1966-11-07

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

Mr. Forresiall: What are the numbers and percentage of regular Navy, Army and Air Force officers by service and by rank who (a) were retired prior to
their normal retirement age under the following circumstances, indicating whether they were voluntarily or compulsorily retired (i) in 1964 with a penalty (ii) in 1964 without a penalty and without a	cash	bonus (iii) in 1964 without a	penaltyand with a	cash bonus (iv) in	1965 with a	penalty(v) in	1965	without a penalty	and without	a cashbonus	(vi)	in 1965 without a	penalty and	with a
cash bonus (vii) in 1966 with a penalty (viii) in 1966 without a penalty and without a cash bonus (ix) in 1966 without a penalty and with a cash bonus (b) requested premature release and as part of the reduction of the Armed Forces, in the years 1964, 1965 and 1966 and were (i) refused release (ii) granted release with a cash bonus?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: (a) Officers retired prior to normal retiring age:
Compulsory
Voluntarily
(i)
Retired with Reduced pension or annuity
Retired with Reduced pension or annuity
Army rank or equivalent	Navy Army Air Force	Navy Army Air Force1964	% t % f	% *	%	f	%	#	%	tGeneral	_ _	Lt. General	__	Maj. General	- 	7	1Brigadier	Colonel	4	3	Lt. Colonel	_ _	.4	1	.2	7	.2	1Major	,i i	.2	2	.2	4Captain	.1 4	.3	7	*	2Lieutenant	-	.1 3	.1	1	*	12nd Lieutenant	
- - - -	-	-	-	(ii)	Retired with full pension or annuity	Retired with full pension or annuitv	and without special benefit	and without special benefit	Navy Army	Air Force	Navy	Army	Air Force	1964	% t % t	% #	%	t	%	t	%	tGeneral	Lt. General	__ '	_	Maj. General	-	_	Brigadier	
normal retirement age	with full	Colonel	-	-	i	2Lt. Colonel	.8	2	.5	2	.4	2Major	.2	2	.5	7	.2	2Captain	.	*	1	.1	6Lieutenant	
'	.i	1	*	12nd Lieutenant	-	-	-	
(iii)
General	
Lt. General - Maj. General...
Brigadier	
Colonel	
Lt. Colonel___
Major	
Captain	
Lieutenant....
2nd Lieutenant.
Questions

November 7, 1966
Compulsory
Retired with full pension or annuity and with special benefit
Navy Army Air Force
Voluntarily
Retired with full pension or annuity and with special benefit
Navy Army Air Force
%	t %	* %	f	% * %	t %	t-	- -	- 1.2	2	Special benefits	are not	appli--	- -	- .2	1	cable to officers	retiring	volun--	- .2	3 .3	4	tarily	-	- .1	2 5	220	-	- .1	1 .1	3	
(iv)
Retired with reduced pension annuity
Retired with reduced pension annuity
General	
Lt. General___
Maj. General...
Brigadier	
Colonel	
Lt. Colonel...
Major	
Captain	
Lieutenant....
2nd Lieutenant
Navy Army Air Force	Navy Army Air Force
%#%*%* %*%*%*
- 8 1
-	-	-	-	3.1	1-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.8	1	-	--	-	-	.4	1	.3	1	.7	3-	-	-	.3	3	.3	4	.8	10-	-	*	1	*	1	.1	1	.2	5	.3	14-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.1	1	-	-
(v)
Retired with full pension/annuity and without special benefit
Retired with full pension/annuity and without special benefit
General	
Lt. General___
Maj. General...
Brigadier	
Colonel	
Lt. Colonel___
Major	
Captain	
Lieutenant....
2nd Lieutenant.
Navy Army Air Force
%#%#%#
See note for (ii)
Navy	Army	Air Force	% f	%	f	%	t13 1	-	-	8	11.6	2	2.5	4.4 1	1	4	.9	4.7 6	1	15	1	12.2 2	.7	14	.3	14- -	.3	3	-	-~	

November 7, 1966

(vi)
Retired with full pension/annuity and with special benefit
Army rank or equivalent	Navy	Army	Air Force	1965	%	f	%	f	%	fGeneral	Lt. General	...	Maj. General	
12.5	1	10	1	Brigadier	1	5.3	2	Colonel	4	2.4	3	.6	1Lt. Colonel	10	1.8	7	1.4	6Major	8	7	2.3	30	1.6	20Captain	-	-	.8	16	1.6	63Lieutenant	.3	4	.3	62nd Lieutenant	-	-	
Questions
Retired with full pension/annuity and with special benefit
Navy
Army Air Force
%
%
%
See note for (iii)
(vii)
Retired with reduced pension or annuity
Retired with reduced pension or annuity
Navy Army Air Force	Navy Army Air Force
1966	%	t %	f	%	t	%	t	%	f	%	iGeneral	
Lt. General	
Maj. General	
Brigadier	- -	-	-	INI	III	10.0	1Colonel	Lt. Colonel	
Major	
Captain	
Lieutenant	
2nd Lieutenant	v-4 <M 1 1 [DOT] [DOT] 1	- .1 1 - 1 -	rH 1 III	*	1	1.3 .1	11 2	.5 .4 .1	2 5 3	.2 .3 .1	3 12 2(viii)	Retired with full pension or annuity and without special benefit	Retired with full pension or annuity and without special benefit	Navy Army Air Force	Navy	Army	Air Force1966	%*%*%#	% t	% t	% *General	
Lt. General	
Maj. General	
Brigadier	
Colonel	
Lt. Colonel	
Major	
Captain	
Lieutenant	
2nd Lieutenant	.5 1 .9 7 .3 3	11.0 1 .9 3 .9 11 .4 8	10.0 1 .2 1 .5 5 .1 49592	COMMONS DEBATES
Questions
(ix)	Retired with full pension or
annuity and with special benefit
Army rank or equivalent	Navy Army Air Force
1966	%	t	%	i	%	fGeneral	
-	-	-	-	-	-Lt. General	-	20.0	1	-	-Maj. General	
14.3	1	-	-	10.0	1Brigadier	
19.0	4	12.5	5	-	-Colonel	
5.6	4	7.6	10	1.6	-Lt. Colonel	
6.4	15	3.8	14	7Major	
1.3	10	2.2	27	.6	8Captain	-	.7	13	.2	6Lieutenant	-	.2	2	.4	82nd Lieutenant	~	
([DOT]Less than one twentieth of one percent). (Figures for 1966 are prior to 1 September, 1966)
November 7, 1966
Retired with full pension or annuity and with special benefit
Navy Army Air Force
%!%*%*
See note for (iii)
(b) The order governing special benefits did not apply to officers who were released on request hence no applications were received for premature release as part of the reduction of the armed forces.


INFORMATION CONCERNING 3 PER CENT BONDS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What was the par value of the 1936, three per cent, Government of Canada permanent bonds?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to redeem the bonds at this time?
3.	Does the government intend to issue a further supply of coupons bearing interest at three per cent?
4.	Did the Minister of Finance recently make an announcement concerning the redemption of these bonds and if so, when?
5.	What is the present market value per $100 of par value at time of issue of these bonds?
6.	Has there been a change in this market value recently and, if so, when did it occur?
7.	What was the total amount of the issue in 1936?
8.	What is the total market value of the issue at the present time?
9.	Has an estimate been made of the total annual cost of increasing the interest rate of newly issued coupons from three per cent to 51 per cent and, if so, what would be this cost?
fTranslation]


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. The par value of perpetual bonds is equal to the face value of each bond certificate. When these bonds were issued in September, 1936, their price was set at 96,50 per cent of their par or face value with a 3.11 per cent yield.
2.	No.

3.	Yes.
4.	Yes. A press release concerning perpetual bonds was issued on September 14, 1966.
5.	On Friday, October 21, the noon quotations were 56.00 per cent of the par or face value.
6.	The following table sets out the market value of perpetual bonds, at noon each Wednesday, for the August 31-October 19 period:
	Noon value	Yield
August 31	68*	4.38September 7	69	4.35September 14	69J	4.30September 21	54	5.56September 28	59	5.08October 5	57*	5.22October 12	56*	5.31October 19 7. $55 million.	56	5.368.	$30,250,000 to $31,350,000.9.	$55 million of 3 per cent perpetual bonds are now in circulation and involve a total annual interest payment of $1,650,000. At 5* per cent, the annual interest cost would be $3,025,000, $1,375,000 more than at present.


ALLOCATION OF DEFENCE EXPENDITURES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What percentage of the defense budget has been received by each of the three services in the past ten years, by year, and the estimated percentage by each of the three services in the current fiscal year?
2.	What are the manpower figures for each of the three services at the end of each such fiscal year, including the estimated number as of March 31, 1967?
November 7. 1966

3.	What are the percentage breakdowns in each of these categories-equipment, pay and allowances, administration-of the expenditures by each of the three services spent over the past 10 years, by year, and the estimated percentage breakdown for the current fiscal year?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1.	Percentage of Total Budget
Navy	Army	Air%	%	%1956-57	18.1	25.4	47.81957-58	17.4	25.0	48.01958-59	16.4	26.0	48.01959-60	16.7	26.2	48.61960-61	16.1	26.4	49.71961-62	16.7	27.1	48.21962-63	17.1	28.1	45.41963-64	17.7	26.9	41.61964-65	17.8	28.2	42.81965-66	17.8	29.2	41.1Estimated	1966-67	19.0	28.2	41.0The	balance of the	percentage of	the defence	budget covers	departmental adminis-	tration	and other costs.	2.	Navy	Army	AirMarch	31,	1957	19,111	47,261	50,720March	31,	1958	19,867	47,473	51,698March	31,	1959	20,478	48,307	51,627March	31,	1960	20,675	47,185	51,737March	31,	1961	20,655	48,051	51,349March	31,	1962	21,500	51,855	53,119March	31,	1963	21,476	49,760	52,458March	31,	1964	20,789	48,581	51,411March	31,	1965	19,756	46,264	48,144March	31,	1966	18,439	43,914	45,114March	31,	1967 Est.	17,897	42,628	44,144
The figures shown for March 31, 1967, are those used in preparing the Estimates for 1966-67.
Navy	Army	Air%	%	%1956-57-Equipment	8.2	2.8	11.4Construction	.6	4.4	2.7Mil P&A	3.7	9.4	9.7Other O&M	5.6	8.8	24.018.1	25.4	47.8-	-	-1957-58-Equipment	6.5	1.5	13.0Construction	.4	2.8	2.1Mil P&A	4.4	10.9	11.6Other O&M	6.1	9.8	21.317.4	25.0	48.0
Questions
Navy	Army	Air%	%	%1958-59-Equipment	4.8	2.4	15.5Construction	.5	2.7	1.3Mil P&A	4.6	11.0	12.2Other O&M	6.5	9.9	19.016.4	26.0	48.0-	-1959-60-Equipment	3.6	1.6	12.9Construction	.6	2.6	2.3Mil P&A	5.1	12.1	13.6Other O&M	7.4	9.9	19.816.7-	26.2	48.61960-61-Equipment	2.9	1.8	13.1Construction	.3	1.9	2.8Mil P&A	5.4	12.6	14.4Other O&M	7.5	10.1	19.416.1	26.4	49.71961-62-Equipment	3.6	1.7	13.5Construction	.2	1.7	3.2Mil P&A	5.3	13.5	14.3Other O&M	7.6	10.2	17.216.7	27.1	48.21962-63-Equipment	3.7	1.7	9.5Construction	.2	1.8	2.9Mil P&A	5.6	13.9	15.1Other O&M	7.6	10.7	17.917.1	28.1	45.41963-64-Equipment	4.6	2.8	7.6Construction	.2	.7	1.0Mil P&A	5.7	13.3	15.1Other O&M	7.2	10.1	17.917.7	26.9	41.61964-65-Equipment	4.4	2.5	7.0Construction	.2	.8	1.0Mil P&A	6.0	14.3	16.6Other O&M	7.2	10.6	18.217.8	28.2	42.8
9594

November 7, 1966
Questions
Navy	Army	Air%	%	%1965-66-Equipment	4.0	2.7	5.7Construction	.5	.6	.7Mil P&A	6.3	14.9	16.5Other O&M	7.0	11.0	18.417.8	29.2	41.31966-67-Equipment	5.4	3.1	8.6Construction	.4	.7	.7Estimated Mil P&A	5.9	13.0	14.9Other O&M	7.3	11.4	16.819.0	28.2	41.0
Administration costs are not identifiable as an entity in the services' budgets. Consequently the percentage breakdown for each service has been shown for Equipment and Military Pay and Allowances as requested, for construction because it is of a capital nature, and for other O&M costs in lieu of administration.


COURSES UNDERTAKEN BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS EMPLOYEES
Mr. Godin: How many employees of the Canadian National Railways were registered for courses paid by the said company on October 1, 1966?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: the company does not maintain records which would show how many employees are registered for a given day.
During the first nine months of 1966, the company paid for the training of 1,095 registered apprentices and 37,123 employees in such areas as Supervisory Development, Sales and Customer Relations and Technical and Skill. In addition, the company pays for various job-related courses and seminars outside the company and under its Educational Financial Assistance Plan reimburses to employees 50 per cent of their tuition fees upon successful completion of approved courses taken at a variety of educational institutions. In this latter case, during the year ended August 31, 1965-the figures for the current year are not as yet available-1,204 employees undertook approved study courses.


DARTMOUTH, N.S., WATERSIDE BUILDING
Mr. McCleave: 1.	When was the new waterside building of the Department of Transport opened in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the floor space provided for offices in such building, and has this remained constant over the years?
3.	What has been and is the approximate number of personnel using this building each year since the building was opened?
4.	Has the department recently entered into a lease of office space in downtown Dartmouth for any division or officials formerly at the waterside building and, if so (a) which or whom (b) what are the details of such lease, and were tenders called (c) what, specifically, is the payment per square foot of floor space and how does this compare with other rentals in Dartmouth (d) did the department or landlord provide partitions of such office space and, if the department did, how were tenders called?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. November, 1959.
2.	8,642 square feet. No.
3.	1960, 33; 1961, 33; 1962, 38; 1963, 40; 1964, 41; 1965, 48; 1966, 51; including four regional personnel.
4.	Department of Public Works has leased office space (a) for regional office (b) five year all inclusive lease, light, heat, water, janitor service. No. (c) $5 per square foot per annum, equal or less than rates for equivalent accommodation Halifax-Dartmouth area, (d) Department of Public Works providing partitions by public tender.
SENIOR N.C.O's IN ARMED SERVICES


Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many senior non-commissioned officers have there been in each of the three armed services approximate figures will satisfy by rank in 1960, 1962, 1964, and this year?
2.	How many officers have been commissioned from such senior non-commissioned officers in each of the three armed services approximate figures will satisfy in 1960, 1962, 1964, and this year?
3.	Same as in part 2, except that, what is the source for commissioned officers other than NCO?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 
RENEGOTIATION OF WORLD WHEAT AGREEMENT
Mr. Southam: 1.	On what date and where will a conference be held to renegotiate another International World Wheat Agreement?
2.	How many and who will be Canada's representatives at this conference?

3.	How many countries will be represented at this conference?
4.	Is it the government's intention to press for an increase in the price of wheat under a new agreement and, if so, how much?
5.	What will be the government's recommendation as to the length of term in years, that the new agreement should run?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The present International
Wheat Agreement has been extended to July 31, 1967 pending the negotiation of a comprehensive cereals arrangement which is currently proceeding as part of the Kennedy Round trade negotiations in Geneva. The question of the future of the International Wheat Agreement will be considered by the International Wheat Council during the next few months in the light of developments in the GATT cereals negotiations.
2. and 3. In regard to the GATT cereals negotiations Canadian representation is provided by our Kennedy Round delegation together with other officials, members of the Canadian Wheat Board and representatives of the Advisory Committee to the Canadian Wheat Board as required. Countries now taking part in the GATT cereals negotiations include Canada, the U.S.A., Australia, Argentina, the European Economic Community, Britain, Japan, Switzerland, Norway and Denmark and it is envisaged that other countries will participate at the appropriate time.
4.	Yes. In view of the tactical considerations that are involved and the necessarily confidential nature of the negotiations, specific information regarding the Canadian position on the price issue cannot be provided at this time.
5.	The question of the duration of a new international arrangement covering wheat will be influenced by the other elements. Negotiations have not advanced to a point which permits firm recommendations.


UNIT COSTS IN MATERIALS AND SERVICES CONTRACTS
Mr. Schreyer: With respect to Department of Transport materials and services contracts awarded during the month of September and listed in the Department of Transport release of October 12, 1966, No. 91-66, what was the unit cost to the department of all goods and services supplied by (a) Peerless Garments Limited of Manitoba (b) Eastern Canada Shipping Limited of Quebec?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: (a) Man's winter coat sets c/w hood, $45 each; man's windproof
November 7, 1966

trousers, nylon, $17.40 per pair; man's synthetic fibre parkas c/w hood, $43 each, (b) Freight, $40 per measured ton of forty cubic feet; wharfage, .40 per measured ton of forty cubic feet.


SYDNEY, N.S.-INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT LANDINGS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Since August 1, 1966, how many international flights have landed at the Sydney, Nova Scotia, airport?
2.	In each case, where did the flight originate and what was the destination?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Since August 1, 1966 through October 25 inclusive, there have been 167 flights which have arrived directly from points outside of Canada and landed at Sydney, Nova Scotia Airport.
2. The following table provides the airport from which the flight arrived at Sydney and the airport to which the flight departed. As some flights cover several stops in different countries, it is impossible to provide the initial origin and final destination of each flight.
No.	of	Point arrived	Point departedFlights	from	toFrom North America:	140	St. Pierre1	St. Pierre1	St. Pierre	Mt. Pleasant, N.B.1	St. Pierre	Brunswick, Me.5	Boston, Mass.	St. Pierre1	New York, N.Y.	St. Pierre1	New York, N.Y.	Keflavik, Iceland1	New York, N.Y.	St. John's Nfld.1	Portland, Me.	St. John's Nfld.1	Bar Harbour, Me.	Charlottetown, P.E.I.1	Old Town, Me.	Old Town, Me.1	Old Town, Me.	Houlton, Me.1	Washington, D.C.	Charlottetown, P.E.I.1	Quonset Point, R.I.	Argentia, Nfld.1	Minneapolis, Minn.	Ottawa, Ont.1	Detroit, Mich.	Detroit, Mich.1	Rochester, N.Y.	Buffalo, N.Y.1	Dover, Del.	Mildenhall, Eng.From	Questions Point arrived	Point departedEurope:	from	to2	London, Eng.	Toronto, Ont.1	London, Eng.	New York, N.Y.1	Paris, France	New York, N.Y.1	Brussels,	New York, N.Y.1	Belgium London, Eng.	Detroit, Mich.1	Keflavik, IcelandNew York, N.Y.	
Total 167
1St. Pierre is the airport of the French Overseas Territory of St. Pierre and Miquelon.


INFORMATION RESPECTING GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
Mr. Irvine: For each of the years 1950 to 1965 inclusive, what was (in current and absolute dollars) (a) the gross national product of Canada (b) the surplus or deficit in the balance of payments?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as the reply to this starred question involves a great many figures, I wonder whether the hon. member would be willing to have the answer taken as read and allow it to be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
(a) Gross national product, Canada, 19501965
	Millions of	Millions of
	current dollars	constant, 1949 dollars
1950	18,006	17,4711951	21,170	18,5471952	23,995	20,0271953	25,020	20,7941954	24,871	20,1861955	27,132	21,9201956	30,585	23,8111957	31,909	24,1171958	32,894	24,3971959	34,915	25,2421960	36,287	25,8491961	37,471	26,5151962	40,575	28,2871963	43,424	29,7401964	47,403	31,6631965	51,996	33,770
9S98

November 7, 1966
Questions
(b) Net balance oi payments deficits (1) on current account
Millions of current dollars
1950	334
1951	517
1952	164'"
1953	443
1954	432
1955	698
1956	1,366
1957	1,455
1958	1,131
1959	1,504
1960	1,243
1961	982
1962	874
1963	542
1964	424
1965	1,083
0,1952 Surplus
Note: Constant dollar estimates are not available for (b).


EXPORT AND IMPORT VALUES
Mr. Irvine: For each of the years 1950 to 1965 inclusive, what was, in current and absolute dollars, (a) the total value of exports (b) the total value of imports?


Robert Henry Winters: (a) and (b) The total value of exports, and the total value of imports, in current dollars, for each of the years 1950 to 1965 inclusive, is as follows:
Calendar	Total	Totalyear	exports	imports$'000	$'0001950	3,142,636	3,125,2311951	3,945,929	4,004,9391952	4,337,175	3,916,4181953	4,152,269	4,247,8081954	3,925,821	3,967,4011955	4,327,776	4,567,7541956	4,833,777	5,546,9511957	4,884,141	5,473,3461958	4,894,343	5,050,4921959	5,140,300	5,508,9211960	5,386,792	5,482,6951961	5,895,215	5,768,5781962	6,347,713	6,257,7761963	6,980,142	6,558,2091964	8,303,405	7,487,7071965	8,766,677	8,633,430
Note: Export and import statistics are not compiled on a constant dollar basis.


TENDERS FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE SHIPS
Mr. Irvine: With regard to the tenders that have been called for the construction of the first of six 200-foot deep-sea search and rescue ships, as announced in the Department of Transport press release dated October 24, 1966 (a) when do these tenders close (b) were these invited tenders and, if so, what firms received such invitations (c) were these open calls for tender (d) how many firms have bid to date and what are the names of these firms (e) is priority to be given to Canadian firms?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: (a) 3 p.m. E.S.T. November 30, 1966. (b) and (c) Tenders were called publicly through the press, (d) Requests for tender documents have been received from eight firms, namely: Collingwood Shipyards Ltd., Collingwood, Ontario; Port Weller Dry Dock Co. Ltd., Port Weller, Ontario; Canadian Vickers Shipyards Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.; Marine Industries Ltd., Sorel, P.Q.; Geo. T. Davie and Sons Ltd,, Lauzon, P.Q.; Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., Lauzon, P.Q.; Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B.; Halifax Shipyards Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; (e) Yes.


MINTING OF GOLD COINS IN CENTENNIAL YEAR
Mr. Laprise: How many $20 gold pieces will be minted for centennial year, and when and how will they be put into circulation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: The $20 gold coin to be minted in 1987 will be issued only as part of a presentation coin set containing, in addition to the gold piece, the other six subsidiary coins from the one dollar to one cent. The set will be encased in a black genuine morocco leather case and will be sold for $40.
Orders for these presentation coin sets, accompanied by the purchase price, will be accepted by the Royal Canadian Mint, Ottawa, until September 30, 1967.
It is not possible to estimate the number of sets which will be ordered.


INVESTIGATION OF RED RIVER POLLUTION
Mr. Schreyer: 1. Has the international joint commission completed its investigation that was being made pursuant to the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in October 1, 1964, relative to the problem of pollution of the Red River International waterway?
November 7, 1966

2. If the investigation has been completed, what action is being taken which is pursuant to the findings and recommendations of this investigation resulting from this investigation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. No.
2. Answered by 1.


RIMOUSKI, P.Q.-REPAIRS TO HARBOUR AND RIVER WORKS
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimou-ski): Regarding the 1966-67 estimates of the Department of Public Works, under the heading "repairs and upkeep of harbour and river works", Vote 20, wherein the amount approved for 1966-67 was $3,500,000, was any of this amount allocated to the district office in Rimouski and, if so, how much?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Yes; $101,600.


LIST OF MINISTERS OF FINANCE
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What are the names of each of the Ministers of Finance of Canada since 1934, and the dates on which they took office?
2.	What are the names of each of the governors of the Bank of Canada since 1934, and the dates on which they took office?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Hon. E. N. Rhodes, February 3, 1932; Hon. C. A. Dunning, October 23, 1935; Hon. J. L. Ralston, September 6, 1939; Hon. J. L. Ilsley, July 8, 1940; Hon. D. C. Abbott, December 10, 1946; Hon. W. E. Harris, July 1, 1954; Hon. D. M. Fleming, June 21, 1957; Hon. George Nowlan, August 9, 1962; Hon. W. L. Gordon, April 22, 1963; Hon. Mitchell Sharp, December 18, 1965.
2. G. F. Towers, October 24, 1934; J. E. Coyne, January 1, 1955; L. Rasminsky, July 24, 1961.


