Defence present. Surely the associate minister understands the concern which members of the house feel, because he himself felt the same concern. Two years ago we were told in the white paper on defence that this measure was advisedly taken in times of peace for the purpose of promoting a more efficient and flexible fighting force for less money. What has been the case? It has not cost us less money; it has cost us more money. Have we got more for the money? No, we have not. The services are depleted and we do not have enough men to man the ships. We have hardly enough men to fly the planes, and we are diminishing our regiments.
Last night a question was raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. He put it very well but I think it needs to be repeated and answered. The question is: What are the rights of parliament in this situation? Does the minister have the right to tamper with evidence? The minister himself says he does not. Last night he told us the following, as recorded on page 9515 of Hansard:
There can be no restriction placed on the questions the committee wishes to ask witnesses, nor would I attempt in any way under any circumstances to restrict or alter what those witnesses might wish to say.
This is his firm opinion to which he now adheres. But what has been done in the past? He makes no bones about it. An official in his department tampered with, altered and changed evidence which was to be presented to that committee. Naturally, being the minister in charge of that department, he must take full responsibility for it. Even if nothing else has been accomplished, we at least have a declaration now by the minister that henceforth he will not alter evidence or restrict any witness from saying whatever he wishes to say before a committee.
The only conclusion I can draw from the minister's admission is that he now realizes he was wrong in the first instance and did not have the right to interfere, tamper with and change the evidence which a witness wished to present to the committee.


Mr. Nugent:: But he has achieved his purpose.
9588	COMMONS
Combines Investigation Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He did change, hide and conceal the tacts. The house will have to deal with this serious breach of parliamentary procedure. I know of no better way to deal with it than to have the whole question submitted to the committee on privileges and elections to consider whether any minister has the right to alter, tamper with or change evidence or restrict a subordinate officer in his department from saying what he may wish to say before a committee. This is a matter of grave importance because over the past few years parliamentary committees have tried to play an important part in the democratic process of this house. This house sets up parliamentary committees for the study of particular matters and they operate under the same rules as the house. If witnesses were to appear before the House of Commons and their evidence were restricted and tampered with, I am sure the Speaker and members of the house would object to it strongly. Yet we see it being done in committees.
Last night the minister held up his hands and said he will not do it again, he will not restrict or alter evidence. But it has already been done, and all we on this side of the house can do is to ask that either the defence committee be reconvened to re-examine the witness whose evidence was tampered with and altered or that the committee on privileges and elections be called to examine whether or not a minister has the right to restrict witnesses called before a parliamentary committee. Mr. Chairman, it is five o'clock.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