NATURAL GAS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ask whether it is expected, as a result of undertakings made by
Inquiries of the Ministry Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. to the Canadian government, there will be further hearings by the Federal Power Commission in the United States in connection with the application. Has the government had any communication with Washington in this connection, and has any indication been given as to when the hearings will commence and whether the F.P.C. will be re-hearing the case, as it were?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no information to that effect. The situation at the moment, as far as I know, is that the investigator of the Federal Power Commission has recommended against the project and that it is up to the commission itself to decide whether it will agree or not and whether further hearings will be necessary or not. We have no way of influencing their decision.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a question of influencing their decision. Has the government not had any information from Washington which would indicate that the hearings will be thrown wide open again by the F.P.C., and no regard will be had to the evidence given during the former hearing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if this is true or not. If this development has taken place, it must have been within very recent hours or minutes, because I have not been so informed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question regarding the announcement made by the acting house leader at the adjournment on Friday, to the effect that the national defence bill would have a very high priority and would be brought before the house soon after we had disposed of interim supply. In view of the fact that such matters as the old age pension, veterans pensions and medicare are of immediate interest to a very large number of Canadians, and in view of the fact that the national defence bill could involve the house in a protracted debate, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the government would give consideration to allotting a higher priority to the old age pension, veterans and medicare legislation before getting the house into what

November 7, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry could be a repetition of the flag debate of a few years ago, with the result that important legislation would not be dealt with before Christmas.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take my hon. friend's observations into consideration when the priorities are established on the completion of the debate on interim supply. However, I would remind my hon. friend that almost any matter that is put before this house these days might result in a protracted debate.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the question has been raised, I would like to ask the Acting House Leader to accept my apologies for not raising the matter of old age pensions today, because I do not think the government is interested in it.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. It is not my purpose to be in any way offensive to him, but at the present time a debate is taking place in the house on interim supply which most members of the house, and I think a great many Canadians in general, consider very important. I know the Prime Minister has many duties and obligations which he has to meet, but would he give special consideration to doing the house the honour of being present for today's debate, if this is convenient to him. I believe his presence during the debate will enable him to judge the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) regarding priorities of legislation
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisler):
Mr. Speaker, although I am not in my seat during the debate I can assure my hon. friend that each evening and each morning I avail myself of the privilege of reading in Hansard the speeches that are made on every subject.
tTranslation]



GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
[Mr. Douglas.)
With regard to the workers in the gold mines of northwestern Quebec, has the minister been in contact recently with the Quebec authorities and, if so, has he come to a conclusion which might let us hope for a settlement to prevent a strike in that region?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had a talk with the provincial Minister of Labour about that matter. I told him that the federal government intended to continue its assistance to gold production.
I expressed the view that the problem was fundamentally a social problem and offered the co-operation of the federal government to try to remedy the situation which prevails at Malartic and the neighbouring area.



ITALY-POSSIBILITY OF RENDERING ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the right hon. Prime Minister refers to the catastrophe which has overtaken the nation of Italy, particularly the flooded mountainous areas of central and northern Italy. In view of the widespread property damage, the loss of life, the threat of disease, and the threat of further landslides, could the Prime Minister tell us whether this government has undertaken any negotiations with the Italian government or whether Canada is planning any assistance to Italy at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house, and indeed all Canadians, were shocked by the extent of the disaster which has befallen our friends in Italy. This morning I sent a message to the prime minister of Italy which reads as follows:
Canadians have been shocked and saddened by the news ol the floods in Italy which have occasioned such disastrous loss of life and damage. On behalf of the government and people of Canada, I should like to extend my sincere condolences to you, to the Italian people and particularly to the bereaved.
We have asked for a report from our embassy in Rome as to what form of assistance might be most suitable, and we are also discussing with the Red Cross authorities the manner in which they might join with the government in helping the victims of the terrible disaster that has taken place. I should add that according to our information
November 7, 1966

no Canadians have been involved in the disaster, but we are making further inquiries into that aspect of the matter.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiil (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct a question to the Minister of Finance but in his absence I wonder whether I might direct it to the Prime Minister. Would he consider having further conversations with his colleague, the Minister of Finance with respect to the repayment of the 3 per cent perpetual bonds? I ask this question in view of the fact that many members of the house are being increasingly made aware of hardships resulting from the government's decision in this regard, and also of the fact that many people have indicated they may have some reservations about purchasing Canada Savings Bonds in the future. I was wondering whether the Prime Minister and his colleagues would reconsider their decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance within the terms of the reply he gave the other day on this matter.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has considered the British equivalent of a lottery? In other words, could the government arrange to draw these 3 per cent per-petuals under a lottery?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into that. It does seem at first sight to involve certain difficulties, but I will look into the matter.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. What observations has he to make on the statistics which were published on Friday to the effect that recruitment in the armed forces has now fallen below the 1965 figure? The authorized strength today is 109,000 men, as compared to
123,000	in 1963. Is he in agreement with one
Inquiries of the Ministry of his unnamed oracles in the department who has stated that, because of the falling away in recruitment, the numbers may fall below 100,000? How does the minister account for this unusual occurrence, particularly when a few months ago he said that recruitment was 5 per cent above that of the previous year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether the question as asked is in order. The Leader of the Opposition has asked whether the Minister of National Defence has any observations to make on something. I suggest that, asked in this way, the question is not a proper one.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should have known in any event that it would be improper to ask for the minister's observations. I asked what was the explanation for this falling away in recruitment, particularly in view of the fact that the pay boost which was promised some months ago came into effect on October 1?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think primarily it is the buoyancy of the economy, which exceeds anything we have seen since 1955 and 1956.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In addition, last month, although the figures for the air force and army were very good and gratifying, there was a falling off in the month in naval recruiting. I do not know whether that was due to the controversy, but it may or may not be related to it.
I would hope and expect, on the basis of the best professional advice available to me, that once this house has dealt with the unification bill and we have proceeded with our plans, recruiting will increase as a result of the knowledge of the young men of this country that they will be participating in the most exciting development in military organization that is going on anywhere in the world today.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether there is any reason to expect that these powers of prophecy, which have already been proven wrong in this connection, are going to improve in the days ahead.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received any expert advice as I

November 7, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry have to the effect that the introduction of his unification bill will cause a further serious decline in recruiting, as well as a flood of resignations from the forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary.


Mr. G. L. Chaiterton (Esquimali-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the people whose advice the minister has taken are the same people who advised him to let the 500 pilots go?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Respecting the minister's reference to the economy, is it his interpretation that the better off we get the less we need to defend ourselves?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the recruiting in the Atlantic provinces is up substantially.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have not sent him notice but this is something dear to his heart. When will he consider the guide lines issued in the excellent national resources conference on water pollution in Montreal recently?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That consideration is already being given, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the house whether his department, either alone or in conjunction

with the provincial authorities of the province of Ontario, would institute an engineering study of the cost of the restoration of navigability of the lower Grand River between Brantford, Ontario, and Lake Erie for recreational and pleasure craft?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some hesitation refusing the question. Perhaps the hon. member would like to discuss it at ten o'clock.


James Elisha Brown: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: My
question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister indicate whether he has received telegrams and other confirmation of increases in farm machinery prices? Does he now intend to take the promised action to discourage these increases?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: I have seen the press reports in this regard but I have not yet had replies from farm machinery companies to which I have written about this matter. I shall keep the house posted in this regard.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: My
question is for the Minister of Labour, but perhaps it should be directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the dispute between Air Canada and certain of its employees, can the minister say what the situation is with regard to conciliation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the report of the conciliation board in this dispute which was made public earlier this month, it was stated that the three members of the board, by agreement with the two parties, were to continue to serve as mediators. Such mediation is continuing, and meetings have been arranged for early this week. This work is continuing and when I have anything to report I shall do so. So long as there is a reasonable expectation of the parties getting together-and they have indicated an intent'on to work toward that end-in my opinion the Department of Labour should not intervene.
November 7, 1966



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: My question is for the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as President of the Treasury Board, which is now negotiating with the letter carriers and others in the Post Office Department. Now that the strike date has been set by some employees, can the minister bring us up to date on the negotiations and on the hopes for settlement?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Negotiations are taking place and have been, continuously, for the past couple of weeks. We shall meet the postal workers again tomorrow. My information, contrary to my hon. friend's, is not that a strike date has been set but merely that authorization for a strike has been received by the postal leaders from members of the unions. In addition to that, I wish to point out to the house that negotiations at the same time are taking place with the Civil Service Alliance which represents almost an equal number of workers in group D.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say whether the only settlement the postal employees and personnel in association with them would consider would be an implementation of the Pearson formula?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what my hon. friend is talking about. There have been many statements which are not supported by anything. I should like to know what this particular statement is about.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a surprising thing if the minister has not heard of this, or read it. There have been statements on the radio, on television and in the press that the president of the postal organization has said that the Pearson formula is the only basis of settlement. Has the minister not been told that?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker. This must be something like the Diefenbaker formula for leadership.


John George Diefenbaker: May I suggest to the hon. member that that kind of smart alec answer will not be satisfactory to the postal employees of Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: We have been dealing fairly, honestly and in good faith with the postal workers of Canada, and I am not sure that the right hon. gentleman has been dealing in the same way with the members of his party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he received protests against the proposed closing of a large number of offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and will he give an assurance that the arguments for continuing the offices will be given careful consideration before any are closed?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This question has been raised in the house several times during recent months. In answer to a question that was put on the order paper, the Unemployment Insurance Commission advised that they had already closed a number of offices and proposed closing others before the end of this year. They have also given notice that they expect to close more offices in the interests of efficiency and economy next year. However, I can assure the hon. member that the chairman of the commission has assured me they will listen to representations from any town, city or area which wishes to make them pending the final decision on closure. A number of offices have already been closed, however, as I have pointed out.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister, or his department, authorized the issue of applications for the new defence force as envisaged in the bill now on the order paper?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry, but I did not catch the import of the question.

November 7, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edward Nasserden: Has the minister, or his department, authorized the issue of applications for the new defence force as envisaged in the piece of legislation now on the order paper?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am very happy to have recruits for any of the three services at the moment.


Michael Starr: You're not kidding.


Edward Nasserden: I wonder whether the minister would answer the question I asked him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not sure what it was, but if the hon. member would put it on the order paper I will attempt to answer it as soon as possible.


Edward Nasserden: I wanted to know whether members of the army, the air force and the navy had been asked to sign applications for the new defence force before the bill was placed on the order paper of this house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Of course not. To my knowledge, certainly not.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: My question was intended for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his absence, perhaps the acting minister would take it as notice and have it answered tomorrow. Would the minister investigate the manner in which Mexican Mennonites are being transported into Canada by truck, under six months visitors permits, in conditions which would not be tolerated even in the transport of cattle?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Without accepting the premise included in the question, I shall be glad to see that the question is passed on to the minister for investigation. As the acting minister I will take it as notice.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question: When 29 people are transported 2,000 miles without a stop, in a light delivery truck-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a supplementary question.
IMr. Heliyer.]



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Slanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I regret I did not send him notice, but it relates to a matter within his department-and I am sure he is "on top" of his department.
Has the airport operations analysis unit, which was formed in May to observe airports during the summer and find out whether their facilities are adequate, yet reported to the department and, if so, can any of this unit's reports be tabled?
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I do not discern the urgency of this question but if the hon. gentleman would like to put it on the order paper I will concurrently make inquiries with a view to answering it.


Mr. Knowles:: I think this is a matter which deserves discussion at ten o'clock.



HISTORIC SITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: May I address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and ask him whether he can throw some light on the removal of the memorial to those who lost their lives at sea during the second world war, and its rumoured burial in the Bedford Basin? Is this true? If it is, can the minister tell us whether this memorial will be replaced and, in that case, whether it will bear the names of those 2,853 men?
Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): I presume the hon. member is referring to the Halifax memorial at the citadel. If that is the case I would say that the memorial, very badly damaged at the moment, needs to be replaced. After discussing this matter with the Halifax authorities and the various bodies interested, including the National Historic Monuments Commission as well as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is responsible for this memorial, it has been decided to build a memorial at Point Pleasant Park. The memorial will be different from the kind which now exists. It will, however, continue to commemorate the lives of those lost at sea.
November 7, 1966


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the minister confirm or deny the rumor that the memorial in its present form has been deposited in the ocean, somewhere. It has come to my attention that it has been dumped unceremoniously on the bottom of Bedford Basin.


Mr. Teillel:: Perhaps I should look into that; it is some time since I have given consideration to this matter. I will get precise information and let the hon. member know.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: I rise on a question of privilege relating to a question which I addressed to the Minister of Transport perhaps a week or ten days ago. It is simply this: I asked the minister to investigate the possibility of increasing the service of Air Canada from the capital in a westerly direction. I found toward the end of last week-end that this service had been tremendously improved, and I would appreciate it if the minister would convey thanks accordingly to those concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate this question of privilege, which is not a question of privilege. But I appreciate it just the same.


Michael Starr: Is that a ruling or an observation?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Could the Minister of Transport tell us how soon we may expect to receive the Robinson report on air traffic control, an important report affecting air traffic procedures in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer, sir, is, no.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am afraid the brevity of that answer confused me. I was asking when we might expect a report. Is there to be no report, or-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was answering the hon. member's question literally. He asked me whether I could tell him something and I could not, because I do not know, but I will try 'o find out.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



PLACING OF ORDER FOR DRONE AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the defence department placed an order for the drone aircraft known as the CL-89 and, if so, for how many?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We did co-operate with the United Kingdom in the development of these drone reconnaissance vehicles. Speaking from memory, I think we placed an order for three so as to provide for trial evaluation. But I will check, and if that is not correct I will advise the hon. member in the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that 40 odd test flights of the drone aircraft have proven to be unsuccessful?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Burnaby-Richmond.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has he received a communication from the grain handlers union in Vancouver stating that some of the elevators are operating below capacity because of lack of delivery from prairie points? I realize this does not come under the minister, but perhaps he would accept the question and transfer it to the Minister of Transport.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received such a communication, but I will take the question as notice.
[ Translation]



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he tell the house when the ad hoc cabinet committee appointed to inquire

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
into the problems raised by the C.N.T.U. before the Canada Labour Relations Board will report?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot answer that question. The matter is under study by the committee. The chairman of the committee is not in the house today, however, I will see that the hon. member's question is brought to his attention.
[DOT] (3:20 p.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 ercept 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:
[Mr. Gregoire.l
(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.
['Agreed.', 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.']
The Chairman:: The hon. member for
Brandon-Souris.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, looking back on the discussion which has taken place during the past week during consideration of interim supply, and particularly after examining the comments of the supporters on the government side of the house, it would be fair to conclude that these hon. gentlemen would like to see the supply debate terminated at the earliest possible moment. Now, I have a very good solution to the dilemma in which they find themselves. I hope they will take the advice which has been given several times from this side during the course of the discussion, as well as the advice which has been given in responsible newspapers across the country, particularly over the week end since the bill to re-organize the Canadian armed forces was tabled and given first reading. Already there has been a spontaneous outcry in the responsible press across the nation to the effect that the course of action recommended by members of the official opposition is the only solution which will make it possible for this house to get on with the important business of the nation.
We have suggested that the subject of defence re-organization, which up until the tabling of the bill on Friday was pretty much an unknown quantity, should be referred to the standing committee on national defence so that we might have the opportunity to hear expert testimony from those who, to an increasing extent in the past weeks and months, have been protesting the course now being taken. As I say, this is a viewpoint expressed forcibly not only by members of the opposition, because we now have been joined in this advocacy in the strongest possible terms by newspaper editorial comment across the nation.
A.s I have indicated, up until the tabling of the bill on Friday, there was a haze of mystery surrounding the intention of the minister with regard to this important subject. No one-and at times I think this would include the minister-seemed to know what specific terms the government had in mind in re-organizing the defence forces. In the initial
November 7, 1966

stages it had been suggested it was a process of integration that would result in a saving of money and an increase in efficiency. There were those who suspected that integration was going to be carried through to unification, and that the Canadian armed forces were going to be transformed from a defence force to a glorified international peace force. The bill has confirmed our worst fears in this regard.
When the minister has participated in the course of the debate he has indicated that his position has been crystal clear, right from the very beginning of his tour of duty as the minister of defence. Even though I have not been a member of the committee, both inside and outside the house, I have endeavoured to follow the ministerial meanderings. I must confess that I have received a more clear-cut idea of what the minister had in mind from his statements outside the house than from those he has made in the house.
In order to indicate that there has been a haze of misunderstanding and lack of information on this subject, I am going to quote no less an authority than Mr. Blair Fraser, writing on this subject in Maclean's magazine as far back as January 25, 1964 under the heading "Can an ex-private bring common sense to our defence policy?" This indicates, I believe, that the minister did not have the foggiest notion where we were heading on defence policy. On page 37 of that issue Mr. Fraser made the following statement:
Final decisions on the size and type of Canada's ground forces will be part of the decisions about Canadian armed services in general. These will be more closely co-ordinated, less independently concluded by army, navy and air force. The decisions themselves will be determined by the role that will be more precisely defined in future than it has been in the past.
Integration of the services doesn't have to mean that any of the traditional services will be abolished, or that all servicemen must wear the same uniform. All that's likely is the establishment of a clear, common chain of command, with common services (supplies, accounting, procurement, etc.) when they can reduce costs or increase efficiency. The effect on efficiency is expected to be greater than the effect on costs-few people who have studied the structure of defence think integration will make it much cheaper, but they do think it would become a lot more efficient.
That was a statement by Mr. Blair Fraser when the minister first announced his policy. This statement is along lines parallel to the sentiments which have been expressed on this side of the house.
Interim Supply
It is quite obvious that during the past two years the minister has gone much further than he himself originally contemplated in the reorganization of Canada's armed forces. I think he has been pushed over the precipice by the strength and influence of his own press releases, because it must be admitted that until quite recently press commentary with respect to this drastic, major overhaul, has been largely of a laudatory nature.
I have indicated that it has been in speeches made outside the House of Commons that the minister has revealed his real intent. Last July it was my privilege to attend the meetings of the Air Force Association held in Edmonton, at which the minister was guest speaker. He clearly set forth there, in fact more clearly than we have heard it expressed in the House of Commons, the ultimate purposes he had in mind. He pointed out that he had consulted with his advisers that they had come to the conclusion that there would not be any nuclear war in the future, and that therefore Canada did not have to make any provision in that regard. He said, further that after consulting with his advisers they had reached the conclusion that neither would there be a conventional war in the future. And, speaking of advisers, it is remarkable that many of the minister's advisers have either resigned or been prematurely retired, and recently have been protesting quite vigorously against the minister's policy.
He also said that what we would have to contend with in the future was a series of brush-fire operations, and that this is what the government of Canada was gearing Canadian forces to meet. Now we know, and this has been substantiated in the bill introduced last week, that our national defence program has been reduced to a peace-keeping force that might be described in terms of an international R.C.M.P., integrated, unified, and so carefully streamlined that it will remove forever Canada's position of influence as a world force in determining world affairs. It is little wonder that over the week end editorial comment has strongly protested against this procedure.
During the course of this debate on unification over the past two years I have often wondered about the motivation of the minister in trying to turn back the clock by one half century in the matter of Canada's defence policy. This is exactly what he is trying to do: He is trying to go back to a period some 50 years ago when we had a

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
unified force. At that time we had no navy and no air force. Our armed services were unified, largely because we were regarded as an insignificant power in world affairs. It was only over the course of the past 50 years emerging out of Canada's gradual development, and her growing position in world affairs, we achieved a defence policy which makes it possible to maintain our sovereignty and be listened to with respect in the councils of the nations.
For example, in world war I and world war II the Canadian navy established a reputation and built up traditions that are second to none. It was only within the past quarter century that our air force established a similar enviable reputation among the defence forces of the world. Now the minister is reversing that policy, and blandly says that his is a new concept in military policy which is going to produce the most efficient, the most envied, well organized and effective fighting force of any nation in the world, and that within a decade or so every other nation will be following Canada's good example.
The minister further says that though there have been temporary set-backs, as has already been pointed out today in matters of morale and recruitment, these will be short lived, and once the people of Canada and the members of the armed forces understand what the government is trying to do, they will flock to the colours in unprecedented numbers. This reminds me of the supreme optimist who said, "Today things are average. It is true things are worse this year, but they will be worse next year." This is what we can anticipate from the policy announced by the minister in the bill which he introduced last Friday.
Why is the government taking this step? Some have suggested that it is part of the continuing campaign that goes on among government frontbenchers with respect to personal advancement and consideration in the leadership race. I am not going into that argument. It has been covered substantially during the course of this debate, but certainly the unseemly haste in proceeding with this matter and the stubborn refusal to allow the defence committee to make a thorough review of it, would suggest that there is a rigid timetable involved, with events to culminate about the middle of centennial year, 1967.
Others have suggested that it is the result of personal pique because the minister had an unhappy experience during his own service career. There was confusion between the

armed forces, with the result that he received double inoculations and that sort of thing because the services did not compare medical notes. Some have said that it is because of this personal experience that the process of rigid unification is being pressed. If this is so I would remind the minister that that problem has already been resolved because the medical corps is now integrated, in line with the sensible and reasonable policy of integration established under Hon. George Pearkes. Integration is what we thought was in the government's mind when it first started on this course to avoid duplication in the purchasing service, the medical corps, the recruiting service, and so forth; but now we know that with respect to national sovereignty and the armed services, we are going backwards 50 years.
I do not see how anyone who served operationally in either world war, and particularly in world war II, could become obsessed and preoccupied with the subject of unification according to the terms as set out in the bill now before the house. We found that the best type of unification took place during world war II when it became necessary to move forward as a combined force. Speaking from the air force standpoint, I recall that we were organized into airfields, and air crew were trained in infantry combat techniques. In addition to being trained in multiple military skills we also had the incentive to maintain our own unit identification, our national identification, and that spirit of healthy competition and rivalry which is basic to the maintenance of morale in the armed forces.
This is the best kind of unification. Anyone who has had combat experience must appreciate that if you try to destroy the traditions of unit designations, if you try to put everyone in the same common mould, if you try to destroy the heritage of the Canadian armed forces that has grown up over the past 50 years, then in effect you are doing precisely what that great number of former advisers to the minster have been warning us about since their resignations and premature firings -you are destroying the ability of the Canadian forces to maintain their obligation as a national defence force. So I would say that if there is any personal pique involved in this matter, let us set it aside and think in terms of the welfare of Canada.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Some say that there is a republican motivation behind this move; that this is one way of
November 7, 1966

getting rid of the symbols of our military and political heritage, namely, by erasing and eliminating the structure that has developed slowly over the years and in this fashion start again from scratch. The authority for this particular viewpoint is, of course, Mr. Terence Robertson, who over the past few years has been quite close to the Prime Minister in these matters, and professes to be quoting the desire of the Prime Minister with respect to our armed forces.
But there is another reason, and this has not been discussed very much in the House of Commons. I would say that this is typical Liberal philosophy toward Canada's defence program. We have only to go back to preworld war II to realize the situation that existed on the eve of that world war. We have only to go back to the immediate postworld war II period to realize that Canada reduced its armed forces to such an extent that when Korea came along in the early 1950's we had to resort to a crash program. During those days Hon. Brooke Claxton was our minister of national defence. This was at the time I first came into the house. Hon. Brooke Claxton was constantly under fire because the government had destroyed the ability of our armed forces to meet any defence obligation which might arise in the sort of world in which we were then living. Indeed, the situation in which we are living now is even more serious, and threatening. We had to build up our armed forces suddenly from scratch. I would say that the defence mess that resulted in the early 1950's was largely a result of the typical Liberal approach to Canada's defence.
When the minister came into office he said there was a mess in the Department of National Defence. If there was any mess it was due to the period of scurrying about in the early 1950's trying to make amends for policy reversals which took place at the end of world war II, which were much the same as some of the policy decisions which appear to be motivating the bill that is now before us. The first attempt to bring order out of chaos came about in 1957, when the long lived Liberal administration was replaced by a Conservative administration. Then, the Hon. George Pearkes, the first minister of national defence under the Conservatives, started an integration program which was designed to bring about over a reasonable period of time, the savings in tax dollars and the efficiency about which the minister first talked when he vaguely referred to integration. These two
Interim Supply
objectives will be destroyed if he goes through with the unification program contemplated.
I have already indicated to the minister and the government that if they want to get on with the business of the house, if they want to close this interim supply debate, all they have to do-and it is their decision to make-is accept the reasonable request that has come from members of the New Democratic Party, members of this party and is now being re-echoed across the country. I refer to the request that a matter as important as this, one involving the sovereignty of Canada and our ability to meet our defence obligations including our obligations and commitments under NATO and the United Nations organization, should go immediately to the defence committee. We in this party can assure the minister that our most knowledgeable members on defence will be seconded to that committee. The minister claims that the committee has had an opportunity to discuss defence matters comprehensively and thoroughly.
I have not been a member of the defence committee and I was amazed, when I considered the developments from outside the committee, that there had not been a protest long before from some of our permanent force people. It seemed passing strange to me that, when the government was proceeding with a policy that we conjecture will destroy our defence integrity, those men in the upper echelon of the three branches of the service should remain quiet. But now there are 40 such men available to give expert advice on the matter. They are available to give the expert advice that obviously the minister ignored at, I would say, the peril of the country. I am not speaking of the peril of the government, because the minister might be able to bamboozle the people of Canada by an attack on the brass, those men who have given distinguished service to Canada over the years, who have served a life time, some of them in two world wars and whose advice has been completely ignored.
These men are now being derided by the Minister of National Defence as hidebound Colonel Blimps. For my money, Mr. Chairman, I would much rather take the advice of these distinguished servicemen designated by the Minister of National Defence as Colonel Blimps than the group of men he now seems to have around him as advisers. They are obviously not advising on defence policy; they have been chosen for their positions because

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
they are willing to serve as apologists for the government.
This debate has been going on in the house for several months, and it will go on with increasing force across the country. 1 suggest that it would be in the best interests of Canada if we took this discussion out of the arena of partisan politics and personal and party ambitions. We should have a face to face confrontation of members of this house from all parties and the men who resigned in protest, but who seem willing now to bring the information to the attention of the people of Canada, through the instrumentality of the defence committee.
The minister has been attempting to deal with the decline in our armed forces in various ways. He has, for example, increased the rates of pay to the armed forces, which is to be desired if it is followed by other necessary measures. But I am sure that members on all sides of the house will agree that the strength of Canada's defence policy has been, not necessarily in the permanent force men but in the citizen basis of the armed forces.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The voluntary support of our citizens has made it possible for Canada to play an important role in the two world wars of the twentieth century. One cannot inspire cooperation, support and patriotism by depending on a mercenary approach to service to one's country. While it is true that a little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down in the long run and in the kind of world in which we live today, it is the support of the citizens' army and of volunteers, such as we have had in the past, which will determine whether Canada has a force adequate to meet her international obligations.
Mr. Chairman, there is another matter which has been mentioned in the course of this debate, that is the future function of our committee system. During the past few months we have made some worthwhile breakthroughs in parliamentary committees. As has been said on several occasions during the course of this discussion, if the minister, in the face of a growing appeal from all across the country, declines to give the members of this house and the people of Canada who are vitally interested in defence matters the opportunity to use the broadened scope of our parliamentary committee system, I am afraid that the new, noble experiment will expire before it really becomes alive.

This subject is too important to become bogged down in a partisan rough and tumble in this House of Commons. It should be above and beyond the ambitions of any one man, particularly of the Minister of National Defence. As we move forward in this discussion, there is only one matter to be decided and one point to be assured, that is that Canada's armed forces will continue to play a strong role as a part of Canadian foreign policy and as a most vital aspect of our maintenance of national sovereignty.
I agree with an increasing number of people in the country who believe that the minister's bill is going to set back our progress in this regard by some 50 years. I plead with him, while there is still opportunity, to refer this matter to the committee on defence. He has indicated he will do so after second reading of the bill. We all know that after second reading the principle has been established, and discussion of this bill in committee can only be a rearguard action. Now is the proper time to do it. We have other important matters to come before the house, and there is no necessity for unseemly haste.
Integration of the healthy variety has been proceeding at a proper pace. If we proceed to unification now we will reduce the Canadian armed forces to the position in which they were during the years immediately following world war II. I am sure the minister, who was in the House of Commons in the early 1950's will agree that that would be a disaster to be avoided at any cost.


Mr. Salisman:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to use the few minutes at my disposal today to discuss the proposed route of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines through the United States. It is my opinion, and the opinion of the party I represent, that the government's decision to approve Trans-Canada's application for this route will be a step that Canada will have every reason to regret. This is one further step along the route to continentalism. I presume most Canadians have not had an opportunity to make their decision as to whether or not our economy should be integrated with that of the United States. Since this opportunity has not been provided, I hope the government will not take steps to preclude such a decision. This government does not have a mandate to create a continental economy. I hope they will recognize this fact, and withhold the application, because certainly this is the crux of the matter. The government is not the only one that has taken us
November 7, 1966

down this path. The much heralded national oil policy, which was brought in by the Conservative government when they were in power and was supposed to be an answer to all our problems, has not worked to the advantage of Canada.
Certainly, it has corrected some minor deficiencies and to some extent it has increased the production of oil in the west. But I would submit that we could have done a great deal better had we then decided to build a pipe line to Montreal, instead of allowing the oil companies to decide the way in which our oil was going to be marketed in this country and all around the world. It is certainly true that the national oil policy was not based on a decision of the government but on the decision of the oil companies who wrote it and suggested it to the government of the day. The national oil policy has helped no one except the international oil cartel of the world which has decided on the allocation of markets and we have fought for them every inch of the way in order to get sufficient exports. This policy has not achieved the purpose for which it was created at that time. I think it can be pointed out that the members of my party supported the policy. I suggest that had they been able to foresee the development of that policy, they would certainly not have supported it at the beginning. We are not prepared to do so today.
There are also indications from members of the other political parties-although they are hesitant about saying so-that the national oil policy is in serious need of review. I think we should not just review the policy. We should abandon it and create a new policy which will ensure that all Canadian oil needs are met from Canadian production. Some of the studies that have been made indicate that such a policy is feasible.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask the hon. member to what studies he is referring?


Max Saltsman: I do not have them with me, but I shall be pleased to show them to the minister at a later date.
The United States automotive agreement is another instance of a situation into which we have drifted. We are now in a position where even those who do not want to see an integrated auto industry between Canada and the United States have no choice in the matter. We are therefore faced with a continental automobile policy. And now we are being asked to endorse a continental gas policy. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the time has come,
Interim Supply
if we are genuinely concerned about retaining the differences between our country and our neighbour to the south, to say no; it has gone far enough.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We could not halt the drift to a continental policy when the national oil policy was introduced. We probably could not halt the drift to a continental policy in automobiles. I submit, however, that we certainly can halt this drift today to an integrated gas policy, and this is what we should do.
I really cannot understand how we have placed ourselves in this position. I watched the minister when members of the opposition made speeches in favour of his policy. I would have thought he would have been elated to have the members of the Conservative party supporting his position; but I did not see too much satisfaction in his manner. Nor do I think he has any reason to take very much satisfaction in view of what has happened. I would rather suspect the minister today is not that happy with the proposal he has been asked to support and present to this house.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister, who I think is a genuine nationalist, has been sold out. I think he has been sold down the river. He has been faced with a situation over which he had no control. He has had his arm twisted and been told: "This is the situation; what are you going to do about it now?" The suggestion to him, I submit, Mr. Chairman, has been "you don't have any choice".
There was a very revealing encounter in the house the other day when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle made some comments about the National Energy Board knowing of the shortage of gas supplies which was developing in central Canada but not doing anything about it. The minister, like a good minister, rose to the defence of his department. He stood up and said-and I think I am quoting him correctly-that the National Energy Board had known about the shortage for three years and that they had told Trans-Canada Pipe Lines of this developing shortage. But there was no evidence during that period of time that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines made any effort to alleviate what they knew was going to be a severe shortage in this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I accept the first part of that statement but not the last part.

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply


Max Saltsman: What other conclusion can one come to, Mr. Minister? They must have known a shortage was developing, but what did they do to alleviate it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: A couple of paragraphs following the quotation to which the hon. member has now referred, I told the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines had been trying to alleviate it but had encountered some d.fficulties in putting together this project, as is very well known.


Max Saltsman: Three years seems to me a long time just to look at the difficulties, Mr. Chairman. One would think that a company which was in the business of providing gas to Canadians, a company which was given enormous advantages by parliament representing the people of Canada, would have kept in constant touch with consumer needs. One would have thought they would have been in a state of permanent anticipation of the problems as an indication of the responsible role that they play in this economy. If Trans-Canada was not at fault, then I suggest the government was seriously at fault for letting this situation drift for this period of time.
I say that, Mr. Chairman, because this is exactly what seems to have happened. We have drifted into a position where it appears that someone has said: "Regardless of the merits of the northern route, we are now in a crisis. We have come to the edge of a precipice and there is nothing we can do about it. On the basis of time alone, we must find a shorter route".
I do not think that this is really an accurate assessment of the problem, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, I do not think that Trans-Canada is making an accurate assessment of the problem. Most of us were tremendously happy when the Prime Minister announced that there would be an all-Canadian route. He made that announcement with a firmness that we had not seen since he took office. We were pleased that the Prime Minister, on behalf of the people of Canada, had taken the national stand that this pipe line would be under Canadian jurisdiction and that it would be built in this country.
That decision has been changed, Mr. Chairman. We have heard the argument why it has been changed. Apparently there was some misunderstanding as to which line was going to be the main pipe line and which was going to be the subsidiary pipe line.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the hon. member would allow me, may I say there was no misunderstanding. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines came to see the National Energy Board, and the National Energy Board then reported to the government on a particular project. The scheme of that project was that the main pipe line would not remain in Canada. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines then accepted a certain number of undertakings and guarantees. On the basis of these undertakings and guarantees, the government felt that there was justification for the project and they accepted it.


Max Saltsman: I thank the minister for giving me his point of view, but I am afraid I cannot accept it. With all due deference to the minister, I just cannot accept that some great, drastic change had taken place sufficient to cause a re-examination of this policy. I suggest that what happened was that the government buckled under the pressure that was exerted upon them; that is what really happened.
We have been told that the assurances that have been given will be carried out. Mr. Chairman, we have had all kinds of assurances given to us which have not been carried out. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated the whole history of this pipe line in Canada, and related the solemn assurances and promises which were given. Can the minister not appreciate that a few years later along has come Trans-Canada, again with what I would euphemistically call some very sound economic arguments, and again the decision will be made on the basis that certain protections have been provided? Can the minister say that we have not let down the barriers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Who knows?


Max Saltsman: The minister indicates that he does not know, and neither do I. But should we place ourselves in the position of routing a pipe line through the United States, the implications of which route we do not foresee?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Did the hon. member-


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the minister and I could get into a very interesting debate here, but I do have a limited time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry.


Mr. Foy:: Would the hon. member permit a question?
November 7, 1966


Max Saltsman: After I am through. I have permitted a number of questions up to now.


Walter Frank Foy: It is on the point the hon. member is making now, and it would be well to answer it now.


Max Saltsman: I will be pleased to receive the hon. member's question when I have finished my speech.
This is the crux of the argument, Mr. Chairman: We are now permitting a line to be built through part of the United States over which we would have no control and as to which the most solemn guarantees do not really meet the problem.


Walter Frank Foy: That is not true.


Max Saltsman: It is true. We have no control over a pipe line in the United States. Is the United States going to be prepared to relinquish its sovereignty over the operation of this pipe line?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member must remember that the National Energy Board must first authorize exports as well as re-imports.


Max Saltsman: It has been argued throughout this entire debate that Canada can turn off the tap. While we may be able to turn off the tap, if we have a billion dollar hostage of this kind in the United States then, unless the New Democratic Party forms the government of the day, I cannot see either the Liberals or the Conservatives making any decision which might jeopardize some Canadian business profits in the United States. We would have a hostage in the United States which we really do not want.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Walter Frank Foy: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Max Saltsman: I prefer to finish. Changing his seat does not alter the hon. member's position. I shall be glad to answer his question later.


An hon. Member:: We should have liked to hear him.


Max Saltsman: We have always known that many Liberal party members did not care much about nationalism. That is their right. There has been a conflict in the Liberal party over this sort of thing. We have always counted on that great rock, the Tory party, to uphold nationalism in Canada, but I am bitterly disappointed in my friends to my right for their attitude in this debate. Any hope of
Interim Supply
the opposition exerting enough pressure on the government to make it change its decision in this matter has gone. We have a new alliance. We have the Liberal party, which does not care too much for nationalism, and we have the Tory party which says it cares ferociously about nationalism. They say they are the party of Sir John A. Macdonald; that they built the railroad across this nation, and that this nation is our heritage. What do they say about their heritage now?
What would Sir John have said about the possibility of putting a pipe line through the United States because that would be a little cheaper? After all, such arguments were used on Sir John. They told him that the railways would be cheaper to build through the United States, but fortunately for Canada he did not listen. Today, unfortunately for Canada, the Conservative party has forgotten that lesson.
On Friday, the hon. member for Calgary South gave the new position of the Conservative party. That party has always been railing against the government over continen-talism. It took the government to task over the United States-Canada auto agreement. Quoting the hon. member for Calgary South on page 9563 of Hansard he says:
Any new look at the national oil policy should take into consideration the feasibility of a continental approach to oil and gas production.
The battle between the Liberal and Conservative parties for national policies seems to be over; both of them seeming to have succumbed to the lure of continentalism with respect to our oil and gas.
Today, when we know that the secret to industrial development, industrial efficiency and greatness is in the control and maintenance of power sources, we are prepared to integrate these sources with another nation's because it seems a faster buck can be made that way for some people.
What is the explanation for this? Have some people gone out of their minds? The people concerned look reasonably sane. Why have apparently intelligent people-and in some cases, concerned people-gone along with this proposal? What arguments have been advanced to make them adhere to this folly? Is it the National Energy Board's arguments? Is it Trans-Canada's arguments? Are they really that convincing? The arguments about cost have not convinced me. Is this way really cheaper? Is it really cheaper to go through the United States than through northern Canada? Have we examined what costs are being mentioned? We are arguing

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
about evidence to do with cost, which itself is conflicting, one way or the other.
It is fairly obvious, examining the long run cost advantages to Canada, that the northern route is infinitely better than the other. Aside from the initial dollar cost of construction, if we talk about the long range benefits, the employment opportunities that will open up, the assessment that will be possible in this country, the permanent retention of taxes here, it cannot be argued surely, that there is a cost advantage in going through the United States.
Yesterday a number of us were on a platform in Timmins with the mayors and reeves of many surrounding municipalities. The mayor of Timmins pointed out clearly the benefits already evidenced by the presence of the pipe line in northern Ontario. He showed what kind of loss will accrue to northern Ontario if this pipe line goes elsewhere. He pointed out that many people cannot work in mines, or underground, and to those people the pipe line will bring excellent job opportunities.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Is the hon. member referring to the operation or the construction?


Max Saltsman: I am referring to the long range costs. Surely one cannot say that there is only the cost of construction. We shall be around for a long time after the construction is finished.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the hon. member refers to operation, the system will be operated by the same people who now operate the pipe line in southern Ontario.


Max Saltsman: There are great advantages to the northern all Canadian route. Additional opportunities will be provided as well as additional taxes, because the assessment will be greater in this country if the line stays here. Those are real advantages in the long run.
The so-called cost advantages, I point out-and these have been disputed-are not of the magnitude to influence the construction of such a project. Let me go one step farther. Even if someone said that the cost advantage, by the integrated approach as opposed to the national approach is 5 per cent, we ought not to hold our nationhood so cheaply that we would sell out for 5 per cent.
There has been talk about time, and that time is of the essence. The people in southern Ontario it is said need gas immediately. They cannot wait for the three years it would take

to loop the northern route. I have already pointed out that we have known for a long time that a shortage was developing in southern and northern Ontario. Some companies are not operating on gas all the time but frequently have to switch to coal. This shortage is nothing new. The time factor, I suggest, has been deliberately used to create a crisis and force us into the position we are in now. If we are really that concerned we could get gas immediately. There is no problem.
An alternate proposal is that we take our Canadian gas at Emerson and bring it into Sarnia. Trans-Canada need not be in the United States to do this. This gas can come in. There is no question of feeding the fuel hungry markets of the south. I submit the only question is whether Trans-Canada will be supplying the gas. The government should be more concerned with the long range future of Canada than the long range future of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company.
We have talked about consumer benefits. Coming back to the oil policy, has the consumer really benefitted from the national oil policy? We have given the oil companies everything they wanted, the result being that we have one of the highest retail gasoline prices in the world. We, in Canada, sit on this fabulous resource and we have one of the highest retail gas prices in the world.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We claim to have a free market but, as everyone knows, the market is not free; Venezuela crude coming in at Montreal enters at a protected price. This protected price is imposed not by the Canadian government but by the oil companies themselves. The same crude sells for less in almost every other port in the world-I am excluding transportation costs. There is a two-price system, one for Canada and another for the rest of the world. This is the natural result of the kind of oil policy we have set up. We have set up our oil policy to keep our balance of payments. Certainly, we have increased our production of crude oil. We have exported more to the United States. But at the same time we are importing oil faster than ever before, and we still have a net deficit on balance of payments though we are sitting beside one of the richest pools of natural resources in the world. This does not make much sense. We have to examine the arguments which are advanced on behalf of the consumer. As far as the consumer is concerned I suggest that the United States proposal to bring gas to
November 7. 1966

Windsor from the south, with Canadian production being sold in the western part of the United States, is a better deal. Then again, if we are so concerned about the consumer, why do we not remove the tax from imports at that point?
I should like to consider the position of the provinces. Will the provinces suffer? Are we doing this to help those provinces to whose budgets gas is an important item? In a country such as Canada I do not think cost can be the only criterion. I believe we must be very concerned about the welfare of our provinces and that we should do as much as we can to help them. Whether Trans-Canada gets into the United States or not, the gas we are considering will still be sold in the United States. Trans-Canada is not the only company which wants to buy the gas. Other companies want to buy it and from the point of view of the provincial government I do not see there is any real ground for insisting that it should he Trans-Canada rather than another company. The gas is available for export. I believe the energy board should be willing to provide a licence to export that gas to any United States company which is willing to buy it.
Why do I take that attitude instead of insisting that Trans-Canada be in the United States market? Well, there is the question of a hostage being given to the United States, and that is what Trans-Canada would be. If we were dealing with a United States company we could turn off the tap at Emerson if we wanted to, after making suitable arrangements with the United States. But the tap will never be turned off, regardless of Canadian needs, if the company in the United States is closely identified with Canada.
I think we must recognize that the interests of a company or of a corporation are different from the interests of a nation. I am not blaming Trans-Canada for what it is doing. Trans-Canada is out to make a buck; it is out to make a good deal for itself, and I do not think any company should be held up to scorn for this. It is in the nature of business.
I do suggest that the interests of the stockholders and the interests of the company's corporate future are much more important to Trans-Canada than are the interests of Canada. Briefly, we should not expect a company to make a choice between profits and patriotism. That choice is the responsibility of a government elected by the people. If a company is trying to do its best for its shareholders, that is fine.
Interim Supply
The Depuiy Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Max Saltsman: May I have a few moments more?


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.
The Depuiy Chairman: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Max Saltsman: I should like to thank all hon. members for their indulgence. This will also provide an opportunity, I hope, for some questions to be dealt with.
The important issue facing us today is whether decisions affecting the future of this nation shall be made in the board rooms of the business community or in the cabinet of this country. I wish to say one word about business ownership. There seems to be a myth developing in this country that there is something inherently more moral about Canadian ownership than about United States ownership. This leads to endless confusion. I want to make this clear: from my point of view it really is not important who owns our industry. In many cases United States ownership of industry has worked better in Canada than has Canadian ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Max Saltsman: The important thing is who makes the decisions about what the industry does on behalf of the Canadian people. A Canadian-owned corporation will be no more benevolent, no more patriotic, than a United States-owned corporation and we might as well get this into our heads and get rid of this idea that because a company is Canadian it will act in the Canadian interest. There is no evidence for such a belief. Had it been well founded, our industry would not now be owned to such an extent by Americans. There has apparently been no reluctance on the part of Canadian companies to sell out when lucrative United States offers were made.
I shall not ask the indulgence of the committee further. To sum up, I will simply say that it will be an ironic moment in Canadian history if the federal power commission turns down the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, as it may very well do. It will be ironic in this sense, that it will have taken a combination of a foreign government and Texas buccaneers to save us from our own folly.