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



David Orlikow: the second reading of Bill No. C-30, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I propose this bill because of my belief that the law must in fact treat all people equally. It is not uncommon when looking at an Ottawa newspaper, a newspaper in my own city of Winnipeg, or the newspapers in Toronto or Vancouver, to
[Mr. Nugent.l
DEBATES	November 4, 1966
find almost every day a report from the magistrates' court concerning some citizen who has been convicted of the crime of theft of a relatively small amount of money or perhaps groceries from a supermarket. If it is a first offence and the magistrate is feeling in a particularly virtuous mood, the accused may be lucky and be given a suspended sentence. If it is a second offence the magistrate will certainly send the person to prison. If it is a third offence then he is likely to go to one of our federal penitentiaries.
The law, Mr. Speaker, does not always deal with people in the same way. We have had anti-combines legislation in Canada for the past 40 or more years. This is legislation which, according to spokesmen for the Liberal party, is among the most important ever enacted in Canadian law. There is a host of cases against some of our most prominent companies in this country, companies which not once but two, three or four times have been found guilty of violating the anti-combines law. Yet not once in the history of the country has one single director, president or management representative of such a company been sent to prison, regardless of the fact that the company concerned, and I will come back to this, has violated the law on more than one occasion.
I want to deal with another type of so-called crime with which our courts have had to deal within the past year. I am glad that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) are in the house, because I suggest that what I am going to speak about falls within their spheres of interest. Before dealing with how the courts treat people who violate our anticombines law, I want to speak for a few moments about how the courts during the past year have treated trade unionists, labour representatives, who have been found guilty of the crime of ignoring court injunctions prohibiting picketing.
In the recent Lenkurt Electric case in Vancouver, the city from which the Minister of Labour comes, Mr. Justice Macdonald sentenced 22 persons to prison. The secretary of the Vancouver and district labour council. Patrick Neale, and the vice president of one of the locals of the International Woodworkers of America were given six months each. The former business agent of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was sentenced to four months, and the president of the marine workers and boiler-makers union was sentenced to three months.
November 4, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
In the Tilco case at Peterborough 22 labour leaders were sent to prison. Chief Justice Gale, in sentencing these people, explained why he was sentencing them to jail, and it is interesting to note what he said. I want to read two paragraphs from his judgment as it was reported in the Toronto Star for June 28, 1966:
I am deeply conscious of my responsibility in this matter. I must endeavour to be fair to the respondents and yet it is incumbent upon me to apply and to enforce the law, for, despite some often irresponsible, but more often unpremeditated and illogical statements and comments that apparently have been made since the release of my judgment in this case, my role as a judge is to ensure continuity for the rule of law and to thereby aid in the preservation of freedom not for some only but for all citizens.
I could not agree more with what Chief Justice Gale purports to do in bringing down his judgment.
The Toronto Globe and Mail of October 4, 1966 had an editorial entitled "No Privileged Law-breakers", from which I quote briefly:
In the Tilco case in Ontario and now in the Lenkurt case in British Columbia, the courts have at last begun to treat labour offenders as though they were just like any other offenders and subject to the same penalties.
The Toronto Star for June 28, 1966 contained an editorial entitled "Defying The Courts Won't Win Labour's Battles", and reading in part as follows:
It is certainly proper to ask whether Mr. Justice Gale could not have achieved his point, vindicated the court's authority and deterred further offences, by lighter sentences. The men involved were respectable citizens and no violence was involved.
But once the men set out to deliberately defy the courts, punishment was inevitable and, in fact, an essential part of the protest itself.
I place that on the record, Mr. Speaker, because I want to compare the attitude of the courts in these two labour cases and the attitude of the two newspapers to which I have referred, which are representative of most newspapers in Canada, with the attitude of the courts in dealing with companies convicted of violating anti-combines legislation.
Companies are directed by individuals. They are not inanimate objects which do things automatically. Somebody in the company, be he the president, the managing director or the executive vice president, must give to the company the directive that it shall get together with its so-called competitors and conspire with them to set prices which are higher than they ought to be in a competitive market, prices which have as their intention the successful milking of the public.
Combines Investigation Act
Some months ago I asked a series of questions of the minister responsible concerning how many prosecutions there had been in this regard over the past ten years, what were the names of the companies which were found guilty when prosecuted, what were the costs to the government of investigation and prosecution of the cases, and what were the penalties imposed by the courts. The questions were answered on June 27, 1966, taking up eight pages of Hansard.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
From 1956 to 1965 dozens of companies were charged, prosecuted and convicted. If you look at the list, it is a who's who of Canadian business. The biggest companies are there. Let me give a few of them: Bathurst Power and Paper Company, the Gair Company, Hinde and Dauche and St. Lawrence Corporation Limited. I could go on and on, but I mention these four companies because they were not convicted only once, as were the labour people of whom I spoke a few moments ago, but twice of breaking the law.
Let us look at how serious a view the court took of their offences. For example, in 1958 Bathurst Power and Paper Company was fined the tremendous amount of $7,000 for breaking the law, although in that year it made a net profit after taxes of $1,500,000. The Gair Company was fined $3,000. I cannot find a figure for its net profit because it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a United States company and does not issue a financial statement. In 1958 Hinde and Dauche was fined $3,000, having made a net profit of $1,323,000. For violating the anti-combines law the St. Lawrence Corporation was fined $3,000, having made a profit in 1958 of $5,740,000. If there ever was a cheap licence for stealing, the anti-combines law provides it.
Let us look at the directors of these corporations, as shown in the records published by the Financial Post. They are some of the most influential and respected people in Canada. On the board of directors of the Bathurst Power and Paper Company, when it was convicted of violating the anticombines legislation, was a name that hon. members of this house well know: R. H. Winters. On the board of St. Lawrence Corporation in 1959, when it was convicted, were the names of M. W. McCutcheon and E. P. Taylor. E. P. Taylor was chairman of the board of the St. Lawrence Corporation when the company was convicted in 1965. On the board of directors of Hinde and Dauche in 1959 appeared
November 4, 1966