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply


John Angus MacLean: As I rise to take part in this debate on interim supply, it is my intention to deal with defence matters. I make no apology for this, because defence is at all times an important subject and at the present moment it is a subject which is of prime importance to Canadians generally. Indeed, I would say it is of overriding importance for a number of reasons.
One of these is the share of national taxation taken by the defence department. At the present time the government of Canada requires about $400 in taxes from every citizen, man woman and child, to run this country for a year. Almost a quarter of this total goes for defence. In round figures this amounts to about $100 a year in respect of every man, woman and child in the country, probably more than is collected in most cases for all the municipal taxes throughout the year.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Therefore, from the point of view of the tax burden alone I think this is a very important subject. It is extremely important, however, for other reasons as well. Three years ago when this government came to power, a special committee on defence was set up. I had the honour to be a member of that original committee, and have been a member ever since of the succeeding special committee which eventually became a standing committee. The original members of that committee applied themselves diligently to the problems of defence for Canada. The committee was set up in June 1963, and reported to parliament on December 20, 1963. In that connection, I should like to quote briefly from the report of the first committee. I think it is important I should do so. I will endeavour to make my quotations as brief as possible. On page 19 of that report of three years ago the committee says:
As far as the committee could discern, the morale of the service personnel and their dependents, on the bases visited, was high.
So, three years ago the committee believed that morale was high. Then on page 22 of that report we find the following comments on the defence of Canada. The report was divided into 9 chapters and this is chapter VII. The committee said:
Many cities are open to attack. However, there is need for troops which can be moved towards the territory where an enemy invasion is staged. We need also an air force able to control the territory and to move troops where they are required for the defence of the territory
[Mr. Saltsman.l
Then, the committee said:
In order to follow up chapter seven, further time is required to study the following matters:
Problems of defending Canadian territory with special reference to
(a)	number and kind of troops required;
(b)	degree of mobility of such forces;
(c)	role of the air force;
(d)	role of the navy.
These are the things the committee wishes to study further. Then, further on, when dealing with defence policy, the committee had this to say in paragraph 91 on page 22:
The main concern is to establish a policy with a view to the defence of the Canadian territory which is geographically located between two nuclear powers: the Soviets and the United States.
In order to ensure the adequate defence of its land, Canada must not rely only on land forces but also on the constant control of its air space and the patrol of its territorial waters by the Canadian navy.
Beyond its territorial boundaries, Canada must, in conjunction with our allies, add to the deterrence of war; this entails the necessity of consultation with and active participation in the alliances Canada supports.
Canadian forces, subject to Canada's capabilities and other commitments, should be available, under proper control to answer a call from the United Nations for its peace-keeping role in the world.
Then on page 21 the committee had this to say with regard to NORAD:
This Committee recommends;
(a) That Canada remain a member of NORAD, since the defence of North America is a joint responsibility.
(b)	That, as long as attack by enemy bombers remains a continuing threat, though of a diminishing nature, Canada must share in the defence against that threat.
Again on page 19 this is said:
Your Committee recommends:
(a) In view of the military contribution of our armed forces in Europe as well as the psychological effect of their presence, Canadian forces should remain in Europe.
Then, perhaps most important of all, on page 23 the committee had this to say with regard to the organization of the Department of National Defence:
The committee could not study in all its details the organization of the Department of National Defence, but after the evidence given by the minister, the chiefs of staff and many other witnesses, it can point out some problems which it intends to examine when it resumes its activities during the next session. These are:
(a)	Nature and extent of civilian control.
(b)	The organization of the chief of staff structure.
There are others, but I will not quote them.
November 7, 1966

Then, on page 8 of the report the committee has this to say:
This interim report is submitted at this time so that the government may have the committee's present recommendations before the government brings down its proposed white paper on defence.
The interim report of the committee was made in December 1963. The white paper was tabled in March 1964. So far as I can see, the white paper paid precious little attention to the recommendations the committee had made and paid no attention whatsoever to the matter of giving the committee an opportunity to further study the important matters which the committee indicated required further study. The white paper pays far more attention to the rather dubious recommendations of the royal commission on government organization. There are, however, many things in the white paper which coincide with recommendations of the defence committee; that would be only natural. On page 5 of the white paper we see this:
The objectives of Canadian defence 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 airspace and our coastal waters.
The white paper lists the responsibilities and the trends in defence policy since 1945. These included such things as collective measures, the UN, the North Atlantic Alliance, and so on. On page 7, in respect of the innovations in our defence program after world war II, we find the following:
The post-war re-organization included, however, a number of important innovations. The R.C.N. and the R.C.A.F. achieved real, rather than nominal equality with the Army. This development reflected lessons of the second world war and, in particular, the importance of both air and sea power. There was a general belief that in any future war Canada's principal contribution might best be made in the air or at sea. It was argued that as a nation possessing a relatively small population but an advanced technology, with an historic objection to conscription and separated by an ocean from any probable theatre of war, Canada was well placed to supply air and naval forces but at a disadvantage in supplying large land forces.
On page 11 of the white paper we find these statements:
However, the Communist countries can be expected to continue to promote expansionist aims by measures short of all-out war. Tensions will persist. In the North Atlantic area there will, therefore, remain a corresponding need to maintain intact the military and political cohesion of NATO.
Interim Supply
Then further down the page:
But it is essential that a nation's diplomacy be backed up by adequate and flexible military forces to permit participation in collective security and peacekeeping, and to be ready for crises should they arise.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I hesitate to give so many quotations, but I think some excerpts from the white paper on defence and from the reports of the several special committees on national defence give us a little background to this very important matter.
At page 24 the white paper deals with priorities as follows:
The choice of priorities outlined above is based on the following assessment:
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 UN peace-keeping operations which would be included also in (1) above.
5.	Reserve forces and mobilization potential.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I have quoted extensively from the white paper, but I wish to give one more fairly lengthy quotation from it, which is important, under the heading "NATO Maritime":
It is planned to continue in the anti-submarine role. Canada has a large capital investment in this capacity and special skills and training as well. Current developments give promise of considerable effectiveness from a "mixed" force of modest size. . .
In this connection, careful study is being given to the possibility of building two or three nuclear-powered submarines, which are powerful antisubmarine weapons. This is, however, a large issue and it cannot be decided immediately. In any event, the requirement for naval forces will continue to be related mainly to our alliance contributions. To this end, a modem and well-equipped fleet of appropriate size is to be maintained.
There is very Little in the white paper dealing with unification. As a matter of fact the only appropriate reference I see is on page 19, and I quote:
Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single Chief of Defence Staff and a single Defence Staff.
As hon. members know, this has already been done.
This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
A succeeding special committee studied the bill which proposed substituting one chief of staff for the three chiefs of staff of the three

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
services. But no evidence was sought, and it would seem that none was given, to support the minister's contention that the amalgamation of the three services under one chief of staff would result in the effiicency that was forecast. I contend that the savings about which we heard so much have not been realized, and an increase in efficiency has not taken place. But what does the minister do in this situation? He proceeds to jump from the frying pan into the fire and move ahead with unification of our three services, in effect wiping out the navy, the army and the air force, and substituting a single force for them.
The minister, on occasion, has asked why should we in the opposition be talking about unification now, since this is something that was forecast in the white paper, and since the white paper had been approved by the House of Commons. What utter nonsense, Mr. Chairman. The house has neither approved nor disapproved of the white paper on defence.
It is well to remind ourselves what a white paper is. It is not, of course, the voice of God at which all men should tremble. A white paper is not a holy document carved in stone. It is not even a pronouncement from Mount Olympus. It is merely a tentative forecast on a proposed government policy, and where parliamentary approval is required, its aims cannot be carried into effect until that approval is given by the passage of legislation. If there are certain elements in it which do not require the passage of legislation, then the government can take action with regard to them on its own responsibility. But even then nothing can be implemented until it has the approval of parliament as a whole through the voting of supply; in other words, the giving of the money to carry out the program. It is the members of parliament, as the representatives of the taxpayers, who must decide whether or not the taxpayers should spend their money on such a thing.
The second special committee on defence examined Bill No. C-90 in a rather general way after second reading had been given to the bill, or in other words, after the die was already cast. That stratagem apparently worked so well for the minister's purposes that he wants to apply it with regard to unification, which is a much more important matter. On page 5 of the report of the second special committee we find these words:
During the committee's consideration of Bill C-90, evidence was heard respecting the impact of the proposed service reorganization on the manpower requirements of the services and the department. Information adduced was to the effect that the

manpower requirements of the services will drop by approximately 10,000 personnel over the next few years. The reduction in civilian strength may be considerably less, but no specific figures were available in this regard.
It was noted that the largest port of the reduction in strength would come from normal attrition.
But what are the facts, Mr. Chairman? Personnel in our armed forces have decreased by nearly 20,000 people, much below even the minister's revised authorized strength. And this reduction has not come about through a process of natural attrition. It has been the result of a combination of firings and premature retirements. Since January, 1965, up to October 12 of this year, 79 officers of the rank of Brigadier and up, or of corresponding rank, have left the services. Many retired prematurely. Some were fired. The total unexpired service of these officers comes to some 63.4 years, and the pensions to be paid them during the period of their premature retirements will cost the taxpayers of Canada over $811,000. Nor have their services been dispensed with, as some people have been led to believe, because they are no longer required. That is not the case. There are today only eight less officers of these ranks in the Canadian services than there were in 1960. So, obviously, when all these senior officers went out of the services prematurely for one reason or another-and we would like to know the real reasons-they had to be replaced by the promotion of somebody else.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is not my nature to try to apportion blame for this situation. Perhaps the committee is partly to blame. Perhaps the minister misconstrued some of the feelings of the committee with regard to this question and wrongly thought that he had the approval of the committee for unification. I am frank to admit that I was misled, for a number of reasons. One was that all the white paper had to say on this matter was:
It is the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single Chief of Defence Staff and a single defence staff. This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
We were led to believe, and the committee believed, that this first step is still in progress and will be for a number of years. Anybody knows that when one takes another step while one foot is still in mid-air, he will fall flat on his face. That is the position we are in today; we are still in the midst of taking the first step. Last June, as reported at page 183 of the minutes of evidence of the committee, I asked Lieutenant General Fleury a question
November 7, 1966



on the subject of the integration of the supply services. I asked about the savings that might be anticipated from such integration, and he had this to say:
Well, sir, there is no doubt at all that with the integration of the three existing supply systems there will be a considerable saving in manpower. But I would like to point out quite clearly that this is a long range proposition because, as I mentioned yesterday, we will not get to a single automated supply system in less than three to five years.
That is three to five years from last June, Mr. Chairman. That statement, and similar ones, misled me into believing that the minister did not really have any intention of prematurely going on with this terrible monstrosity of a bill that he has now introduced until at least the question could be studied further. On June 10, as reported at page 185 of the minutes of evidence of the committee, the minister was asked the following question by the hon. member for Greenwood:
Is it still planned eventually to arrive at a force which would be unified in practically all of these aspects?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It would be a single unified force, Mr. Brewin. In order to have a single unified force, however, legislation is required.


Mr. Brewin:: I see. It has not yet been decided to proceed with this legislation, but it remains an objective?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct.
That statement was made about two weeks before the last sitting of the defence committee, and there have been no sittings of the committee since that time. I maintain that this is a tremendously important matter for Canada. It is important for the taxpayers of Canada, it is important for the defence forces of Canada. But it is more important than both these things together: it is of overriding importance for the welfare and future of the defence of this nation and our reputation and respect throughout the world. We in the opposition are mystified when we make what we consider to be reasonable and objective requests and suggestions and they are met by the minister in such a strange way.
It seems to me that the minister's mind, when a suggestion or request approaches even from a distance, goes into panic. It turns in on itself, exposing nothing but an impenetrable surface to the outside world, like a frightened armadillo. We must do what we can in the best interests of Canada as a nation, not as individuals and not for just the present generation but for generations to come. This is a heavy obligation resting upon us. We have to make a wise, sensible and objective decision in this matter. I contend 23033-6081
Interim, Supply
that it is elementary and axiomatic that progress is not automatic. If you want to achieve progress you do not just change things and think they are therefore bound to be better. It is not as simple as that. The struggle for improvement is a hard, long road, and the innovator has the onus upon him to demonstrate as best he can that what he proposes has at least a reasonable chance of being better than what we now have. I think the minister has not only failed to do this but he has not even attempted to do it.
We make the request that this very important subject be referred to the standing committee on defence for further and complete consideration, for the obtaining of expert evidence from all concerned, so that Canadians generally will be aware of this problem and an objective, constructive recommendation can be made. If I had to make a decision on the matter now, my recommendation would be never to proceed with this bill. But I want to be reasonable and open-minded. Therefore, I would be ready to be convinced by objective evidence that this or some similar program would be advantageous to Canada. The minister says there is no point in sending this matter to a committee.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it unanimously agreed by the members of the committee that the hon. member may continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Angus MacLean: I am very grateful to the committee for this indulgence and I shall try to be brief. When my time ran out I was saying that the minister had taken the attitude that if this matter were referred to the committee, his point of view would be so overwhelmingly substantiated there is no point in going through the process. If that is the case, I would think the minister would welcome the opportunity to have his points of view and this bill substantiated by all the experts that can be found on this question.
I believe that the change proposed is a tremendously important one. I believe that parliament should not be asked to take this multi-billion dollar gamble blind. All we ask is that we obtain all the information that is available on this matter, that it be carefully and objectively considered and that the

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
Canadian people and parliament be put in the position where they are able to make an objective decision on it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, the minister has tried to contend that he is a great democrat and that he will go to almost any length to assure that minorities, experts, senior officers and everyone else have an opportunity to express their views. He does so, but only as long as he knows in advance that these views will not conflict with his own. I think that we, as parliamentarians, have a greater responsibility resting on us and we should not be asked to accept this bill blindly. I believe this matter should be reconsidered. I am tempted to think the minister is not afraid that the committee does not know enough about defence, but that his fear is it knows too much. I believe this bill should go to a committee for study. We should not rush into the second phase at this time, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he and the government rearrange the priorities of the legislation in such a way that the second reading of this bill will be at the bottom of the list. This would allow for a thorough examination of it, and would allow parliament to get on with the more urgent business facing the nation.


An hon. Member:: Such as old age pensions.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I would therefore recommend that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the defence committee for complete and thorough study. If neither of these two suggestions are acceptable to the government, I suggest to the Prime Minister that now is the time when he should stand up for the future interest of Canada and decide not to proceed with this biU.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the passage of interim supply and to impede the general administration of the country. I have no intention either to follow the example of the previous speaker by dealing with the unification of the Canadian armed forces or of the three armed services. As a matter of fact, when the bill concerned is eventually introduced, we shall have the opportunity to discuss the matter.
During the consideration of interim supply, we are allowed to discuss various subjects. I feel we should draw up as soon as possible a piece of legislation designed to increase old age pensions in Canada.
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1
Since the election last fall, the old people of Canada have been promised a pension increase of $75 to $105.
Now, we have considered a medicare plan which will only be enforced in two years, that is, on July 1, 1968, and we have set aside the question of old age pensions. Members of all parties are no doubt getting letters these days from old people pressing for an increase in their pensions to enable them to live a little more decently. Everybody knows that a Canadian who has to manage with a monthly pension or income of $75 can definitely not live decently. The cost of living is rising, prices are ever-increasing, salaries are higher in industry and in business, but at the same time, old age pensioners are not getting the increase to which they are entitled. It is essential and urgent to increase their pension.
I know why the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) or the government did not introduce the bill earlier: it is on account of inflation in Canada. In order not to extend misfortune, to impede war against inflation, the poor are compelled to live in even poorer conditions. Such is the present situation.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance and Receiver General announced recently that a miniature budget, a financial mini-skirt, would be brought down by the end of November. And this miniature budget will include tax increases as a result of the recent federal-provincial converence held in Ottawa, after which the ten premiers went back home dissatisfied with the proposals of the federal government.
It was the Minister of Finance who stated in the house that the premiers were displeased especially on account of the lack of funds, that it was a money problem as there was some disagreement about tax sharing. The provinces made excessive demands which the federal government was unable to meet. Now, it was decided that an additional amount of $350 million would be granted to the provinces. The following evening, I saw on TV the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) very sincerely state that since the federal government did not coin money, it would have to collect those $350 million from the Canadian taxpayers. And the Minister of Forestry seemed quite satisfied when he said: "We have to do that in Ottawa, we have to increase taxes, because the provinces are afraid to do it themselves."
The province of Quebec is afraid to impose double taxation; the same can be said for
November 7, 1966

Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the maritimes.
If the provinces do not want to increase taxes, so as not to lose face before their respective electorates, the federal government decides, undertakes to pay the provinces $350 million. As the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development said: The federal government does not create money, does not creat credit; it will have to take this extra money out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, there again that is no solution. I believe all Canadian taxpayers, without any exception, feel they are already being too heavily taxed. Increasing taxes will not satisfy them. Indeed, I blame the government for always taking it out on the individual, trade, industry, companies, in short, on all the classes of society, for failing to see where the problem lies, for failing to see the tangent that would lead to the real solution to the present problem, that is, the financial problem. If the government does not manufacture money, I must say the Canadian consumer does not either, nor do taxpayers create credit. If the provinces of Quebec or Ontario, or any other province for that matter, do not create credit, and the federal government does not either, then who does, and who controls the economy of Canada? Who forces the government to levy more and more taxes? Who forces the provinces to come and beg in Ottawa? Who forces the provinces, municipalities, school boards to tighten their belts? If the federal government does not create credit, does not control credit, then who does? That is what the hon. ministers are afraid to tell the house.
In the past, there have been people who have not been afraid to say who. And I do not think we, Creditistes, are afraid to say exactly where the trouble is, where the evil lies. If the Canadian government decided to tackle that evil, several problems would be settled. This does not mean that that solution would oe some sort of cure-all for the evils suffered by humanity. No. But if we did put the finger on the real trouble, on the real evil suffered by the Canadian people as a whole, it would certainly destroy the germs of political, economic and social unrest in this country.
Mr. Chairman, several years ago, it was said and I quote in English:
Interim Supply
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

This is what has been said by great leaders about private financial domination. This is what was said by Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson, who left his mark in this world, said, and I quote:

I believe the banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

This is a rather serious charge from an authority. I quote further:

Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance.

And this applies now to the government we have, and I repeat:

-a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.

When we suggest that the Bank of Canada, which belongs to the Canadian nation, the Canadian people, be the only one allowed to create all new credit in Canada, we are repeating the exact words of Thomas Jefferson:

The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.

Another prominent citizen, John Adams, said this:

All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from the defects in their constitution or confederation; not from want of honour or vitrue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.

John Adams knew what he was saying. We are now witnessing struggles in Canada -the people of one province, perhaps not all of them but a small group, want to separate from the rest of Canada. People want to jeopardize confederation. People are trying by every means to destroy our confidence in one another. What is the reason for this?

Interim Supply
Certainly not to the ill-will of the people. And as John Adams said:

All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation;-

Even if our constitution has its defects- which we cannot deny-amendments and improvements could be made. However, this is not the source of the difficulties encountered by every province.
John Adams said this:

-not from want of honour or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.

There lies the real problem, the very source of the evil. However, we are afraid to tackle that problem. We prefer to pick on every one, on every social class, as I just said, instead of blaming our credit and monetary system. It may be that Abraham Lincoln, past president of the United States, was assassinated for this reason, but at least he had the courage of his convictions. What did Abraham Lincoln say?

I have two great enemies-the southern army in front of me, and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one behind is my greatest foe. The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency required to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, it is the government's greatest creative opportunity. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own country.

Not credit based on nothing. That's what Abraham Lincoln said.

The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own country.

A credit as constant and as stable as the very solvency of the country in which we are living, the country we are developing, the country whose growth we are fostering.
Mr. Chairman, Abraham Lincoln went on to say:

Money will cease to be master and become the servant of the people. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
[Mr. Caouette.l
November 7, 1966

That may be one of the reasons why President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, because of the two, the army of the South which was in front of him, and the financiers who were behind him, the latter constituted the real danger, the more immediate, the more serious danger against his administration.
Is the Canadian Minister of Finance afraid to say what he thinks of the Canadian financial system, a system under which we cannot live decently in times of recession, a system which cannot be adapted to the Canadian realities? Instead of adapting the system to realities, to the possibilities we have of developing our country, Canadian citizens are being deprived because of this army of financiers which is in our backs. Those same financiers are behind this government, let us not kid ourselves; inflation is not what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Drury) is afraid of. Inflation is not what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) is afraid of, even if we are told, under the pretence of saving the taxpayers' money, that the Canadian forces have to be integrated. That is not it; inflation is not the main enemy of the government, but the financial system is, and the Minister of Finance knows it.
A former Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie King, stated in 1935, thirty-one years ago, and I quote him in English:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)

"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to Government, and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of The Sovereignty of Parliament and Democracy is idle and futile.

Those were the words of a former Canadian Liberal Prime Minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, in 1935.
Mr. Chairman, in the face of statements such as this, made 31 years ago, we realize that we are still, in the same position that we are living under the same conditions, that even the Bank of Canada does not control money or credit in Canada, that it is only the servant of private banking institutions. That is the prime function of the Bank of Canada at present.
November 7, 1966

Now, here is what some bankers have said. Mr. Marriner J. Eccles, Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Board, an authentic banker has stated:

The banks-
Private banks-
-can create and destroy money;

Those are entries in bank ledgers, scrip money, as we call it. I continue:

-bank credit is money. It is money we do most of our business with, not with that currency which we usually think of as money.

The chairman of the board of directors of the United States Federal Reserve Board says himself that it is true. Banks create and destroy credit. Another, Mr. Rothschild, of the world-famous banking family, said this:

The international banker, Meyer Rothschild said:
Let me issue the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws.

He speaks quite clearly. He made no bones about telling any government: let me issue the money and credit and I care not who makes the laws of that country. This is exactly the situation in which Canada finds itself today. And it is because of such people that Canadian laws are practically unable to provide security and freedom for every Canadian citizen.
Mr. Chairman, here is another quotation, not by a Rothschild, but by Mr. Graham Towers, a former governor of the Bank of Canada, who said about creating credit:

Creating money, that is the banking business:
That is the banking business (creating money), Just the same way that a steel plant makes steel.

And that statement appears in the 1939 report of the committee on banking and commerce, when Mr. Towers was called to give evidence before the committee and replied to the people who questioned him.

That is the banking business . . . just the same way that a steel plant makes steel.
Interim Supply
Now he continues:
-if Parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of Parliament.

Why does parliament not make decisions about the changes that can be made to adapt the banking system to meet the needs of Canada's economic development and the needs of the Canadian people?
Mr. Chairman, all kinds of things are being discussed. There will be other federal-provincial conferences. There will be more shortly to discuss what? Taxation, monetary problems, money problems. Nothing else. And, in the meantime, the financiers continue their exploitation, the banking system continues exploiting all social classes. When I condemn the banking system, I am not saying that the bookkeeping system is inaccurate. No. It is wonderful, but it should be at the service of the people and not at the service of a few individuals who control the economic blood of the whole Canadian nation.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is time, in 1966, for a responsible government, a government which claims to be for a true democracy, which claims to be the administrator responsible for 20 million people, to assume its responsibilities and introduce in the House of Commons legislation which will put finance at the service of Canadian citizens.
And here again, Mr. Chairman, I am not saying at all that it is a matter of printing bank-notes or creating unlimited credit based on nothing. No. What the Creditistes are asking for is putting the Bank of Canada at the service of the provinces, the municipalities, the school boards, to help them finance their development without interest, something the Bank of Canada does so well for foreign countries, such as Jamaica, Iran, and others throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, what we want is that the Bank of Canada should create enough credit to represent accurately the production of Canadian citizens as a whole.
This year, a total production of $60 million is forecast, whereas the total income of all Canadian citizens will amount to approximately $45 or $46 billion. The purchasing power will be $45 or $46 billion compared to a production of $60 billion by Canadians. How will it be possible, Mr. Chairman, to

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
buy the surplus of products with the total income of Canadian citizens-a surplus amounting to $14 or $15 billion, e (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, it is high time for the Canadian government to take its responsibilities, and for us to take into our own hands the financial destiny of our country; finance should be made to serve the Canadian people, and this should have a direct relationship to Canadian production. It is not a question of accomplishing miracles or coming up with something new, because all this exists. It is a simple matter of implementing certain statements, like the ones I quoted a moment ago: the statement of Abraham Lincoln and, above all, the statement of John Adams, to which I particularly call the attention of all members, who said:

All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America-
And, we should say, in Canada.
-arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation; not from want of honour or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.

Mr. Chairman, when that paragraph has been studied carefully, it will be realized that confusion, fear, ignorance, and all those things which exist in Canada are not caused by a change of government-because we have had changes of government, from Tory to Grit and from Grit to Tory, and we have had all kinds.
As long as we cater to this banking system, this financial system, it will not only enslave labourers, miners, workers and professional men, but also members of parliament and a government where ministers cannot even say one word against the financial control which exists here in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to deal at greater length with this matter, but I wanted to call the attention of the house to its importance, because we are now dealing with interim supply and, later on, we will be discussing a mini-budget, and the raising of taxes and collecting more money from the Canadian taxpayers while, without creating inflation and without increasing the costs of goods, it would be so easy to use the credit available through the Bank of Canada to balance the economic system of the country and thus assure to each and every Canadian citizen security and personal freedom in the economic field.


Mr. Ormislon:: I wish to return to the subject of national defence policy. I do this not on the basis of evidence given before the defence committee or editorials in newspapers but because of a real desire for knowledge on the part of organizations which in the past have sustained our armed forces-I do not mean financially, but morally.
After hearing the minister tell us he intends to persist in pursuing the unification of the armed forces, we wonder what is to happen to some of these organizations whose work has proved so beneficial in the past. We think immediately of the militia, the cadet corps and other organizations of that nature whose efforts have been of such value. But the organization which I want to discuss, now, is that which is called the Conference of Defence Associations. In the past this group of organizations have been assisted by government grants and have been most effective in giving advice and help of many kinds to various branches of the forces. It seems to me that if this body is to go by the board when a unified force comes into being, a great deal which has been beneficial in the past will be lost.
Surely, the minister will give consideration to retaining those organizations which have done so much valuable work. If the unification of our forces is going to save as much money as the minister suggests, then organizations of this kind are, surely, entitled to consideration in terms of the financing required to keep them operating in the best interests of the armed forces. The people who serve willingly and well in these organizations must have been concerned by the fact that very little mention has been made of their future during discussion of the minister's plans. The best interests of these people and their organizations would be served if the minister would give us some idea of what the future holds for them. They have made a great contribution in the past, and they are capable of doing the same in the days ahead. It would be unfortunate were anything to happen which would deprive the forces of their sustained effort.
The individual groups which make up this defence association are concerned about the training which will be given in the future to members of the various branches of the service. In the case of the engineers, I am sure they would all like to know what is to happen to the Royal Canadian School of

November 7, 1966

Military Engineering, an establishment which has made a great contribution in the field of engineering in the past and which is capable of continuing to do so in the future. Today it is called the Canadian Forces Base. The word "royal" has been deleted and, as a result, there is a suspicion on the part of the engineers that they will suffer a loss of identity.
That is only one example. The Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the Ordnance Corps, the Service Corps and other branches of the service are concerned about what is in store for them in the field of instruction when this new unified force comes into being. Surely, the great contribution which these branches have made in the past cannot go by the board when the formation of the new force is being considered.
Many of us are in favour of integration. Certainly, in the fields of purchasing, communication, transportation and so on, the forces might well be served better if a policy of integration were pursued. But unification is a different matter. The Conference of Defence Associations which I have discussed very briefly is, 1 am sure, at a loss to see its future role. If the minister would define in more detail what a unified force would mean to the various branches of the services I am sure his policy would get more support. The armed forces must be supported and sustained by the public, and the organizations to which I have referred profit from the effective work of a large number of civilians.
I conclude these brief remarks by saying that if the minister were to see fit to give the committee some idea as to the future of these useful organizations before the second reading of the bill which is now on the order paper, the support for those of his programs which would be beneficial would almost certainly be greater.