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is time we focused our attention more sharply in this country on our anti-combines legislation. I think there is much concern about the practices of the past. I think the government is indicating that it wishes to concentrate its efforts more and more on this aspect of public policy.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) announced the government's plans to reorganize ministerial responsibility for several government departments last December, he said that the responsibility for special areas of legislation concerning the national interest in the conduct of business activity, which had previously been shared by the Department of Justice and the Department of the Secretary of State, would be placed under the control of a new and separate minister. These included the Bankruptcy Act, the Companies Act, combines investigation and research, patents and copyrights, trade marks and similar matters. He said that the responsibility for some of these functions would be transferred to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau). Under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) under the Combines Investigation Act, other than those vested in him as Attorney General of Canada, and certain others, were transferred to the President of the Privy Council effective January 1, 1966.
Then, Mr. Speaker, on May 9, 1966, first reading was given to a bill respecting the organization of the government of Canada, which was subsequently enacted and given royal assent on June 16, 1966. This statute, among other things, establishes a new department called the Department of the Registrar General, and the Registrar General's duties are described as including all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the Canadian
November 4, 1966	COMMONS
government, relating to (a) combines, mergers, monopolies in restraint of trade; (b) patents and trade marks; (c) bankruptcy and insolvency and (d) corporate affairs.
This act was to come into force when promulgated, and I believe it has now been promulgated so that we have a new department concentrating on these business problems which involve the government of Canada. As a result I hope that the problems of combines, mergers and monopolies in restraint of trade are going to receive greater attention than they have ever had given to them previously.
We are fortunate in this country in having a very able director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act. He and his staff have been most active, and I am sure that what this house would like to do is to see that they are given every tool necessary with which to protect the public interest.
The hon. member who introduced Bill No. C-30 has suggested that certain minimum penalties be imposed. I think there is no question that under the combines legislation the penalties imposed have been completely inadequate. They have been treated very much as mere licence fees and I think the provisions for deterring offences in this field must be re-examined and more effective deterrents found. However, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the proposal in Bill No. C-30 is inconsistent with the whole trend of current philosophy relating to minimum penalties in criminal law. As I understand it, the trend is away from minimum penalties. Minimum penalties tend to restrict a court in the exercise of its discretion and, generally speaking, in criminal law this discretion should be preserved as far as possible.
There are certain practical reasons why the discretion of the court should be preserved in this particular field of criminal law. For instance, the persons who are officers or directors of companies being prosecuted under the legislation are frequently required as witnesses, and of course they could not be required to testify against themselves. I am sure others are found to be aged or infirm and on humanitarian grounds would not normally be prosecuted.
Surely the net which Bill C-30 attempts to cast to make all directors liable is too broad. For instance, certain conscientious officers might actively seek to prevent breaches of the combines act by their company's policy
DEBATES	9583
Combines Investigation Act and would take great care to avoid any participation in or condonation of illegal activities.
Another factor is that there is a great turnover of officers and directors in companies, and the suggestion that on a second or third offence there must be a mandatory jail term imposed raises the possibility that persons sentenced in such a way would be ones different from the officers or directors who were involved in the first offence.
Another very practical objection to specifying a minimum penalty here or in any other criminal or quasi-criminal legislation is that the minimum may tend to become the norm. This is very clearly illustrated by the experience since the ceiling on fines was lifted from this act in 1952. Before that there were numerous complaints from judges that the ceiling on fines was low, and I would like to refer to some comments to this effect.
Mr. Justice Schroeder in Regina v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of Canada Limited et al, reported in "1954 Ontario Weekly Notes" at page 68, is reported as saying at page 73:
In my view, the maximum penalty of $10,000 provided by the Code is wholly inadequate to meet the ends of justice even as a punishment to the least of these offenders.
Mr. Justice Judson in Regina v. Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Ltd. et al, reported in "1956 Ontario Weekly Notes" at page 753, is reported on page 754 as follows:
What does direct my judgment on the question of the amount of the fine is this: the duration of the conspiracy, almost 20 years; the complete control of the industry through the agreement in the matter of price and the condition of sale.
Even a modest participant in a conspiracy of that kind, lasting as long as this one lasted, is a person who should be told, and told in no uncertain terms, that this conduct is prohibited and, in my opinion, obviously prohibited by the Criminal Code, that any participant must have realized what he was doing and that to talk about a modest fine in those circumstances is quite out of the question. The expression has been used by some of the judges that even the maximum fine under this statute, as it stood before amendment, was no more than a licence fee. and a very moderate licence fee.
It is quite impossible to regard a conspiracy of this kind as a minor commercial misdemeanour. It is a serious offence against the Criminal Code and I think it calls for the maximum fine, in the case of all the participants, and each company will be fined $10,000.
November 4, 1966