David Vaughan Pugh: One of the first things we should decide tonight, if this debate is not to continue forever, is exactly what is the object of the debate.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


David Vaughan Pugh: According to the Minister of National Defence, the real issue before us is whether or not the integration of our armed forces is the right policy for Canada to follow. Those are his words as reported in Hansard on page 9353. It is all very well for the minister to say that. He is telling us that this is the only issue at stake. But I find myself more in agreement with the statement 23033-609
Interim Supply
which was made by the hon. member for Greenwood as set forth in Hansard at page 9354.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
At the moment, however, I should like to deal with what I think is the main issue. I should like to join with and support the protest already raised by members of the official opposition against the continued and obstinate refusal of the Minister of National Defence and the government he represents to allow the committee on national defence to review adequately the merits of the unification proposals-before parliament is asked to give its approval in principle on second reading.
If there is a difference of opinion, we must assess its effect on parliament. I suggest that this effect is twofold. At the present time an exceedingly dangerous situation is forming slowly and there is no question but that in the very near future it is going to come to a head. The first of these two main facets is that supply must be granted. Unless supply is granted, of course, the whole machinery of government may well come to a standstill. The second facet is consideration of the main estimates before the house.
I do not think we should overlook this most important point about the granting of supply, because unless money is voted in the next few days many, many departments are going to suffer. In respect of the estimates, there is perhaps a very important point indeed; that is, by the rules of this house we now are limited to 30 days, which includes this debate. If this debate continues for 30 days, then when is the government going to examine the expenditures of the other departments? The government may say, "well, 30 days; you simply could not think about going on for 30 days". I suggest to them that they carried the debate on interim supply for 26 days while they asked many questions to which they wanted answers.
Because of the importance of this whole defence proposition which is before us today, I see no reason for the debate not continuing. I am suggesting at the moment that it will continue, but the government has the solution to this problem by referring this subject and all of its ramifications to the standing committee on national defence. I think it is very important that they think about this. It is not good enough to say, "well, what is the difference between sending it to the committee before second reading and sending it to the committee after second reading".

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
I am quite sure most of us are for integration and that we would agree to the principle of the bill. But anyone who has been a member of this house for any length of time knows that on other occasions when a bill has been sent to a committee after second reading there has been little, if any, change made. Certainly, no change asked by the opposition ever has been made. If we were to vote for the bill on second reading and then try to have it changed later in committee, such efforts would be a nullity. I do not wish to stress too much the fact that our rules call for 30 days, and 30 days only, to cover all the estimates including interim supply. But I must tell the government that when we agreed to the 30 day restriction everyone here did so in the utmost good faith and with the object that the committees, including the standing committees, would consider in full the various estimates of the department and anything else which might happen to come up. If we are to be denied this procedure because of this debate, what a laughing stock this government will become-and I do not mean parliament-when they finally arrive at the 19th hour of the 30th day and say, "come on, pass the estimates of these departments; the rules say we must".
This absurdity lies right in the government's lap, and is one which must be cleared up. There is another thing, of course. The opposition must examine government expenditures and must examine them in detail. This is a time honoured precedent. If suddenly we are to be faced with a whole group of departmental estimates at the 11th hour, then we cannot give them a proper examination. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the government listens, that this is a situation which should not be allowed to develop in parliament.
Many words have been spoken about the committee system, particularly in respect of the standing committee on national defence. I have many volumes here from which I could quote, but perhaps it is not necessary. I think it is necessary, however, to reiterate what has been said in this debate from time to time; that is, the committee system has been in vogue for a long time. However, since this government took over the committee system has become something new and different. The whole idea in respect of the committee system, and particularly the committee on national defence, was that we should have full access to facts. I might, of course, go back to a statement made prior to the election, on
fMr. Pugh.]
March 26, 1963, by the Prime Minister when he was speaking in Kingston. This reference is particularly to the defence committee:
A Liberal government also would set up an allparty commons defence committee right away to take the defence issue away from partisan politics. The committee's work would be part of a Liberal government review of Canadian defence policy to determine an appropriate role for this country. Such changes also would "take considerable time".
Those are the words of the Prime Minister, and I do not think he has changed his views. If one were to examine the views he has expressed in this house with regard to the setting up of committees, one would find no difference. The essence of what he has said is that there will be a full examination of the facts. This is a good objective, and is what committees should do. Committees should work; they must work, because if they are used properly they save the time of the house-the very case in point today. We have a standing committee on national defence, and it should meet to hear all the arguments before second reading of the bill. I will return to this point later.
This matter should be examined by a committee, so that we do not waste the time of the house. The government tells us it has plenty of business with which to proceed. Why then does the minister not send this whole subject to the standing committee on national defence, so that the government can proceed with this other business which members of the government claim is so important? When we give the okay to the estimates of each department we are saying, "okay, go ahead and spend the money". We cannot be rubberstamps; we must examine these estimates in detail.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
What is being requested in this debate? We are asking that a more thorough examination of defence matters take place, and that the minister's bill be sent to the defence committee prior to second reading. It will be too late to send it there after second reading because the committee could talk from now to doomsday and the government would not change the bill in any respect. The last occasion on which we had such a bill before the committee, the government introduced its own amendments but accepted none from the opposition parties.
It is useless for the government to say that full consideration was given to unification by the special committee on defence. This is something which was stated by the associate minister and by government supporters. The
November 7, 1966

minister himself has said, "I gave you full disclosure; I gave you every opportunity. The witnesses who were called before you stated their case, and no questions were asked. What are you objecting to?" We are objecting to the fact that evidence was tampered with, and this is something which has come out since the last meeting of the committee. This is, if you like, new evidence. Obviously members of the committee were led astray by the evidence which they received from competent witnesses, because that evidence was tampered with. It would have been much better had those witnesses not been called at all.
The principle of uberrima fides, which means the utmost of good faith, is involved, and this principle has been violated in no uncertain terms. A witness who had prepared a brief had the essence of his brief changed. What was given to the parliamentary committee was a watered down version of the facts. The witness may have given his evidence in good faith. He did not complain. This is part of the duty of a serviceman but he, along with many other servicemen, thought it of sufficient importance to say, "We wish to protest". In fact, there has been a rising tide of protest since the committee last met.
Once again, I say it is useless for either of the ministers to say that we had a chance in committee and did not use it. I am not saying that the evidence was designed to mislead, but from talking to members who sat on the committee I can say there is no question but that it did mislead. It gave a wrong impression and there was bad faith involved. I repeat that such witnesses should never have been called or. if there were any changes made in their evidence, that evidence should have borne a note reading, "This evidence is being given after having been vetted by the Minister of National Defence." It could then be given its true value.
Our purpose is to get to the facts, and in this connection I should like to quote what the minister said when he was in opposition, as recorded at page 2214 of Hansard for March 18, 1960:
Why should the minister not answer policy matters in committee? He has to do so in this house when there is a debate on national defence matters; he has to do so in committee of the whole house when his estimates are before us. Why is it any different with respect to answering policy matters before a special select committee? As a matter of fact the atmosphere there is more conducive to a non-partisan discussion; the mere physical appointments are more conducive to intelligent, easy study of very important and far-reaching problems. In addition, there the minister 23033-6091
Interim Supply
can allow his officials, if he wishes to do so, to make direct answers to questions. This speeds up the proceedings

I suggest that there was no change in the minister's attitude when he reached the glorious position of being Minister of National Defence. As recorded at page 483 of Hansard for May 30, 1963, he stated:
I felt that, in order to have an intelligent discussion in the House of Commons, and through the House of Commons, in the press of the country, a great deal more information would have to be made available, and a much more detailed examination of the facts would have to take place by a committee especially set up to spend a lot of time and energy on the study of that information.
It is for this reason I have supported the position of my leader that we should immediately set up a small, relatively small committee, and that it should commence its deliberations.
I think at the outset of its deliberations it should seek-and this of course will be up to the committee itself-briefings on the most fundamental of facts, and bring forward the body of information on which a more comprehensive discussion, including policy discussion, can take place.
The minister now asks, what more do you want? He says, go ahead; get the facts. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can get the truth from tampered evidence, and this is what the committee had before it. It was on this evidence that the committee made its decision. But having made its decision, a lot of people in the services came forward and told us, "I did not mean that. I was restricted by the minister in saying what I wanted to say, and what I should have said to the committee". This comes back to the principle of the utmost of good faith, and anybody who fights against that principle should not be in the House of Commons. How can brainwashed evidence be considered proper evidence to put before a committee of the house?
Again quoting from the minister as recorded at page 9345 of Hansard for October 31, 1966, I read these words:
The Prime Minister and I felt, however, on the basis of our experience in opposition, that the lack of such a committee-
He was trying to pour oil on the waters.
-meant that inadequate information on defence matters was available to members of parliament and, through their deliberations, to the Canadian people. We felt that the quality of debate would be improved and that the background information required for intelligent discussion of defence matters warranted the establishment of a defence committee, notwithstanding the historical objections.
What clearer statement could be made. Contrast this statement with his later statement: "Well, you can have witnesses all right,

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
but before they say one word to you either I or my department are going to tell them exactly what they are going to say."
I quote further from the minister as recorded at page 9349 of Hansard for October 31:
I believed, and I still believe, that the greatest possible amount of information should be made available because in that way an intelligent debate can take place.
In the light of statements which he made later I think, to use the minister's own words, this can only be described as hogwash. Opposition members feel that the evidence given to the defence committee was tampered with, and it resulted in the committee reaching a conclusion that was not in accordance with the facts. We have a real doubt as to the validity of the facts that we were given and the conslusions which the defence committee reached; there is no question about that at all.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I think it would not be a bad idea to look closely at the speech made by the Associate Minister of National Defence. I sat in the house last Tuesday night and listened to him very carefully, because I respect him. I listened to every word he said, and I have read his speech over and over again. The reason I mention the speech of the associate minister is that he spoke with great sincerity. He told the house that after listening to the speeches of hon. members he wanted to resolve the doubts in his own mind. There is no question about this; one has only to consider the words of the associate minister as reported at page 9393 of Hansard. At the outset of his speech the associate minister said:
I agree with most speakers on the other side of the house who stated that it was an extremely important matter which should normally arouse public opinion and on which it is difficult to have a well-grounded opinion.
He continued, as reported at page 9395:
I, myself, wanted to make up my own mind, to come to my own conclusions, since I am not a military man-
I give the associate minister full credit for that; he wanted to find out for himself, as do members in all parts of the house. I include government members because they must be asking themselves: What is this Minister of National Defence trying to do?
I do not want to tie these two ministers too closely together, but they should be very

closely connected on this question. The associate minister said:
I, myself, wanted to make up my own mind, to come to my own conclusions, since I am not a military man, and to convince myself that this was a worthwhile endeavour.
What did I do? I called upon people in the trade, which is recommended by the hon. members opposite-
I ask the Minister of National Defence to pay particular attention to that passage. Is this not exactly what opposition members are asking today? Because of the close association of the associate minister with the minister, he has access to evidence and witnesses. They may be brainwashed witnesses, but he has access to them and can ask what they think about the proposals of the Minister of National Defence. These witnesses may have said to the associate minister: I am scared to say anything. They may have said: Oh, yes, the proposals are quite good.
The members of this House of Commons have just as much right as the associate minister or the minister to interview these witnesses. We must satisfy our own consciences on this question; we cannot just accept what we are told without examination. We have put forward enough reasons for being given the right to examine these people.
You may call our request to have the standing committee on defence reconvened, and this material brought before it, an appeal if you wish; but we have raised enough arguments to convince the minister that this question should be considered by the defence committee before the bill is given second reading. We must have this examination, and if we do not have it we will be depending upon much less evidence than was put before the associate minister who spoke so feelingly about satisfying his own conscience by talking to the very people to whom we wish to speak. The associate minister had access to these people; he referred to it in the speech from which I have quoted. The whole of the associate minister's speech should be read by all members of the house because he is a man of integrity, and I do not believe for one moment that he would try to hoodwink the house or put anything over hon. members.
If the associate minister was able to satisfy his conscience, surely all hon. members are entitled to have their consciences satisfied by being able to examine witnesses and not by having to accept hearsay evidence. This is of paramount importance at the present time, for the reasons I have given, and it is all the
November 7, 1966

opposition asks. Because of the very serious doubts which have arisen in this regard, we want to resolve this question. I have no worries on the matter because I feel sure the associate minister will bear in mind those points I have brought out. He will consider, too, the fact that should this debate go on and supply be held up, the administrative processes of government will be hamstrung; and this will occur in the next few days. Second, and of great importance, the rights of the opposition will be trampled upon because in the time allotted to us, under the rules of the house, namely 30 days, we will not be able to examine the estimates of departments which have not yet come before the committee of supply. We all agreed to this rule, of course, for a definite purpose.
For those reasons, and because of the uproar throughout this country, a strong doubt has been raised in our minds. This amounts to more than a reasonable doubt which would entitle anyone to a further hearing in any court in the land. Surely to goodness, Mr. Chairman, members of parliament are not to be denied a further and searching look at this most important problem.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o clock? I understand there is some agreement that we rise for one hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understood it would be for two hours.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. If there is to be a discussion about what is to happen from now to some period in the evening, perhaps we should have it with the Speaker in the chair. Progress reported.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been agreed that we reassemble at seven o'clock this evening.


Malcolm MacInnis: You
should have been around all afternoon, and perhaps you would have agreed to eight o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to suspend its sitting from now until seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before doing so, perhaps the house would allow me to deal with the proceedings on the adjournment motion.
Interim Supply



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), housing-request for assistance in building recreational facilities; the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays), fisheries-removal of office from Gaspe to Quebec City; the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein), Expo '67-Montreal-suggested imposition to rent controls.
Does the house agree to resume the business that was before the committee a few moments ago?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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;
[Stage Direction]
November 7, 19S6
Interim Supply
(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-twelth 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.
["Ten o'clock.\nProgress reported."]
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; pursuant to the order of the house, I do now leave the chair.



[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member for Cumberland.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, the storm signals have been raised in the Atlantic provinces, and one of the means of endeavouring to determine the extent of the dangers and pitfalls is through interim supply. The Minister of National Defence has been less than candid in his statements on the future policy of his department and the government in so far as national defence is concerned. Because of the importance of our future national defence policy and because of the future problems which the Atlantic provinces will of necessity face if there are cutbacks and consolidations, it is the endeavour of members from the Atlantic provinces, particularly those in the Progressive Conservative party, to try to determine as best we can exactly what we will have to face in the days ahead in order to overcome any difficulties that may develop if the government's national defence policy continues to erode morale in the services and fosters the continuous disappearance of personnel from all three arms of the service.
The Minister of National Defence has been both stubborn and arrogant in his attitude toward the house. He has not relented in his 
stubbornness even though such newspapers as the Winnipeg Free Press, which has always been one of the main spokesmen for Liberal thinking in this nation, has told him and his party to send the unification bill to a committee before second reading so that full consideration and discussion may be available to all members of parliament and, indeed, to the country, on what our future defence policy should be. It is indeed a strangely difficult and tortuous road that the Minister of National Defence has started upon, and as he marches down that road he will find that many obstacles will be in his way if he continues the philosophy he has pursued to date.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, we in Atlantic Canada have great fears about the attitude of the minister toward the future defence policy of this country. Many statements have been made about the changing role of Canada in international affairs and the significant effect it will have upon our defence policy. The minister chooses, however, to allow Canadians to remain in the dark even though statements by intelligent and knowledgeable people have indicated a very significant change in thinking on the part of the government as far as national defence is concerned.
There is a great deal of talk about a significant reduction in the size of our armed forces. There is talk of a change that will mean the breaking of our obligations to NATO and NORAD. There is talk about changes whereby Canada will adopt a peacekeeping role in association with the United Nations and that this will be the only role for our defence forces in the future.
There has been no statement by the government that this may be their intention for the future, but in view of the fact that these statements have been made and that the government continues to remain silent on such matters, one comes to the fearful conclusion, that this thinking may well be in evidence among cabinet members today. It may be, of course, that such thinking is only in the mind of the Minister of National Defence. It may even be that his attitude is paramount to that of the other members of the cabinet, that in his own mind he has reached the position that he can challenge his leader and cabinet colleagues and force them to march down the road to international irresponsibility whether they like it or not,
November 7, 1966

threatening that he will resign his position if he is intimidated in any way so far as his own ideas are concerned.
These conclusions may not be correct, Mr. Chairman. However, we are not in a position to do anything but arrive at such assumptions in view of the lack of communication that exists between the minister and the members of this house. If parliament does not have the rightful responsibility to learn from the minister exactly what are the government's intentions, then I do not know who has. Surely the minister cannot lead parliament around blindfolded in the hope of getting whatever he wants so far as a national defence policy and a national defence force are concerned.
What concerns me even more, is that in Atlantic Canada for many years much of our economic stability has been based on what the armed forces provide by way of federal money. It may be foolhardy to think that we should continue to expect this kind of stability of employment and income from the defence dollar, but I see no reason why we should not. It is my belief that as a growing nation with increasing responsibilities we have a growing commitment to the international community to take a greater role in national and international affairs, including the defence of this nation and assisting our allies to defend the free world.
The fact that the 1963 election campaign was fought on the basis of whether or not the government of that day had broken an international commitment to accept nuclear weapons would lead one to believe that this government would be a little more concerned about its international commitments so far as national defence is concerned than about any other subject. Yet what do we find in this regard? We find a degree of demoralization, particularly in the navy, that has placed that arm of our armed services in the position where it can no longer meet the commitments of this country to NATO. What does the minister say about this? He ignores it. He sloughs it off, he laughs about it.
This is the same minister who was so critical of the Conservative government in 1962 which he said was breaking one of its commitments to NATO. It is a strange individual that we have today as Minister of National Defence. He is a frightening man. In his arrogance and his silence he endangers not only the economic advancement of the Atlantic area but Canada's international
Interim Supply
reputation and our image abroad. He does not allow our nation to maintain its responsibilities in international affairs.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
He goes to Halifax to have an eyeball to eyeball meeting with the servicemen, to talk frankly to them and to be spoken to frankly. One can almost imagine that he would want the press of this nation to pass on to the people what a forthright and able individual he was in this frank discussion. One would think, with the minister being so sure in his mind that the majority of people in and out of the services were in full agreement with his defence policy, that he would be anxious for everybody in Canada to know how acceptable and how right was his course.
He went to Halifax. He had his eyeball to eyeball meeting with the servicemen, without benefit of the press. What happened, Mr. Chairman? He was hooted at. He came away from this eyeball to eyeball meeting and when people said to him, "We understand you were heckled", he said, "If I was, I didn't hear it." If he did not hear the heckling he must have used earplugs. Everyone in the services who attended the meetings heard it. Those people made it evident, and are making it evident every day, how unhappy they are with the defence policy the minister is trying to shove down the throats of the Canadian people. Men are leaving the services. Today, answering a question-and this may be a side issue-the minister said that men are leaving the services because there is so much prosperity in this nation that they can make more money elsewhere.
Everybody knows that today Canada has one of the most highly paid defence forces in the world. There is job security. Ability has merited advancement, or it did until the minister started his unification program. The minister's explanation will not be accepted as the reason for the tremendous exodus from the armed services in evidence today. The men are leaving because morale is low, because they are unhappy with the government and what the government has done with the national defence policy of this nation. They are unhappy with what the government plans for the future and are afraid that Canada will break all its international commitments in a determined effort to make Canada a neutral nation. Neutrality means that we will allow the United States to defend us. It cannot mean anything else. It means that we shall go on our merry way as

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
a peace-loving people unwilling to accept our responsibilities under our international commitments but willing to have approximately
35,000	men available for brush-fire wars threatening the peace of the world.
How sad it will be for this nation if the minister is allowed to continue in an arrogant manner to impose on the Canadian people, without discussion or debate, a national defence policy that he has conceived without regard for parliament, his Prime Minister or his party. And they are all afraid of him over there. They let him go on his merry way unchecked, just as they let parliament go on debating interim supply, knowing full well that we shall soon reach the end of the line, the point of no return, if the people working for this nation are to be paid.
All this reminds me of the manner in which we got into the most damaging debate that has taken place in this chamber since I have been here. I am talking of the flag debate. At that time the government ignored the facts of life and the priorities of action in this nation. The government was determined to produce a flag and impose it on the Canadian people. They imposed it without regard for their responsibilities as a government running a nation. They showed no responsibility to the people of Canada in the legislation they imposed. They were determined to impose their will on parliament and the people.
Here we have the same sort of situation. Here we have legislation that cuts into the heritage and tradition that are so much a part of this nation. It cuts into them or cuts them out-"cuts them out" is the better phrase, I think. The government is not the least interested in associating Her Majesty or the word "Royal" with our armed forces, no matter how long that word has been embedded in our national way of life. This is a strange government doing strange things for strange reasons.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has risen in the house on at least 50 occasions to ask the government house leader when we will debate old age security. What happened? We were told that unification was more important to the government and to the Minister of National Defence than old age security and that the unification bill would take priority over the needs of the old age pensioners. That was not the story the people were told in the election campaign of 1965. Indeed, in those days nothing revolutionary was men-

tioned in regard to national defence policy. It is amazing, once this government received its mandate, how it changed its priorities to suit itself, not keeping faith with the voters of this nation.
This has happened in two election campaigns. Indeed, if there were another election campaign and the government were elected again, which is a very slim possibility and getting slimmer every day, it would be the same story again. It is becoming a repeat performance of the 22 years when we were cursed by governments led by a number of Liberal prime ministers, though mainly by the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King. We are getting back to those days, and nowhere is it more evident than in the Atlantic provinces where for 22 years there was broken promise after broken promise until the people of the Atlantic area had to march to Ottawa and onward to find employment to provide the sustenance of life.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
We do not intend to do that again. We intend to stay home and fight for the things we have a right to expect from any government. In my constituency there is an aircraft plant which has provided employment for a great many years. The company has been laying off men left and right. I asked the Minister of Industry the other day in the house what he proposed to do about it. He told me he knew nothing about it. His officials knew about it but he did not know about it, and probably he did not care a devil of a lot. It is just one of the facts of life that when the Grits get in we go down. There is little hope for the Atlantic area with a Grit government in power in Ottawa, and this has always been the case.
I do not know what lies in store for us as far as national defence policy is concerned. A number of contradictory statements have been made about the future of the bases in the Atlantic area. The minister has given us an assurance that our fears are unnecessary. But the same minister gave a similar assurance to my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria about the Point Edward naval base, and the words were hardly out of his mouth before the base closed down.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Over 700 jobs wiped out.


Robert Carman Coates: After a while we become wary of that kind of assurance. The minister tells us one thing and we depend on his word only to find that we have been deceived and are in
November 7, 1966

greater trouble, having accepted the assurance, than we would have been had we been alert and continued to make representations.
Let me tell the minister that the people who look to the base at Cornwallis for economic survival are not depending on his word today. They are banding together in a nonpolitical force and they intend to exert every possible pressure available to them to make the public aware of what will happen to their area if the minister proceeds to close the base, as they expect he will, in 1968.
The great problem facing members of the opposition is that they cannot talk reason to this minister. They cannot convince him that if his policy is as acceptable to the Canadian people as he believes it to be, he would probably get his wish and get his unified force if he would agree to provide the hearing for which we are asking. But what we are sceptical about is the extent of the support the minister really has. There is good reason for this scepticism. The minister appears to be afraid to allow public discussion to take place in the defence committee. It is one thing to be reasonable. It is another to try to make reason prevail with a minister such as the one now holding the portfolio of defence. Silence and arrogance, a complete disregard for parliament, are more in accord with his way of life than the reason evidenced by this party during recent days when we have urged the hon. gentleman to provide full information not only as to our present defence policy but as to our future role so far as national defence and our international commitments are concerned. Short of closure being introduced, the hon. gentleman can rest assured that until he relents, until he listens to reason, he will continue to face questions of the kind I have been asking tonight. If he wishes to jeopardize the pay of the people who are employed by the federal government, that is his responsibility, not ours.


Mr. Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Chairman, I have been convinced to contribute a few words to this discussion by the remarks of the hon. member for Cumberland who has just spoken and by the speech of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. In commenting on the defence issue I do not pretend to any great expertise in the subject. I was too young to serve in the last war but I did serve in the Canadian Officers Training Corps which was humourously referred to as democracy's last hope. Our chief claim to military fame consisted of establishing a record for the longest
Interim Supply
time taken to assemble a Bren gun, and narrowly missing our own sergeant during machine gun practice. My remarks are not based on the viewpoint of the military experts or of those who have been dealing with the questions debated in the defence committee.
When the minister first made his proposals to the house I thought there was a favourable response from a large part of the country. On the surface he appeared to have a logical case for the proposition he was presenting. When opposition began to build up I, like many Canadians, had the impression that it was coming largely from retired senior officers in the navy and the air force, men who were essentially emotionally involved and who were not taking a rational or logical view. Because of the extended discussion which has taken place in committee, other voices are beginning to be heard and these are not the voices of emotionally involved people. They are saying some very disturbing things about the present policy, things which disturb me even though I am not an expert.
I, for one, have been impressed to some extent by the position taken by the official opposition. There is a good deal of merit in their proposition that if the position of the government is as sound as is claimed-and I am not judging it-there is no need for haste. Why not take the broad view? Let this bill go to the committee before second reading-
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Reid Scott: -and let a full hearing be held. No doubt the minister is adequately prepared to substantiate his case. Let us hear from him. Let us hear from some of these disturbing voices who are saying things which, without rebuttal, to some extent, make sense. In that way let the doubt be removed, because what is happening here is that we are being asked to put into effect something which cannot be reversed for generations. Those who say that this action will destroy the morale and the traditions of our forces may be right. Again I do not know and I am not purporting to judge, but surely these are things which should be looked into. We have confidence to some extent in the minister. We know he has been on top of his department, but is that not all the more reason to let this matter go to the committee? Unfortunately we have heard today what is virtually a threat from the official opposition. That is their privilege. It is a traditional right to withhold supply until grievances are rectified.

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
I hope that what happened here this afternoon has not escaped the attention of the house. Both the hon. member for Okanagan Boundax'y and the hon. member for Cumberland have again made clear that the official opposition takes such a serious view of the minister's position and feels that this matter is so vital and fundamental to our whole concept of military defence and the institution of parliament that they intend to withhold supply until their grievance is answered and some action taken upon it. I do not know what view the government will take, but it is fairly clear to me that if the official opposition persist in their view-as is their traditional right-we in this group have done it too on occasion-then we are headed into the type of debate which will make the flag debate look like an afternoon's discussion. It seems to me that this is what the minister is bringing upon both parliament and the government which supports him.
If the proposition is that the defence policy of the government-integration, unification, amalgamation, or whatever it is-is to be examined, then now is the time to do it and not after we have frozen ourselves into the same difficult and almost hopeless position we found ourselves in during the flag debate when neither side would give in and the result, on reflection, was one which was undesirable, unnecessary and unworthy of us. None of us came out of the flag debate with any glory. Let us not have another flag debate over the military policy of the government at this time. The government is in control, not those in the opposition, and if the government does this it will be doing to its legislative program now what it did during the flag debate. It will be sabotaging and rendering futile its own legislative program. The flag came from nowhere. We had been given a long list of important legislation and then out of nowhere came the flag and it was pushed through to the conclusion. We know what happened. Almost all the legislative program went down the drain then. It seems to me this is the position that the government and the minister are going to place us in again. We will not get medicare this session. We will never get to the old age pension legislation.


An hon. Member:: That is what they want.


Reid Scott: I am not imputing such a motive but I am saying that this is a logical possibility which may result from what, as is becoming increasingly clear, is an

obstinate refusal to accede to a reasonable request. I have known the minister. I am not one who has charged him with arrogance and everything else in the past. I have known him and I think he is essentially a reasonable man. I suggest that he think again about the position in which he now finds himself and seriously consider sending the whole proposal to where it can be adequately examined.
Last evening I was amused by the minister's appearance on a television show. Last night was the inauguration of a program called "Sunday", the successor to "This Hour Has Seven Days". It was a really interesting and strange show. The star attraction, of course, was the minister who wound up the program, with the exception of a short appearance by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Mr. Churchill:: I am glad I did not see it.


Reid Scott: Let me tell you about it. They had go-go dancers; they had longhaired people playing wailing guitars and singing those incomprehensible songs.


Mr. Orlikow:: You are a square.


Reid Scott: You have your own views on these things. They had a jockey describing how he pulled horses and fixed races. They had a series of bearded artists telling us how they painted ladies in pantie girdles. Then there was the minister; he came on last.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And very appropriately.


Reid Scott: The minister delivered one of the finest self-eulogies I have ever heard. It was so eloquent the interviewer could not stop him. I thought they were almost going to run out of time. It was indeed a fascinating defence by the minister of his position.
Those are the remarks I wished to make in the general area of defence. I do hope the minister will seriously reconsider his stand.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A very reasonable proposition.


Reid Scott: There is another matter about which I should like to say a few words and put something on the record because there are some questions which we should like one of the other ministers, who is unable to be with us tonight no doubt for a perfectly good reason, to answer. I wish to say a few words about the Canada-United States auto agreement. The statements made
November 7, 1966

last week by the Minister of Labour made clear, if we ever had any doubt, that the whole U.S. auto agreement has become a complete fraud on the public. Those of us who have followed the agreement from its beginning have always been highly dubious about it. To us it was originated in haste and secrecy and passed by excutive order. We were not even permitted to review it until it had been in force for 15 months. We have always expressed grave doubts about it and we now find that the whole thing has been an exercise in virtual futility.
I will refer to two aspects of the matter which I should like to put on the record, and I hope the Minister of Labour will answer. I have in mind what has happened with regard to the rights of the workers and, second, the rights of the public with regard to prices. One member of the opposition, the hon. member for Wellington South, no doubt will deal with the business aspect because he is more conversant with it than I.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I want to go back to the origination of this agreement. It was an agreement whereby the government by its own action brought in certain tariff charges which everybody admitted would cause dislocation in the automobile industry, but we were assured by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Industry that the workers in this industry would not suffer any hardship as a result of government trade policies.
We were told that the government would bring in a scheme called transitional assistance benefits, TAB for short, and that under the legislation a fund would be set up to which the government and the industry would both make contributions, with the money being used to assist the workers should they become unemployed as a result of the trade agreement. At that time we expressed great doubt about the wisdom of such an agreement unless it were mandatory for the automobile companies to participate, but we were assured by the Minister of Labour that we need have no worry, that the motor companies were waiting anxiously in Windsor for the agreement to be signed and then they would hasten to deposit their cheque for $50 million. As events have transpired we have now found that the motor companies never participated in the agreement and that fewer than a dozen workers received benefits under it up until last summer. As a result, that aspect of the agreement
Interim Supply
has become a complete sell-out by the government.
There is another side to the story. In their agreements the automobile workers over the years have negotiated for what are called supplementary unemployment benefits or, in short, SUB. These benefits are in the nature of wages. They are fringe benefits paid into a fund which was to be used to compensate the auto workers during periods of model changes, which are normal lay-off periods. It was never intended that these benefits be used for government purposes.
But last week we found out from the Minister of Labour that the government has released the motor companies from their obligation to participate in the plan. We found out that the government is going to use the taxpayers' money to pick up the difference, that the workers are going to be forced to use up their own wages in the form of fringe benefits and that once these fringe benefits have all been used up the government will then start making the so-called TAB payments to them.
This is the biggest sell-out I have seen since I became a member of this house. Over the last two years the government has, cynically and coldly, completely sold out to the automobile manufacturers, and I warn the government that we are not going to let this go until we get some sort of explanation as to how it all came about. The government in effect has almost stolen the workers' SUB payments and has done what it said it would not do when it told us that under the agreement the workers would not be forced to pay the price of change, that because the community was forcing this upon them the community would pay, and that the motor companies would be in a position to contribute and help.
The government told us that under this agreement the motor companies would receive a bonanza of $50 million in the form of rebated duties and duties they would not have to pay. This was to be an annual gift for three years, and I can remember the Minister of Labour standing up in the house and giving us the most solemn undertaking that the motor companies were going to be forced to make their fair contribution to the scheme to assist the workers. Now this has all gone down the drain; the motor companies are off the hook. But the workers are being forced to give up their SUB benefits, and only when they have been exhausted will the government pay the TAB benefits. It is a pretty

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
shoddy, shameful story of performance by a supposedly good government. I only hope the minister can give an explanation for this sad, sad story.
The other thing that disturbed us and still disturbs us is the history of this agreement with regard to prices. Many of us were reluctant to make such a tariff concession to the motor companies but we were assured, this time by the Minister of Industry, that the result of the agreement would be a reduction or moderation in the charges for cars that Canadian citizens would pay and that some benefit would be passed on to the consumer who, after all, was making this direct contribution to companies like General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. But again we have been sold out; there has been no reduction in prices. Instead, there has been an increase in prices wrapped up in a very skilfull explanation about safety features.
The whole tenor of the agreement has been misrepresented, and over the past three years the government has eroded the entire agreement from the point of view of the consumer and passed on the benefit to the automobile manufacturers. To me the whole thing is unforgivable and unexplained. As I say, the agreement has become a hoax, a sell-out, and what has happened epitomizes the real business point of view that hovers behind the government.
I do not have the time this evening to go into the strange manoeuvres of Volkswagen Canada Ltd., the manner in which their cars were imported and the credits Studebaker was able to receive, but I say to the committee, as I hope other hon. members will, that we have since learned that this was not only a loophole but a wide open door through which one could drive a ten ton truck-


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Loaded with Volk-swagens.


Reid Scott: -loaded with Volk-swagens or loaded with any other type of European car eligible for similar treatment under the terms of the agreement. I do not want to go into detail at this time but I did want to mention the matter and place our view on record. I hope other hon. members will draw to the attention of the Minister of Labour that we are deeply disturbed and concerned about what has happened in the sell-out of the public and the automobile workers under the auto agreement. It is our intention to pursue this matter at whatever 
length is required in order to receive some satisfactory answer and satisfactory adjustment from the government.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the tone set by the previous speaker is one I should and will try to follow, a tone of reason, logic and common sense, which I am sure many of us like to feel is basic to any intelligent discussion of the problems before the committee.
I believe the hon. member was very kind to members of this party in pointing out how calmly logical and reasonable was their approach to the question of defence. Certainly he did credit to that argument by the manner in which he presented it, and the same could have been said the other night about his colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood. Anyone who listened carefully to those speeches, and who believes it is his duty in this house to give due consideration to common sense when it is heard, must have been impressed. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I have never heard a better exposition of the present defence situation than was given today by the hon. member for Queens. It was a very concise and complete review, something that all of us are trying to achieve in the present darkness that surrounds us.
I want to sum up the situation as I see it. The minister is strenuously, and I think that word is chosen advisedly, resisting any suggestion that the members of the House of Commons should have the benefit of a searching re-examination of all the facts pertaining to defence before we proceed further to deliver his unification baby I am completely puzzled, as I am sure most hon. members are, by the position he takes. Not for one moment do we imagine that the minister, by acceding to our perfectly reasonable requests for a further study of the facts, would in any way be admitting that his policy is not correct. In fact, I think it could not in any way be taken as a sign of weakness of faith in this policy. On the contrary, as was just said by the hon. member for Danforth, and it has been mentioned previously in the house any refusal to re-examine the facts can only be taken as indicating fear in the mind of the minister that such an examination so earnestly desired by this house would weaken rather than bolster his position.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I believe that the words of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary were very well chosen when he referred to the speech made
November 7. 1966

by the Associate Minister of National Defence. The hon. member said that the associate minister mentioned that he was troubled because the subject was so important and complex that he had to be sure in his own mind he was proceeding on the right course, that his conscience could not be satisfied other than by a re-examination of the facts and by seeking the advice of those he thought were more learned in the profession, shall we say, of defence than himself.
I would say, and I hope this will not be taken as derogatory of the minister, that I would not be satisfied with the same advice that the associate minister received. I feel he is too close to the Minister of National Defence. We have learned much too much about what has gone on in the armed forces to believe that the sources of information available to the associate minister would be other than the carefully winnowed opinions of those left in the armed forces who agree with the minister or those who have been fortunate enough to be able to hide their disagreement so far to keep from being fired. While I am sure it is incumbent upon the associate minister to give his fellow minister the benefit of the doubt and to have faith in that advice which the minister says is so important-after all, it is the advice that the minister ordered them to give him-we can be forgiven for suggesting that we want a little better than this.
I am suggesting that the associate minister has certainly captured the conscience of every member in the house by the position he has taken. I cannot imagine the Minister of National Defence asking any member of his or any party in the house to do less than follow the example of the associate minister, who showed us so clearly what is the duty of a conscientious member of this house. That duty is to search his conscience very carefully to satisfy himself that he has obtained all the evidence and advice enabling him to understand that evidence, so that he may well and truly come to the position where he is satisfied that what the government is doing in this most important area is correct.
The white paper on defence says that integration is a first step toward unification. I think this matter was explained very well by the hon. member for Queens. It is a first step, and if approval was ever given to the white paper that approval was given only to the first step. As the Minister of National Defence has explained, unification is such a radical departure from pure integration, which has
Interim. Supply
been tried to a varying degree by armed forces all over the world, that it must be understood that the next step toward unification is a very large one.
In this regard I disagree with the associate minister, who said that unification was a natural extension of the theory of integration. I find that I have to agree, no matter how seldom this may occur, with the Minister of National Defence in this regard, namely, that it is a bold, new, entirely different step and therefore requires us to pause carefully and find out what we can before proceeding with it. It has been asked: Is integration complete? The evidence is that we have not finished experimenting with integration. We are not satisfied that it has been working properly. There is no evidence before us that can make us so happy with all the experiments that have been tried along this line that we have confidence in proceeding further.
I think the house has in a way been sadly misled by the minister's approach to this problem. Certainly it is a source of great gratification to me that so many of the newspapers are commenting in such a critical fashion, saying that they understand so well the cry that goes up from opposition members in this house, and agreeing that an examination by the defence committee after approval in principle of the bill sounds rather silly. The duty of members of this house is to vote when they have been informed as to the facts and have satisfied their conscience.
I admit that if we cannot do that there is much to be said for the apparent position of the minister when he says: I have perfect confidence in this action. Give the bill second reading, then call the committee and you will find that I have been right. You can then examine to your heart's content and be reassured. The only trouble is that this is a most deceitful sort of step to take. Second reading of a bill gives it approval in principle, and anyone who has any acquaintance with the rules of the house knows very well that once the house has decided on the principle it would be impossible for the defence committee to bring forward any evidence about that principle. Unification would be a fact, and all those witnesses who warned the minister so solemnly of the dangers of his policy and were fired for their pains could not be called before the defence committee because we would then be trying to examine what the house had decided and it would be contrary to the rules. Before that committee we would

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
not be able to discuss the principle of unification because the house would have already decided it. Therefore what the minister is saying is not: Pass this bill in principle and then look at it. He is saying: Pass this bill in principle so that you will never be able to look at it.
I think we had better understand that, because while there may be much to be said for the opinion that at least the minister has taken an honest stand and he would be open to great criticism if we examined this matter before giving the bill second reading and would be subject to condemnation which would be most embarrassing, that is not the position at all. Instead of the open attitude that we will be able to look fully at the facts, with the minister having to stand up to the censure of public opinion and of members of the house as a result of that full examination, the simple fact is that if we follow the advice of the minister and let him do what he wants parliament will be refused any chance whatsoever to look at the facts of unification, to hear any opinions on unification or even to discuss the subject. This is somewhat different from the picture the minister has presented to us.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Without doing the minister an unkindness, in my view it is entirely consistent with the attitude he has shown in this house as minister that he should say that all this house requires is the solemn assurance of this self-styled expert that, on the advice of those who have remained after he has fired all those who do not agree with him, he is satisfied we are on the right course and that parliament should now, despite the warning of the Associate Minister of National Defence that we have a duty to satisfy our conscience and to make sure we are voting correctly, accept the minister's words and assurance. The minister asks us to do that in spite of the fact that we lack adequate information which has been desperately hidden up to this time. He knows that by passing this bill in principle we bar forever any possibility of re-examination until the taxpayers become so impatient at spending so much money for so little that public opinion will again somehow force the matter upon the attention of parliament and of the government.
This argument seems to me a little inconsistent with what was said by the minister, that great champion of the rights of parliament, when he was a private member. Let

the committee consider the contrast. I read from page 9346 of Hansard of Monday, October 31. The minister quoted Robert MacGregor Dawson as saying the following:
-and he therefore has the power to overrule any of his civil servants at any time.
Farther down the page the minister said:
It is fundamental to our parliamentary practice that the minister responsible for a department will have the sole discretion as to the limits of the special material that his officers may present.
As we can see, the minister makes it clear that not just special material but any facts will be under the sole discretion of the minister and that parliament may receive that and no more.
The most powerful advocate I can find to argue on behalf of members on this side of the house against the minister's approach to this problem is the hon. member for Trinity. It seems to me that even more beloved to him than the advice of those top-flight officers whom he has promoted because they have so valiantly echoed his advice would be the advice of the minister himself as he gave it to this house and to the then minister of national defence when he was but a poor backbencher struggling to provide members of parliament with the knowledge which is indispensable to them if they are to do their duty in the house. Listen to some of these gems. I now quote from page 5378 of Hansard of the session of 1959, volume 5. These are words which I am sure the minister will recognize as his own. He said:
To try to hide from this parliament and the Canadian people the state of its confusion and lack of policy the government has clamped down what I call a rigid insecurity blackout.
I certainly admit that nowhere is there a suggestion that when Mr. Pearkes was minister of national defence he went so far as to tamper with evidence to keep the facts from the public, but at least the feeling that all the evidence was not available was enough to warrant that sort of speech from the present Minister of National Defence at a time when he was a private member.
As found on page 5379, toward the bottom of the left-hand column, he said:
It is true the minister himself and the deputy minister did make themselves available, for which members of the delegation were very grateful indeed; but of course the minister and the deputy minister only gave members of the delegation such information as would, they thought, not be embarrassing to the government here and certainly not sufficient to prepare us to deal with and talk intelligently to the members of the United States delegation.
November 7, 1966

I am sure this will have a familiar ring to the minister and will convince him of my argument. I trust no one will accuse the minister of being insincere when he made those remarks or of being inconsistent because the remarks which he made as a private member contradict those which he is now making as the minister. Perhaps the consistency is in the insincerity at both times.
I hope he will not mind if I quote a few more phrases from that source of advice and wisdom which I have never known the minister to ignore, namely, himself, and in fact the source of advice and wisdom which, so far as we have been able to determine, is the only one that carries any weight with him. I trust the committee will bear with me while I give the minister another small reminder of how serious these matters are to the backbencher. Again on page 5379 the minister said:
Furthermore, the Minister of National Defence has consistently and repeatedly refused to give serious answers to the questions asked in the House of Commons. He has given the house and the Canadian people the impression that either he himself is not fully informed on defence matters, or that parliament and the Canadian people who are asked to foot the bill have no right to sufficient information to be able to judge the merits of the government's proposals.
Mr. Chairman, those are very stirring words, and I submit they were not spoken at a time when the government of the day was embarking on a venture not only unique in Canadian history but throughout the whole western world. They were not uttered at a time such as now when we have every reason to believe that this action, having been studied by the defence forces, has been rejected year in and year out and when we know that so many top military advisers have rejected it because it is not sound. I am sure that the words of the minister, who as I said, is his own best adviser, will be taken to heart by him.
Farther down on page 5379 there are more stirring lines which really appeal to me as I am sure they will appeal to the minister and the Associate Minister of National Defence. He said:
The government may not want parliament and the Canadian people to know, but we have every right to know-
I perceive from the look on the faces of some of the blind followers of the minister on the Liberal side of the house that they are not really interested in hearing the sage advice of the Minister of National Defence spoken at a time when he was a backbencher.
Interim Supply
I gather they realize that it is only since he became a minister that he has acquired the super knowledge which alone can justify the turning down of all the best technical advice on defence in the country. I am not sure in what other way I can impress on them the seriousness of the situation, but I think there is one thing which they do recognize and that is our striving for the right of parliament to have all the information.
The only reason I can find for lack of concern on their part is that their concern for their party's history of bungling is such that they would sacrifice even the rights of parliament to protect whatever tattered image they may still retain. Perhaps my method of appeal should be simply to point out that the public is getting wise to the minister. The glow on the halo has dulled to some extent. The bland assurances which have gone over so well for so long a time are finally starting to tarnish in the light of common sense and the dogged determination on the part of members of this house to ensure that until there is some valid reason given why parliament cannot have information we must continue to seek it.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Sometimes the minister seems to be almost hurt by our unwillingness to accept the assurances which he gives us every day. I have pointed out tonight one difficulty. His assurance that if the defence committee is reconstituted the bill will be sent to it after second reading with no limitation placed on the questions asked is, of course, pure nonsense. The minister does not have that authority no matter how supreme or superior to parliament he may think he is. This house is governed by its rules and they are very simple. Once we approve of unification in principle, then lost forever is any opportunity to question the principle or to examine the factors behind it to see whether it is right or wrong.
Again, Mr. Chairman, the question before the house is not whether it will be of any benefit to us to examine this principle after it has been declared, but that we should be given the knowledge to enable us to decide whether it is possible to implement the principle. Therefore the stand taken by the minister is not that we give approval in principle and then examine the bill but that the house is not entitled to this information. As I say, once we give approval in principle we will never be able to look for this information.

November 7, X966
Interim Supply
I started out by saying that our position is a simple one. It does not involve the minister in making any concession or yielding any point. All it involves is the admission that the associate minister was speaking very truthfully-indeed, he caught the conscience of every member of the house-when he said that we must look at the facts and satisfy ourselves as to those facts.
It is true that it might be a little embarrassing for the minister, this factor having taken so long to get through to him, if he were finally to decide that common sense shall prevail and that he will do for this house what we would have been the first to scream for were he on this side, namely, let us have the facts. But I submit that it is better to be swayed by argument and to yield to common sense than to let it become ever more apparent day by day that the only thing that stands in the way of a rightful examination of the facts is a stubborn refusal born of fear of what those facts will reveal.
This minister, I submit, has been able to sell the people of this country a bill of fare which indicates they are going to get more defence for less dollars. It seems the minister's view is that it is better that this concept should begin to wear a little thin, to have the people of this country and the newspaper editors seriously question it, than to go before a committee and prove it. I suggest that we must continue to press the minister on this point no matter how embarrassing it is to him, that we must continue to argue from the most logical basis our approach to this problem. No man convinced of his stand, so beleaguered as the minister and so confident as the minister says he is of his policies, would so stubbornly refuse to reveal the facts. You and I know, Mr. Chairman, that in any argument we are ready, willing and anxious to prove our case when we have put it forward honestly. I submit that if the minister has any faith in his argument he must do this too.
I am sure that the members of this house will recall the flag debate, which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Danforth. After a very bitter and acrimonious struggle for several weeks, finally the Prime Minister was persuaded of a very simple and logical position which had been taken on this side of the house from the start, namely, that it is not just what you want to do but the manner in which you do it that can be so important. On that occasion the Prime Minister finally sent the flag question to a committee for consideration. We had asked him to do that

from the start on the simple basis that it was in a committee that the subject could best be handled. If we were going to change our national flag it was much better that we should start out in a co-operative and common sense endeavour than to have the acrimonious debate that resulted, which divided the people and turned the flag not into a symbol for the future but only a bitter remembrance of the stubborn determination of the government to do in the wrong way what they thought was right.
It is surely not unreasonable, Mr. Chairman, for the members of this house to remind the government that if we are to have a new defence policy the people of the country are entitled to test it. People are entitled to security. Any new defence concept must be tried and tested by their representatives and must have the confidence of the members of the House of Commons behind it. It must be a policy which is based on a thorough, searching examination of the facts. Even though it may be new and experimental it must be subjected to test and receive the seal of approval of conscientious men who have diligently tried to make sure that it is the best possible concept of defence to adopt.
The people of this country are entitled to defence and to have confidence in their defence policy. This can only be achieved by a common-sense and close examination of the facts. Therefore I would ask the minister to indicate that he is not afraid of the facts by consenting to send this question to the defence committee for examination before approval in principle.