Combines Investigation Act [DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Various other comments in a similar vein were made by judges prior to 1952, but the interesting thing is that since the ceiling on fines was lilted there has been no increase in the quantum of any fine beyond the previous maximum.
Rather than the solution proposed by Bill C-30, it is my submission that what really is required is that the courts be encouraged to be much more realistic in sentencing. The Exchequer Court of Canada was given jurisdiction to try combines offences in 1960 and some proceedings already have been taken in that court. I believe, however, that an attempt should be made to develop the experience of that court so that we may have a corps of judges familiar with the anti-combines legislation who will be much better equipped than the regular criminal courts to deal with the problem of sentencing on a uniform, realistic and effective basis.
Beyond the question of criminal liability I believe there is a field which has been sadly neglected, and that is the field of civil liability on the part of companies which have offended against our anti-combines legislation. In Bill C-30 I notice that section 7 provides that section 35 of the act be repealed and a section substituted which provides an additional money penalty where the crime has caused anyone financial injury. But in reading the proposed new section 35 one sees that subsection (2) begins:
Where an injured party is awarded damages against any person in a civil action as remedy for a wrong done-
The difficulty which is apparent here is that it has been held by the Supreme Court of Canada that the Combines Investigation Act creates no civil right of action. In the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Direct Lumber Company Limited v. Western Plywood Company Limited, Mr. Justice Judson, in a decision given on behalf of the court on June 25, 1962, said in part:
In any event, in my respectful opinion, the judgment under appeal is correct and neither section-
He is speaking here of sections of the Criminal Code.
-gives a cause of action in damages to a person who alleges a breach of these sections by a defendant.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the government of Canada could be much more venturesome in attempting to provide some real deterrent in respect of a breach of the law in this field

and in providing some protection for consumers. This is something which I do not think Bill C-30 accomplishes at all. I believe our principal concern should be the protection of the consumers. Under its powers in the field of trade and commerce this parliament should be able to enact legislation which would make it possible to impose a civil liability on offending companies under the Combines Investigation Act.
I think Bill C-30 tends to be impractical in the accomplishment of the aims which it seems to have. Its minimum penalty provisions are not consistent with the trend of thinking in the whole field of criminal law. I believe the remedy, in the field of a deterrent, lies in better trained judges and perhaps prosecutors. I feel this is an area of law which has been neglected and should be examined most carefully by the new Department of the Registrar General with a view to obtaining some recompense for consumers who have suffered damages as a result of offences under this act.


Mr. Richard Cashin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I think the matter now under discussion is a very worth-while one indeed. Over the past couple of years we have noted an attempt by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) to bring this matter to the attention of the house. I believe this bill, or one very similar to it, has been on the order paper for some time. When the hon. member began his remarks I noticed that he enunciated the very laudable principle that the law must treat all people equally. Notwithstanding the progress which has been made in many areas and in many fields over the past century, or just about a century, in this country in an attempt to attain this laudable principle, we still find situations where there certainly is prima facie evidence, I suggest, that the law is not doing all it ought to do to protect the rights of some and to curtail the activities of others.
It seems to me that while all of us pay lip service to this laudable goal and while we all bear in mind the sort of constant and continual battle that we have had in attempting to make this principle as true as possible, one of the paramount ingredients for success for anyone, for any group, for any party or for any government striving to achieve this goal is that one must take on approach to the problem which is as broad as possible. There
November 4, 1966