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to change the subject somewhat, and I do not wish to deal with the Department of National Defence nor the pipe line issue tonight, two subjects which have been discussed for several days.
Besides, I feel it is not necesary for me to intervene in favour of the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), who seems to be taking very good care of himself, nor is it necessary for me to speak on behalf of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) who also seems to be doing very well. For several days now and in a very acceptable manner, both seem to stand up under the attacks which, to my mind, are simply for the purpose of delaying approval of interim supply.
November 7, 1966

e (8:30 p.m.)
However, defence matters set aside, I would like to speak tonight in defence of certain problems which farmers have to face and about a pipe line which would provide them with better income.
I would like to refer to the visit which the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) made to Quebec on October 19, where he attended the C.F.U. provincial convention. Some federal members from Quebec had the privilege of listening to the interesting speech which the hon. minister delivered to the delegates. As pointed out by the president of the Quebec C.F.U., it was the first time a federal Minister of Agriculture attended their convention. At the very start of my remarks, I should like to quote two paragraphs from the minister's address, as follows:
Most of the territories cleared by the early French settlers were divided into what appears today to be small farms or simple pieces of land. In those days, the farm procured the necessary food, shelter, and often clothing. The members of the family provided the labour and, since the operation yielded virtually everything necessary, the family did not need much cash to purchase the Items needed for its subsistence and for the operation of the farm.
The objective of all of us, who are engaged in farming activity-governments, farm associations and private farmers-is to make the farming profession provide the operator with an income which would be in line with his work and his competence and which, at the same time, meets the wage level enjoyed by other sectors of the Canadian economy.
Mr. Chairman, let us say that the objective pursued by the minister and the government is the same as that pursued by the agricultural class of eastern Canada.
We know that the net farm income for the year 1965 was estimated at $173.7 million, which means an increase of 11.3 per cent; but there again, the farmer is not fully satisfied, and he is quite right, because this percentage figure representing the net income increase, although appreciable-we would have to be convinced of such a fact

is based on the year 1964, the lowest since 1947, as far as income is concerned, according to the C.F.U.
However, as concerns the dairy industry, the present government cannot be accused of inaction, for there are now 215,359 producers listed with the Agricultural Stabilization Board.
Those producers receive 75 cents per hundredweight of milk with a 3.5 per cent butter fat content delivered to the plant, while
Interim Supply
whole milk producers receive the same payment for all the milk in excess of 120 per cent of the quantity sold at the price of fluid milk.
Cream producers, on the other hand, receive 21.43 cents a pound, that is the equivalent of 75 cents per hundredweight of manufacturing milk. I think farmers know that, from April 1 to mid-October, the board paid to registered milk and cream producers $35.6 million. Close to $26 million have been paid to producers for milk delivered to the plant during the first five months the program has been in force. On the other hand, cream producers received more than $7 million; in addition, $2.6 million have been paid to producers who delivered fluid milk. All told, that is $26 million for milk delivered to plants, $7 million in subsidies to cream producers and $2.6 mllion to fluid milk producers, a total of $35.6 million have been paid from April 1 to mid-October.
At this rate, the direct federal contribution through the dairy product support program will reach, this year, about $90 million, or an average of $418 per producer. This means that farmers with large herds of dairy cattle will get more while the others, with smaller herds, will get slightly less.
At their convention, on October 19, the C.F.U. delegates passed three resolutions on the dairy industry intended for the federal government, and ten for the provincial government. That is to say that the well-being of the dairy industry does not lie only with the federal members from Quebec. I presume it may have been the atmosphere of effervescence at the convention that led the delegates to blame the federal members wholesale for their inaction, because I cannot believe that such subsidies as have just been granted the dairy industry can or could be qualified as inaction on the part of the Quebec members, whether they sit on one side of the house or the other.
Several legislative measures have been passed in the last few months not only to benefit the dairy industry but also for the general well-being of our agricultural people.
As a matter of fact, on June 21, we passed Bill No. C-151, an act to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development, on April 6, Bill No. C-152, an act to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, on October 21, Bill No. C-218, an act to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
Columbia, on April 26, Bill No. C-171, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act, and on July 7, Bill No. C-208, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
I must say that an agricultural association as powerful as the Catholic Farmers Union is an extremely valuable factor and a tremendous instrument; if properly used, to bring its members numbering over 50,000 to a better understanding of the whole farming problem which cannot be settled without good understanding and co-operation of all people of goodwill and all factors.
Among helpful factors, there is, for instance, for the handicapped areas, the federal policy of ARDA; there is the result of research in agriculture, the farm credit, the very favourable mortgage credit, the credit for farm improvement, the marketing of our products, with a classification of these products, made in Canada as well as any other country in the world.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Classification which protects the consumer as well as the producer offering first quality products against inferior products offered competitively.
We have had, especially for the last few years, this magnificent Agricultural Stabilization Act. For instance, as I just said as regards the dairy industry, it permits the federal government to spend $90 million in order to stabilize the dairy industry, which is the basis of our agricultural industry in Quebec.
On page 31 of the 1965-66 report of the Catholic Farmers Union, it says it appreciates the progress achieved so far, while making additional suggestions. As I said a while ago, the Catholic Farmers Union has become a force in Quebec.
Farmers have at last recognized the need to unite together in order to exert pressure, as is done and has been done for several years by a number of organizations. I was greatly impressed, like my colleagues no doubt, by the interest shown on the part of the delegates at the Quebec conference.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Catholic Farmers Union will not only be a pressure group but that their heads, in the interest of their members, will see that this body also enables the members to secure better information and adjustments, as regards production costs or marketing, and on everything pertaining to agriculture, so as to make it an economic undertaking.
[Mr. Racine.1
I, for one, do not feel that the government can solve all problems. Because let us keep in mind that we must be honest with ourselves and with our fellow-citizens. Government entails community welfare and, therefore, taxes.
But after attending the conference in Quebec city, I am sure that the farmer, proud as usual, is only asking for temporary assistance, because he too is able to build up a profitable business. The farmer has a great part to play, as was said in the past. But today greatness does not go without economic soundness.
The Quebec N.D.P. leader-and incidentally, I would like some of the speeches he makes in Quebec to be translated into Enblish and submitted to his party leader in the House of Commons-in an article published in L'Action of Quebec city, on October 27, 1966, gave a few pieces of advice to Quebec farmers. He expressed the wish that all C.F.U. members go into politics. I should like to quote an excerpt from the article of Mr. Cliche, the great friend of farmers, or I should say, the self-styled great friend of farmers:
Small piece of advice to the C.F.U.: You seem to know your enemies now. Why not try to find out who are your true friends? It is obvious that your claims will lead you nowhere unless you put into office a party free of any secret connections.
I must reply now to the provincial N.D.P. leader that the true friends of the farmers are not those who travel around the province at present, and the farmers know it. I think that the true friends of the farmers are probably those who are right here in parliament and who will have to be judged, because they have responsibilities.
In a bitter and scornful tone for farmers, the Quebec leader of the N.D.P. wrote the following in L'Action of September 22, 1966 and I quote:
The authorities of the C.F.U. should realize that their members must be politicized. To be politicized is to be able to make an intelligent choice among the various parties. To be politicized is to be aware of the long-term policy and not of the vulgar and immediate advantage.
And I draw your attention on the following comments contained in the statement of the acting leader or provincial chief of the N.D.P., when he said to show how he appreciates farmers of the province of Quebec:
To be politicized,
according to Mr. Cliche,
is to refuse the beer case or the $5.
November 7, 1966

And he adds:
Let no one talk to me now about naivety on the part of the rural elector.
And further:
When the old parties are ceaselessly criticized, when they are always held responsible for the existence of cartels and monopolies that take unfair advantage of the farmer and particularly when that abuse is ceaselessly denounced, then to vote for either one of the old parties is not naivety, but foolishness.
The assistant leader of the New Democratic Party was then addressing the farmers of Nicolet-Yamaska, in the province of Quebec.
The assistant leader of the N.DP. surely has no great regard for the Quebec farmers, but the feeling is mutual, as the agricultural class has no confidence in him or in his party.
Speaking about the agricultural class, the man who had been dubbed assistant leader of the N.D.P., in the last election campaign, stated again in the October 27, 1966 issue of L'Action that when members of the Farmers Union had problems, they called that parent organization in English Canada, and I quote:
Quick. Give a ring to your parent organization in English Canada, the Farmers Union.
The answer you will get is that the C.C.F., and later the N.D.P., have always been the farmers' party in the west. It is not reassuring, Mr. Chairman, for the farmers to hear such statements from a so-called leader of a so-called party, for you know, Mr. Chairman, there is not one N.D.P. provincial government left in the west. All of them, with no exception, were repudiated.
In face of so many statements which, besides, were never accepted in the rural constituencies of Quebec, including mine, the constituency of Beauce, it is no cause for amazement that the assistant leader should be on the look for an urban constituency, knowing very well that he does not have the confidence of the farmers. That is why one could read this in the October 16, 1966 issue of Dimanche Matin.
And I quote Mr. Cliche. Of course, I have to quote him in French, since the article is written in French. I hope you will keep on listening and that we shall have the pleasure of your visit in Quebec.
Some think that Beauce county is an especially difficult riding, since the electors of that area require a great deal of attention from their candidates. Robert Cliche being the head of the N.D.P. in the province, it is only natural that he cannot
Interim Supply
solely dedicate his efforts to his own constituency. As a matter of fact, he has to go throughout the province in an attempt to win the votes not of one county only but of many.
His responsibility is all the more trying because the national leader of the N.D.P., Tommy Douglas, relies entirely on him as far as Quebec is concerned. "Tommy" says he, and I am quoting his associate, "is always an invited and welcome guest in Quebec; however, he thinks I can do good work here and there, and he gives me a free hand".
You can judge for yourself, Mr. Chairman.
I fully agree with that article, because the riding of Beauce wants a member, as all rural ridings of the province, and even urban ridings; not one riding in the province of Quebec, and you understand that, Mr. Chairman, would be satisfied with "Tommy's bell boy". I wonder, and this is a suggestion I want to make, after having spoken about what was said by the leader of the N.D.P., whether it would be possible, in the interest of farmers and especially for their satisfaction, to create within the committee on agriculture, a commission which could summon witnesses.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It seems to me it would be possible to institute a commission to find out the difference between the price paid to farmers and the price paid by consumers. Some farmers are concerned and are under the impression that perhaps wholesale marketing is expensive, unless it is services or packing. According to certain quarters, it might also be excessive profits by middlemen.
At any rate, as far as the farming class is concerned, we know that the committee on agriculture, a few years ago, conducted an investigation on the prices of agricultural machinery where witnesses were summoned. I suggest it would be in the interest of farmers to know whether the difference between the cost price and the sale price to consumers warrants such an investigation. However, I may add that farmers will not be satisfied until they know the reason for the difference between the cost price and the sale price.
Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, our farmers have to increase their income to give their families a standard of living, acceptable and equal to that of workers in cities or in rural centres. This will be possible through a better use of our agricultural resources, soil, credit, people engaged in farming-by using economical and up-to-date methods of production- in transforming our products by improved livestock. The level of prices of farm products only will never replace the farmer's efficient production.

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
According to the 1961 census, there were about 95,000 farmers in Quebec: 62,000 had an income of $1,200 and more; and 33,000, less than $1,200. How can a farmer who sells $1,200 worth of farm products make a profit of $2,000 on a turnover or sales amounting to $1,200. A simple calculation can be made in allowing a farmer to operate on a basis of 20 per cent profit; his cost price on $1,200 sales, would be $1,000, for a profit of $200. To make $2,000 a year with such a production, the farmer would have to make a profit of 200 per cent, which is unthinkable and unrealistic.
If the economy of a country is based on production, it is the same with agriculture. The leaders of the Catholic Farmers Union now have the fate of the Quebec farmers in their hands; the organization is supposed to pressure the government, but these leaders should not forget one thing: this is not the end of their responsibilities, for the role of a professional association is not merely to exert pressure. These leaders have not only the right, but the duty to form their members, to work with and for them, in order to find better methods; to maintain a good relationship with the federal and provincial departments of agriculture; to have recourse to agronomists and to the research centres of the Departments of Agriculture. All this cannot but provide better revenues with modern methods made available to farmers.
In other words, improving agriculture is a necessity, and we feel that the first initiator of this improvement will be, must be the farmer himself. Doubtless, he must be helped by the public authorities, his provincial department of agriculture which is responsible for his vocational training, the federal Department of Agriculture which must provide him through efficient research, with the latest data on economic production. The influence of American competition must also be understood, as well as the fact that to maintain higher price levels, the farmer will have to increase his production.
Let us not forget that, above all else, the farmer wants to be like everybody else. He wants to be a businessman, and does not want to be driven to begging governments for the reward of his toil. To achieve this, the federal and provincial Departments of Agriculture must work together closely with the leaders of the C.F.U. Each in his own field, they must discharge their responsibilities, including the leaders of the professional association of the C.F.U. They must

not drop their problems wholesale in the lap of the federal members but, rather, must co-operate with them.
If they all agree to co-operate, we may have several Ulysse Bernier yet, who won the gold medal in Quebec. But all, without any exception, farmers included, must pitch in; let us not forget, for it has now become history, that those who were parachuted down on farms are now fed up; it is imperative that their problems be solved without delay.
Before bringing my remarks to an end, I want to say that they can bank on the co-operation of the hon. Minister of Agriculture who seems to be very eager to understand the problems of the eastern farmers, which as a matter of fact, he has already proved in the past.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would take it, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of National Defence is one of those many people in this country and elsewhere who enjoys Lewis Carroll's novel "Alice in Wonderland". I can come to no other conclusion in view of the minister's very odd behavior and in fact one might say "curiouser and curiouser" attitude during the debate on interim supply. I think the minister must have had in mind the trial of the knave of hearts in the very last chapter of "Alice in Wonderland", when he was brought before the court of the queen of hearts for trial. Someone suggested that the verdict should be before the sentence and later the queen of hearts said "certainly not; sentence first, verdict afterwards". That is exactly the attitude the minister is taking in this debate on interim supply. The minister is suggesting to this house that with regard to one of the most serious matters which has come before parliament in many years, namely, the whole future in respect of the defence of this country, we should be asked to pass sentence before we have had any evidence or the verdict. I can think of no better parallel than "Alice in Wonderland".
Continually during this debate all the members of the official opposition and indeed members in the other opposition groups have been asking that the government permit the whole question of the new defence policy to go before the committee on national defence so that when the house is asked to pass judgment in principle on this new bill members will have at least some idea of what the facts of the matter are. To date we have had none. That is not quite correct. I should have said almost none. Last week I and many
November 7, 1966

other members of this house requested the minister to provide us with answers to some very simple and straightforward questions concerning what the new defence policy, unification as it is known, stood for. We expected the minister would provide us with some answers, but none of any consequence have been forthcoming.
When the new defence legislation received first reading and the bill was made available to members of the house certainly none of the answers to any serious questions were forthcoming. I hold in my hand a paper which has been distributed to members of the house and which is referred to as "explanatory notes of the Canadian forces re-organization act". I would simply like to say, that, in view of the many serious questions which have been asked on this matter, never in my life have I seen such a collection of trivia. I am astonished that the Minister of National Defence would hope that members of the house would be satisfied with this. There are details about what the uniform is going to look like and such things. I suppose these are things of some secondary importance, but there are very many much more important questions which I propose to enumerate, the answers to which members of the house and indeed members of the press gallery-there are not many in the gallery this evening-are entitled to know.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
As I have already mentioned, this is one of the most serious matters to come before parliament in many years. The whole future security of our country lies in our hands, but the minister and the government have steadfastly refused to give us any information of any consequence on this subject.
The first thing I would like to know is, what would happen to our militia units under the minister's proposed bill? The army and the navy have similar organizations to the militia, and in the event of war or national emergency they form the nuclei from which recruiting can be carried out and members of the armed forces gathered together quickly.
The minister may well have received advice that there is not going to be another major war in the future but only brush-fire wars. I hope the minister's advice is correct. Anybody in his right mind would hope so, but we do not know that. Nobody in the country knows whether there will be another great holocaust. This is something which is not under our control and, whether we would
Interim Supply
like it or not, we should be prepared for it. I for one would like to know what arrangements would be provided under the new defence act for recruiting in the event of a national emergency. This information has not been given to us. It is something we are entitled to know before we go voting for a "pig in a poke".
The second question I want to deal with concerns foreign policy. I have heard the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs say that defence and foreign policy must be related. Nobody would disagree with that. From the intimations we have had so far it would seem that we are going to have some kind of hybrid peace-keeping force to be used at the request of the Secretary General of the United Nations to put out brush-fire wars. This is very commendable, we would all agree, but if this is all our armed forces are going to do, then a great many of us would not agree with that proposal. We do not want to put all our eggs in one basket.
We do not know what the future of the United Nations is going to be. That organization is experiencing great difficulties at the present time, and we do not know what power or authority the UN will have in a year or two. We hope it will be backed up by the major powers of the world but the way things are going we cannot be certain of that. If we are going to put all our eggs in one basket and become a peace-keeping force for the United Nations, then I think this is a most dangerous tampering and meddling with our national security.
A number of hon. members have raised this question but the minister has just sat there and made no reply. He gave us no indication how the new defence force is to be integrated with our foreign policy. It is very hard to find out what our foreign policy is because, as I pointed out the other evening, it seems that nobody knows what it is. We say one thing and do another. We say we must recognize red China but we have not got around to doing so. It is a case of "recognition if necessary, but not necessarily recognition". The same thing applies to the question of the admission of red China to the United Nations. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says we are all for it, but yet we do not vote for it.
Everthing else with regard to foreign policy seems to be the same. We give lip service to supporting the United States with respect to Viet Nam but criticize her from the other

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
side of our mouths. As I say, it is very hard to find out what our foreign policy is on anything. But we do know that the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have told us that our foreign policy is related to our defence policy. That being the case, the only thing we can do here is to try to find out what our defence policy is and then maybe we will know what our foreign policy is.
From what the minister has said both inside and outside the house, the intimations are that we are going to have some kind of glorified police force which is to be placed at the service of the United Nations. If that is the only information we have at our disposal then the only conclusion we can draw is that this is going to be our future role in foreign affairs-serving the United Nations.
The other night the minister denied that we were going to get out of NATO and NORAD. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said we were not going to do this. But if we are going to have nothing but some sort of glorified police force to be used for the purpose of putting out brush-fire wars all over the world, I would like to know how this is going to be inter-related with our present and future commitments to both NATO and NORAD. This is something we should know, and we would like to have this information before voting for the new defence bill in principle.
If we are still going to support NATO and NORAD how shall we meet our commitments to them with this new hybrid police force? The minister should answer this but so far he has given no answer. If we are going to have a hybrid police force, then who is going to defend our coasts? It has been rumoured that our navy and air force within a few years will be performing only transport duties. If that happens then who will defend our coastal waters? Who is going to enforce the 12-mile territorial coastal limit which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has introduced? Who is going to defend our air space? Are we going to turn over the defence of it to the United States?
It is often said that Canada has a rather weak voice in Washington at the present time, but its weakness now is nothing to what it would be if we did nothing to contribute to continental defence. These are things that should be clarified, but the minister and his colleagues have sat silent during this debate when these questions were asked. This is not the first time they have been asked, but no answers have been forthcoming.

If the government's policy of "continen-talism" is to have free trade between Canada and the United States and also to turn over the task of defending this country to the United States, then it should let us know about it and let the people of Canada decide if this is what they want. Maybe they will want it; I do not know. Let us get a straightforward statement on the matter. These are questions that must be answered before we can be expected to support the principle of the bill.
What duties will the new force be able to perform? What kind of weapons will it be equipped with? Where will it be required to serve? If it is going to be a sort of hybrid force, what exactly would its duties be? The minister has alluded to them in general terms but has never spoken specifically.
What size of force is contemplated by the minister? How many groups or units will be in it? Will it be capable of defending our country? Will it even be capable of putting down any sort of internal violence? Then there is an important question about nuclear weapons. Is this new force to be armed with nuclear weapons of any sort? It would appear that if it is only going to serve the United Nations then it would not be armed with nuclear weapons. But if it is to have another role than United Nations peace-keeping, will it be equipped with nuclear weapons?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Another thing we would like to know is, who drew up this plan? As has been pointed out by many hon. members, more than 40 of the most senior officers in the army, navy and air force have either been fired or retired prematurely because they disagreed with the minister. The members of this house and the country at large are entitled to know who are the authors of this plan and what are their qualifications and competence. Somebody drew up this plan. We want to know who dreamed it up and what their qualifications are. They may well have some; I do not know. However, it has all been very mysterious as to who dreamed up this plan. No other country is taking such a step, and if this is supposed to be such a great thing we should like to know who drew it up. It is obvious that there has been disagreement on this plan, whoever drew it up, and we should like some evidence presented to us on just how many senior members of the armed forces disagreed with it. We know that a number have been discharged, have retired or resigned, and we understand there are others
November 7, 1966



who could give us valuable evidence in this regard.
These are some of the many questions that I think are valid and logical and should be answered by the minister before he can expect any member of this house to vote for the bill in principle. It is very difficult to understand why there is such an adamant refusal on the part of the government to comply with such simple and straightforward questions that should be easy to answer. Is it that the government does not have the answers to our questions? Is it that the government does not want to tell us the answers to these questions until the bill is passed? There must be some reason. Or is it just plain putting their long ears back and digging their hooves in?
This situation reminds me so much of what happened in this house a few years ago. The minister was here in the period from 1953 to 1957 when we had the pipe line debate; he remembers what happened. The government of that day was so arrogant it would not accept any suggestions from any opposition group. The minister should well remember what happened at that time. I make no reference to the minister's personal appearance, of course, but when I look at him I am reminded of Louis XVIII, the Bourbon king of France who, restored after Napoleon's conquest, "had learned nothing and forgotten nothing" and was soon right back in the same old rut. Any suggestions from the opposition, no matter how reasonable, must automatically be wrong, so the government will not do anything about them.
Another old gimmick of the government was brought into play again today. Yesterday I happened to be listening to "Capital Report" which is sometimes known as the Liberal propaganda hour of the C.B.C. One of the members of the press gallery, who is sort of a messenger boy for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and represents one of the Windsor newspapers, was commenting on this debate. He said: "The Conservatives are going to have another flag debate. They are going to raise all the old emotional issues in this question. They are worried about the removal of the word "Royal" from the title of our navy and air force." One can see that it is all Liberal propaganda that is being delivered.
These matters are of importance to many people, but the essential point is that there are a great many questions-I have outlined only a few of the most important ones-that
Interim Supply
should be answered before the minister can expect parliament to give approval in principle to this very important bill on which the security of our country may depend. We are only asking that the defence committee be permitted to meet now, that evidence may be called so we may hear more than one side of the story, not just the side of the minister and his friends. We should like to hear from the senior officers of the navy, army and air force who were fired because they disagreed with this policy. We are entitled to hear their points of view. I know that the minister and his public relations teams have been characterizing these people as old fogeys, Colonel Blimps and the like, but most of these people are the same age as the minister, myself and indeed many other members of this house. They are experienced officers who have worked with our NATO allies. We should like to hear their explanation and their side of the story. There is nothing unreasonable about this. We are only asking to hear their evidence before we are asked to pass judgment on this very important bill which will affect the whole future of this country and our very existence.
We are only asking for the chance to be informed and to have some of these questions answered before we agree to the principle of this bill. We do not want this to be a question of "sentence first and verdict afterwards." We should like to hear the evidence, give the verdict and then let parliament pass the sentence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, a number of points have been raised during the debate and I should like to take this opportunity to deal with some of them. The first major point that seems to keep recurring in many of the speeches that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite is in respect of the lack of information regarding the unification and progress of integration of the armed forces. For example, the hon. member for Calgary North has stated that "great confusion and uncertainty exists, both on the part of the general public and on the part of those who have been active in defence matters, as to what the present situation in the defence department actually is and what it is likely to be in the future if the minister's plans are carried forward."
In reply to the hon. member for Calgary North and other members of the opposition who have raised this point, I must reiterate that never before in Canadian history have this house, its committees and the public been