are the usual technical criticisms of this bill which anybody could make of any bill, some of which are quite worthy and some rather picayune. The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) may have a lot more people in his area than there are in Prince Edward Island, and there are those who believe that quantity is a substitute for quality, but I am one who believes that quantity is not a substitute for quality.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In his remarks he referred to some of the technical weaknesses of the bill, and if time permits perhaps I too may find myself dealing with some of these technical weaknesses. However, at the outset I think the fundamental weakness of the approach of the hon. member is one of principle. He has adopted what I would call, not unkindly, a reactionary approach to the problem, that is to say, he is treating this whole matter solely within the confines of criminal law.
I think it is fair to say, as I believe my colleague implied, that the federal government under successive administrations to date has been rather timid in broadening the approach to this problem. Perhaps my hon. friend from Winnipeg North suffers from the same inhibitions as many of those who have sat on this side for a long period of time.
I feel we could deal with this problem more effectively if we recognized that under the trade and commerce clause of our constitution possibilities are open to the government to expand what I would call the economic approach under combines legislation. Not only would it serve, in my view, a useful purpose in protecting the rights of individuals by seeing to it that other individuals, those infringing the law or behaving badly, acted according to a national consensus but it would at the same time assist in a positive manner, not only prohibit in a negative way, the development of our country.
In regard to combines there may in fact be situations where it might be to the economic well-being of the country and the interest of the individual, in attempting to achieve competitive efficiency with industry abroad, to use this sort of economic device. I would have thought that the hon. member for Winnipeg North, bearing the New Democratic Party label, might have thought of this approach himself, but perhaps even the New Democratic Party has its left and right wings.


Mr. Aiken:: Orlikow is to the left.
Combines Investigation Act


Richard Joseph Cashin: This may account for the view I have had for some time that there is a strange mixture of reform and 19th century tradition in that party which sometimes likes to think of itself as our saviour. We as the sort of collective wisdom of Canada find this from time to time of interest and challenge, particularly when we are watching this phenomenon in action.
There is reference in the bill or in the remarks of the hon. member to the use of injunctions. We now have such use on the criminal side and it seems to me that we could be using injunctions as economic weapons as well which would, of course, open the door to civil remedies. The hon. gentleman tried to use an interesting device when he talked of forfeiture. That is an interesting and novel device, and perhaps to the complete reactionary it might even be something of an innovation, particularly considering the use of forfeiture as a way of providing damages to an individual.
If we look at the broader approach of combines legislation, not only in the limited sense of performing the task, which we all agree it has not performed sufficiently to date, but of protecting the people and curtailing certain individuals, this may be a useful device. It might be useful in respect of such things as economic planning. This may not really be a part of my hon. friend's philosophy, but we could use the combines legislation to provide some of the really forceful and meaningful improvements that could be brought about by this government which has in its short term of office, barely three and a half years, dealt with many of the problems of making people equal under the law and seeing to it that the law treats all people equally. Notwithstanding the progress of the past three years, it seems to me this is one area in the continuing battle where the federal government to date has not displayed that ingredient of daring that we expect. No doubt, bearing in mind the recent changes in the structure of the ministry, we can look forward in the not too distant future to this kind of an approach.
It is with the confidence that this will be done that I make the remainder of my remarks. I do hope the government will attack this problem on a broader economic front and use the powers under the trade and commerce clause of our constitution which, as I said, could be a useful tool in protecting the individual and attaining the goals which the hon. member seeks to achieve in his limited approach contained in Bill C-30.
9586
November 4. 1966

Combines Investigation Act
Under the broader approach I am advocating civil remedies could be used and damages secured. This is a practice followed in the United States and I believe in the United Kingdom. In those countries as high as triple damages are awarded, and I certainly would not object to the government attempting to obtain triple damages under this new approach. My colleague, the hon. member for York-Scarborough, has made reference to the effect that this will have for the consumer, and I think it is a major effect.
Let me again refer to the long-term effect that the proper use of combines legislation could have on our economic development. It seems to me that if we use it as a proper tool in economic planning and development we could allow when it is in the interests of Canada, having regard to the individual, certain interests to behave in a manner which would give them some advantage in international competition. This is perhaps the direction in which this country ought to be heading in the next decade. We have heard a great deal of talk about the direction of our economy. On the one hand we have those who follow the school of thought concerned about ownership in this country while on the other we have those who advocate the con-tinentalist approach. As one might expect, I do not necessarily subscribe to either school of thought and certainly I do not think this is the time for me to deal with either at any length.
It seems to me that a middle course of action would be consistent with the development of Canada, one which would give us a new kind of role in our international attempt to create an efficient economy which could compete on a world-wide basis. I think this can be done on an industry by industry basis and perhaps would move us in a sense toward international free trade as opposed to free trade with one country.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I believe that ultimately we can create a unique Canadian economy, and one statute that can play an important role in what I believe to be the most acceptable approach to Canadian development is the combines legislation. I think it is important that this matter has been discussed in the house. I recognize the fact that the bill has been on the order paper for three years, and I congratulate the hon. member for his interest in this field. It is undoubtedly an area in which we have not done all the things we should have done.
(Mr. Cashin.l
The one thought I should like to leave with you, Mr. Speaker, is that while we have many problems and many areas that we could tackle in ensuring that all men are treated equally, when we do tackle these areas let us do so in as progressive and enlightened a manner as possible. I think that the approach of the hon. member in confining his bill to the criminal aspect of this problem is too limited for Canada in the 1960's.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have been fascinated in listening to the discussion by my colleagues of a bill which started out to be concerned with a point in the law, and a quite complicated point at that, and developed into such an interesting and full-blown debate participated in by very expert debaters on this and the other side of the house. I am rather sorry that the introducer of the bill appears to have left the chamber, perhaps to attend a board meeting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: -or perhaps just to alleviate some inward and private urging of nature which is not necessarily revealed to us. However, I am very happy indeed to see his colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), my friend from the Pacific coast, in the house at this time because he and I as western members suffer from the way the combines legislation is administered today.
I want to dwell on that aspect of the matter in the few moments left to debate this bill. Before doing so I would say that basically, we agree in principle with the objectives of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). We agree in the main that the fines and penalties imposed for combining to rig prices against the consumer are certainly not adequate to do the job required in Canada. We agree that other countries, Great Britain and the United States, for example, take a tougher stand under the law than we do in Canada when dealing with matters of this kind.
We are also in general agreement that, on the other hand, a real problem is posed in the bill with reference to the civil side of the law because of the jurisdiction under which the Combines Investigation Act operates. It appears from the bill before us, particularly clause 7, which is to be found on page 3, amending section 35 of the act, that the hon.
November 4, 1966

member gets into complexities which are apparently baffhng even to him and really do not properly serve the purpose which he intends this measure to serve. So it seems to me that more work must be done on the bill it it is to be properly incorporated in the law and if we are to effect the purpose intended in increasing enforcement under the act.
I wish to refer to the service the hon. gentleman has rendered the house in placing on Hansard the information to which he alluded earlier in the debate in regard to the fines imposed under the Combines Investigation Act for combining against the consumer. On June 27, 1966, as reported at page 6857 of Hansard, the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked the following question:
In the past ten years, in how many cases did the government charge and prosecute companies for violations of the Combines Act, except for cases under section 33(c)?
Then he asked for the names of the companies involved in each case, and the fines imposed by the courts. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) made the return to this question. There follows in Hansard a very long table of names of companies and the fines imposed upon them for combining and conspiring to rig prices against the consumer.
It is interesting to look at this table, not in the way my hon. friend did by picking out a couple of directors, one of whom happens to be a member of parliament and the other a senator, not with a view to trying to attach blame to any particular individual but to see what has happened in Canada in this respect. For instance, with regard to wire fencing we see that six companies were prosecuted and the fine levied was $10,000 in each instance. As was said earlier in the debate when hon. members referred to cases which had come before the courts, judges consider this penalty to be simply a licence for going ahead with rigging prices against the consumer. 1 ask my western friends on the other side of the house what we think of eastern manufacturers who combine to rig the price of the fencing we place around our farms and ship it to us in
Business of the House
western Canada at prices on which they have conspired.
I refer now to quilting. A long list of companies, a dozen or more, appear in this table. These companies were fined a total of $6,000. Imagine conspiring against the housewife in this way, and the biggest fine imposed on any one of these companies was $1,000! That is the way these companies were treated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a licence for piracy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for someone who might tell us what the business will be on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, if I might confine myself to Monday, interim supply will be again proceeded with. If interim supply is granted the house will deal with item No. 101, second reading of Bill No. C-241, to amend the National Housing Act, second reading of the national defence bill, and item No. 82, committee of the whole on Bill No. C-227, medicare, but not necessarily in that order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister without Portfolio whether I understand him correctly that the national defence bill is to come ahead of medicare? The reason I ask the question is that this was not the understanding at the last meeting of the house leaders.


John Napier Turner: I said, not necessarily in that order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the last meeting of the house leaders it was necessarily in a different order.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
9589
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 7, 1966