November 7. 1966
Interim Supply
given so much information on our force structure, our present and future policies and the capabilities of our forces.
In 1963, before the publication of the white paper, the special committee on defence met on 30 different occasions and heard evidence from 28 different witnesses, some on two or three different occasions. Then in 1964, after the publication of the white paper, the special committee met on 36 additional occasions, made five reports to the house and heard 41 different witnesses on the policies and projections envisaged in the white paper. In 1966 the standing committee on national defence met on 15 different occasions and heard from 34 different witnesses on the whole range of subjects dealing with reorganization, the progress of integration, the force capabilities, the roles and missions of each command, the equipment that the commands operated to carry out their missions, and indeed on virtually every subject in which hon. members in the opposition have claimed an interest.
Since 1963 there have been 2,355 pages of evidence on matters concerning national defence given to the special and standing committees on defence. The committees met since 1963 81 times and heard 103 witnesses. Either I and/or the associate minister met with the committee on 63 different occasions. I cannot accept the allegation, therefore, that inadequate information has been provided on a vast number of the subjects which have been raised during this debate.
The second point raised is in respect of force effectiveness. On this point, too, very full information was given to the standing committee on defence. All the evidence is available for hon. members to read, and the public at large if they are interested. It covers each of the commands in turn. It has been stated that the air division, for example, is fully operational, that it is well equipped to perform its roles, that the training of both pilots and ground crews is superb, that they are in our opinion the leading air division in the allied forces in Europe, that they are without equal on the continent of Europe.
In respect of the battalion group it has often been stated that it is one of the finest small pocket armies in existence anywhere. The recent re-equipment of the brigade with armoured personnel carriers, tracked command post vehicles and other equipment has increased its effectiveness very considerably, particularly in Europe where it is confronted by an armoured potential enemy. Additional equipment is on order, for example, the 155
[Mr. Hellyer.l
millimetre self-propelled howitzer which I think will be delivered in 1968, and other equipment such as new trucks, wireless and a range of equipment required to keep the brigade at its maximum effectiveness.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In so far as the balance of the Canadian army is concerned, one of the most important decisions taken as a result of the white paper has been the reversal of the policy decision taken in 1959 which only equipped three-quarters of the Canadian army to training scales. In our opinion this was not a sound policy. We felt it was inadequate to have three-quarters of the Canadian army without the equipment necessary in case of hostilities. Consequent upon the white paper was the decision to re-equip the whole Canadian army in such a way that if hostilities should develop somewhere in the world or if it were called upon to participate in action of some kind it would have the equipment necessary to perform its task.
In so far as the anti-submarine capability of the fleet is concerned, this too has improved considerably. Notwithstanding the reduction in the total number of ships, the evidence which was given to the committee last summer indicated that the real capability in the anti-submarine role has improved. A number of new developments have taken place over a period of years and they have enhanced the capability of the fleet to perform its primary role which is the surveillance of ocean territory for submarines and, in the event of hostilities, to kill those submarines.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister a question relating to the capability of the navy in anti-submarine warfare? Can there be any effective capability without men to man the ships? This is the criticism we have been making.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a very important question, and I was advised tonight by the operational people that all the post-war destroyer escorts are manned. I will check this overnight but that was the latest information available to me.
I think the complement of one of the ships was slightly reduced but they are all being manned. If that is the case, I think it is very commendable particularly at the present time when it is so difficult to obtain and keep skilled manpower owing to the competition in the civilian economy. A great deal of research has been carried on in this field. As a matter
November 7, 1966

of fact it is the anti-submarine role which accounts for the major part of our research and development at the present time. It is receiving a considerable amount of emphasis, all designed to increase the capability in this role which Canadians perform so well and which enables us to make a contribution to our allies through sharing our expertise with them.
The introduction of the Sea King helicopters into the fleet is just another part of this significant increase in the total capability. It increases by an order of magnitude the ability of the fleet to survey the ocean territory. They are able to go out considerable distances from the destroyer escorts which carry them and, through sounding devices, to listen over very wide areas for submarines that may be in that area.


Mr. Lambert:: May I ask the minister a question? Is this not on the assumption or presumption that they will be out at sea with crews?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Of course this is part of the capability, but the crews are there. They operate on a cyclical system. Some ships are at sea or are available to go to sea at all times.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Are not many of them tied up.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To the best of my knowledge the post-war destroyers are not. I think this is very significant.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is just not so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I said, I am willing to check it overnight, but to the best of my knowledge this is an up to date report.
In so far as the air transport capability is concerned, here again evidence was given to the committee which indicated that through the acquisition of additional Hercules transports we had augmented our capability very materially. This capability was proven during the exercises last winter when we took a brigade group to Norway to participate with the allied command Europe mobile force.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That does not apply today.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Of course the capability applies today. It is greater than it was then.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not with the air crew.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have lots of air crew to man these aircraft. From whom do you get your information?
Interim. Supply


Eric Alfred Winkler: From the air force. From
whom do you get yours?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can assure you that we do have the capability and it is operating very effectively. For example, in the last few days I visited a number of militia units which happened to be artillery units that have been flown out to Shilo for shoots. I think it is probably the first time in the history of the Canadian armed forces when there was sufficient military air transport available that militia units could take advantage of that kind of training under the auspices of regular forces.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That was on a special assignment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, but there have been a number of similar cases, and it is encouraging to members of the militia to have closer contact with the regular forces and to have the facilities of the whole force, including air transport command, made available to them. It is quite an improvement in the use of our resources. As I have indicated-and I could go on at much greater length as there is more evidence in the record-our capability has greatly increased in all commands and is increasing steadily.
The third point that was raised was in respect of manpower, and I have freely admitted that there are some shortages in this area. It is very difficult to compete but we are doing our best under the circumstances. Frankly, I think we have done fairly well in view of the very real competition which exists at the present time. It has been frequently suggested that the present manpower shortage is evidence of the low morale owing to the implementation of the integration program. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion this is just not so. The particularly healthy state of the Canadian economy has resulted in an unprecedented demand for highly skilled, highly trained personnel and the ability of the civilian economy to pay larger salaries than is possible in the armed forces.
Hon. members are well aware that the recruiting and re-enlistment of the armed forces have always been directly related to the strength of the economy. There has never been any difficulty in fulfilling the manpower requirements during times of recession or depression and, conversely, recruiting falls off with a buoyant economy and virtually full employment. This is not a situation that is by any means peculiar to Canada alone. Both the

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
United Kingdom and the United States, which are experiencing similar economic conditions, have also been affected by manpower shortages.
In January of this year the national board for prices and incomes in a report to the parliament of the United Kingdom noted that the British armed forces had had an over-all shortfall of 18 per cent in their recruiting target. The report went on to say:
In short, the services are facing a formidable problem in recruiting and retaining sufficient personnel and in their view (the services) the problem is likely to grow in the next few years.
Manpower shortages have and will no doubt continue to affect the maritime elements of the forces to a far greater extent than either the land or air arms of the service. This is understandable to a certain extent in view of the environmental factors of long tours of sea duty and prolonged separation from home and family. Again, however, this is not a factor that can be related to integration, nor is it a problem that is unique to Canada.
On March 14, 1965, the New York Times reported that of the service men in the United States navy only one-fifth of those eligible were re-enlisting, and in addition primary recruiting had dropped drastically. In comparison, recruiting and re-engagement rates for the Canadian forces reflect a healthy state of affairs.
We have not been content, however, to allow the present situation to continue. Major steps have been taken to bring pay, allowances, housing and other factors in line with life in the civilian economy, and we will continue to make improvements in the future as they are required. However, I repeat that there is no evidence to support the contention that recruiting and re-engagement rates are related to the policy of integration and unification. Our naval re-engagement rates are better than those of the United States or the United Kingdom. I am sure that no one would suggest that the reason the rates of the United States and the United Kingdom are so low is that they are not unifying their forces. Certainly I would not make such a suggestion.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Lamberl:: Will the minister assure us that what he is comparing are actually volunteers with volunteers? Is not the United States navy also subject to its personnel being introduced into that service compulsorily, with re-engagement from compulsory service as against voluntary service?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am talking about volunteers.


Norman Platt Lambert: Is the minister sure of that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is the way the figures were given to me.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Might I ask the minister a question? The minister has just mentioned that there is no evidence to indicate that his policies are discouraging recruiting. In a couple of places he said "to be best of my knowledge" but that he would check it. My question is: What is wrong with letting the committee check that out to find out what is the evidence?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure that no evidence will be brought before any committee to substantiate the suggestion that they are related. I have no doubt that one could find one, two or three individuals who would say that there was a connection but by and large, based on hundreds of samples of letters and the advice of all the staff members of the service, there is no indication whatever that the two are directly related. I am talking about the other ranks, not the officer corps.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have well over a hundred letters which show the opposite.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, there was no shortage of officers to man ships and planes in maritime command, as was indicated in the original text of the brief of Admiral Landymore.
Another suggestion made repeatedly on the other side of the house is that we are going to convert the Canadian forces into one giant peace-keeping organization with no capability beyond United Nations peace-keeping missions. This suggestion is not valid.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You would reject Terence Robertson's article then?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would certainly reject that suggestion no matter from where it came, whether from my hon. friend, from Terence Robertson or anybody else. If that were the objective, why on earth would we have launched a $1.5 billion, five year re-equipment program? Why would we be acquiring self-propelled howitzers, armoured personnel carriers, armoured reconnaissance vehicles, anti-tank guns, anti-tank missiles, helicopter-equipped destroyers, ship-to-air missiles, modern submarines and fighter bombers if the role was to be limited to peace-keeping?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 
Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are all included in the equipment program, as my hon. friend knows.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: For the destroyers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The policy was clearly set out in the white paper. We stated that the best way to meet any demand for United Nations assistance would be from highly trained, well-equipped conventional forces, forces with sufficient flexibility to contribute to the deterrence of major war at one end of the spectrum and peace-keeping operations at the other end.
In a relatively short time, just a few years, we have greatly increased our fire power to the point where it is greater than ever before in our peacetime history, we have substantially increased our mobility by air and sea, and we have provided our servicemen with a broad range of equipment to permit them to carry out this wide variety of missions. We plan to continue to expand our capabilities in all these areas.
Another allegation is that we are moving too quickly, that we are carrying out the program without due thought and consideration. In my opinion we are not. The initial planning of the integration to unification process began over three years ago, in 1963. One year later the white paper was issued outlining the pattern we would follow. The paper came as a result of months of concentrated study.
The white paper itself set out our long-range objectives and goals. In order for the program to be effective it has been and is being subjected to the closest scrutiny. Every area is being researched to determine the best method of implementing the changes. It is a very complex process covering all aspects of training, supply, finance, organization, logistics and all that which goes into the makeup of a military force.
Because of this unification, assuming the legislation is passed this fall, will not become a total reality until approximately 1970 or 1971 when all the planning and implementation are completed. Thus the whole process will have taken about seven or eight years.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the suggestion is made that the subject matter should be referred to the standing committee on defence before the bill is read a second time. On the surface this is a very appealing suggestion. I must admit I was moved by the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Danforth. I would be
Interim. Supply
more favourable to this procedure, notwithstanding the fact that it would be virtually unprecedented, if I had some confidence that a dispassionate and objective examination of the principle would result.
Frankly, I think a good discussion of the principle could take place here in the House of Commons if we were to allow it to proceed. I am prepared on second reading to speak to the principle. I have been reluctant to address myself to the principle during this debate because I believe that second reading is the right time for such a discussion to take place. Hon. members opposite have a great many advisers with some military knowledge. They have been lending assistance to hon. members opposite. Surely they can marshal the arguments in opposition to the single force concept.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I really think it would be desirable for this house to debate the principle of the bill here before it is referred to the committee. This would not in any way limit the examination of all of the facts, figures and opinions relevant to the principle of the bill at the time it was referred to the committee.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Nonsense.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, there is no reason why, if the committee wished, it could not cover all aspects without limitation. As my hon. friend said earlier, I could not prevent it, nor could anybody else.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the minister answer this question? How can the minister wipe away the rule which so plainly states-in fact the chairman of the committee called me to order when I was about to comment on the decision that the house had reached-that once the principle of a bill has been passed by the house any re-examination of the matter is digging into what the house has already decided? The minister knows that the rules would not permit this. Even his good offices are not good enough to wipe away that particular rule.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My hon. friend is not as ingenious as I had suspected if he feels that it would not be possible to cover all the aspects that are relevant. It would appear, certainly on the basis of previous discussions in committees, that full and virtually unlimited discussion could take place. Outside witnesses could be called and in addition witnesses from the Department of National Defence could be called.

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
I think there is another question of principle here which hon. members should consider, and this is the desirability or otherwise of having service members appear before a committee before a decision is taken on the principle by the House of Commons. This to me would be a very serious proposition. I really feel that the government and the house should take the responsibility of considering the principle before any serving members of the armed forces are expected to present views on the application of the principle in its minute details.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that hon. members opposite reflect on this question and on the problems that it poses for all hon. members, and that they give consideration to allowing the bill to go forward so that a first-class debate which is directed to the principle can take place in this house. Following that the bill can then be referred to committee where a full and complete review could take place before the bill became law. In this way I am sure that all members and the people of the country would be satisfied that the bill had been thoroughly dealt with at each stage and that every possible aspect had been properly and adequately looked into.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the hon. member for Grey-Bruce rising to ask a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to have the floor. I am not rising to ask a question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am afraid that the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, since we are discussing interim supply, I am sorry


Eric Alfred Winkler: You need not ask me for any more favours.


Gilles Grégoire: I do not have to ask you for favours. I do not intend to and I do not need your favours anyway.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We shall see about that.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Will the hon. member proceed with his remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: I shall still consider you a good friend.
[Mr. Hellyer.l


Eric Alfred Winkler: We shall see.


Gilles Grégoire: If I take the place of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce tonight it is because tomorrow I shall have no opportunity to speak. After orders of the day I have to go to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. It will be the same on Wednesday and Thursday.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is not exactly what you told me.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes it is, exactly.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is not.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, that is exactly what I told you. I shall be attending the committee tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday-it is not good when the house and committees are sitting at the same time-and I cannot be here. I have to make my speech tonight.

Mr. Chairman, the debate on interim supply has been going on for approximately eight days and I have not yet had the chance to say a single word. Now, you will admit, notwithstanding the reaction of my hon. friends here, that it is quite exceptional for me not to be heard, not to speak eight days in a row in the House of Commons.
Therefore, I hope the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) will bear me no grudge, since he was granted every possible opportunity for eight days, at least I never interfered, not having said a single word for the past eight days. And the hon. member for Grey-Bruce will admit that this is quite remarkable. And it is one of the reasons why I feel I must take advantage of this opportunity, even though, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to speak on defence matters. I think we heard about it these last days and I would now like to deal with a matter in which the Canadian people, the taxpayers, are interested.
We have been seeing in newspapers, for the last two or three weeks, advertisements concerning Canada savings bonds, the so-called centennial series Canada savings bonds.
One thing makes me wonder. It is said concerning this centennial series:
Invest now and double your money in twelve years.
It is said in the advertisement for these savings bonds:
Your money will double In twelve years.
November 7, 1966

Well, Mr. Chairman, this means that if an individual's savings will double in twelve years, inevitably, Canada's debt will double in the same period. What Canada, what the government borrows today, it must repay double in twelve years, and yet, the Canadian citizen will have received only one dollar and Canada, that is the government, will have received one dollar only, but in 12 years from now, it will have to repay two. Since the person investing in savings bonds will receive in 12 years from now two dollars for each dollar invested, that means that the government of Canada, for each dollar received, will have to repay two in 12 years. That is why Canada's debt will have doubled within 12 years, and the country will not be getting anything in return. The same amount will be spent once and repaid twice. If $100, $1,000 or $1,000,000 are borrowed under this Canada savings bonds issue, in order to build the Department of National Defence building now under construction, well the building will have cost $1 million, but $2 million will be repaid. An amount twice the cost involved will have to be reimbursed.
Mr. Chairman, you will admit nevertheless that it is a strange system when the government of a country, which is supposed to be an autonomous and independent government, is compelled to repay twice the cost. Every government expenditure is repaid twice, and this is confirmed by the advertisements for Canada savings bonds which read:
Your savings will double in value in twelve years if you lend to the Canadian government.
Those who lend $1 will get $2 and, therefore, if the Canadian government borrows $1, it will have to repay $2.
But the inconsistency of all this goes even further. When it is time to repay, those who have loaned money to the government will be taxed in order to be repaid, because after all, the government must find the money somewhere in order to repay the Canada savings bonds at double their value at the end of 12 years. Where will the government find the money? Well', under the present system it must tax the Canadian citizens and those who invest in Canada savings bonds do not realize what they are doing. They are lending Canada $1 so that Canada will repay them $2, but the Canadian government will have to levy a $3 tax in order to repay them $2, because there are then all the debt charges, all the inspectors, the bureaucrats, the civil servants, the government accountants, etc. Therefore,
Interim Supply
the government is doing some work for $1, it must repay $2 and tax those persons who have made some savings and invested them, in order to reimburse them. How will it be useful for a Canadian taxpayer to invest $100 in Canada savings bonds, if the same Canadian citizen is taxed two or three times in order that the capital and interests may be repaid?
Now, one realizes that such a system is very beneficial to the Canadian taxpayer. He lends money and he is required to give three times more to be repaid.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether those who buy savings bonds known as Canada centennial series issue, are making a good investment. People invest money in such a fund and afterwards taxes are levied to pay them back and one is taxed more than what one has loaned and more than one is supposed to get back.
Such savings plans, Mr. Chairman, which are called savings plans, are nothing else but plans to get Canada into debt and plans to increase taxes to repay Canada's debts. It is a strange system, because it is also a system where Canadian citizens, when they have savings, are asked not to invest them in the country's assets or development but in its debts. Those savings bonds are used to get the country deeper into debt, to increase the country's debt twofold, instead of only once, since twice as much than what has been received once is paid back, and the Canadian citizen will invest in the country's debt what he can save on his salary, on his profits. And when the time comes to develop our natural wealth, when the time comes to develop our secondary industries, when the time comes to develop our primary industry, Canadians no longer have any money. They have money to invest in the country's debt, but when the time comes to develop what would really increase the country's wealth, to develop our natural resources, they have no money, since all their savings went into the country's debt, the government's debt.
And that happens twice, because those savings are used once to be invested in Canada's debt and then people will be taxed a second time to repay those debts. It means that our savings go into the country's debt twice. And the debt increases twofold, since the government pays back twice what it borrowed.
And when the time comes to develop our natural wealth, the citizens of Canada have no more money. They are broke, they have no money in their pockets, everything has gone

November 7, 1966
Interim Supply
for the country's debt and there is no more to develop our natural resources. And what happens? Well, then, to develop our mines or forests, our streams, because our savings have been used up, because the government has taken our savings, we wait until some Americans, Englishmen or foreigners come to invest their own savings in the development of our natural resources.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the strange development system we have in Canada. Our own savings are used to get us into debt and to get the Canadian government into debt, and when the time comes to develop our natural resources and our industries, there is no money left and foreigners come to develop our wealth, our natural resources, our industries and they own all that and get the profits and dividends. And we remain stuck with the country's debt and with the taxes needed to pay back the public debt and the interest on it.
And our Canadian citizens play that game, because the government goes in for a lot of advertising about the Canada savings bonds. And I say it again: those advertisements say: "Invest a dollar and get two back." Lend the government a dollar, in 12 years, you will get two back. But if the government pays back two dollars in 12 years, it means that our debt has doubled in 12 years. And the savings of the Canadian citizen are buried in the public debt; we have no money left, and foreign people are coming to develop our country.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
And today we wake up, we are loaded with debts, we have invested all our money into the public debt; we owe about $22 billion but our industry is not our own, our natural resources, are not our own, they all belong to the extent of 78 per cent, to foreign people, because they have used their savings to develop our country while we have used ours to increase the public debt. And when you increase the public debt, the government is forced to increase the taxes to pay back the interest on that debt. And this year only, the government is going to tax the people to repay $1,280,000,000 in interest on our debt. And those who have bought savings bonds will be taxed so that they may receive their interest. If the Canadian people could realize what kind of game is being played, I think that they would invest their money better.
I think that it would be advisable to find a better means to finance the development of our country. I see that the Minister of

Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) who is in charge of Expo '67 is here tonight.
I think he does not have his earpiece on at the moment. If somebody would draw his attention, I would have a question for him at this stage. Further to the preliminary remarks I have just made, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I was saying that the Canadian government is forced to borrow, through savings bonds, to finance its undertakings. I understand that the Expo in Montreal-and that is what I wish to inquire about from the minister- that Expo '67 has put bonds on the market to finance its undertakings. I also understood that such bonds had been purchased by the Bank of Canada and that it was not necessary to borrow from foreign sources or from chartered banks. It means then, that the Bank of Canada has financed that public undertaking known as Expo '67. If that is so, if that is a fact, so much the better.
I should then like to ask the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce-perhaps he can answer later-if it is true that the bonds issued by Expo '67 have all, or at least, for the greater part, been bought by the Bank of Canada, so that in fact one gigantic public development was financed not by debts but by the Bank of Canada?
I hope that some time in the course of the debate on interim supply now before the house, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce will find the opportunity to answer that question, namely whether the Bank of Canada financed, pending returns, as great an undertaking as Expo '67.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: They sold pens.


Gilles Grégoire: If that is so, I can probably come back to that later.
The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) says "They sold pens", because he knows that the Ralliement national is financing the independence of Quebec through the sale of pens. Even then, that is better than financing the party the way the Liberals do, with the help of big financiers and fat campaign funds. There is haggling in Quebec these days over election funds. Some say: Do not reveal the sources of revenue, because then people will not want to contribute once they know who has already paid into the Liberal campaign funds. This cannot be divulged, because it would then become apparent that those who run things are the big financiers who contribute to the Liberal election fund. A case
November 7, 1966	COMMONS
in point is the fact that a candidate running for president of the Quebec Liberal Federation has stated that ever since the question of divulging the sources of contributions to the Liberal party election fund came up, contributions have dwindled. It is frightening. Some do not want any part of this, others want to contribute on the sly, so that nobody could link them with any political patronage.
The Postmaster General knows it exists within the Liberal party, he knows it for a fact. Well, in our case, we contribute, we build up our fund thanks to the good people who, like the minister said earlier, want to buy pens which will enable us to write out the independence of Quebec, and before long.
I shall continue, Mr. Chairman, after this interruption by the hon. Postmaster General, who could however deal with his own employees and see to it that there is no strike within the Post Office Department.
Mr. Chairman, I think that if the Bank of Canada can finance such a huge concern as Expo '67, there is no reason why the Bank of Canada or a national bank-in independent Quebec, we say the Bank of Quebec-should not be able to finance all public works, whether it be a subway, roads, bridges, schools, universities or hospitals. The national bank should finance these public works, so that the government will not always have to take the savings of the people, leaving them without money to invest in Canadian industry, in Quebec industry, Quebec trade, or the natural resources of Quebec or Canada in order to develop the country. The national bank should finance all these public projects and private capital should remain in the hands of private citizens, so that they can themselves finance the industrial development, the commercial development and that of the natural resources of their country, without having to ask foreigners for capital.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Eric Alfred Winkler: May I call it ten o'clock and ask the leader of the house what we will be doing tomorrow?


Mr. Pennell:: The government proposes to call interim supply again tomorrow and when it is passed it is proposed to call for the remainder of the week the following items on
DEBATES	9655
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the order paper: Item 100, the resolution relating to scientific research; item 83, second reading of Bill C-220 providing for an immigration appeal board; item 79, second reading of Bill C-229 relating to Canadian railways; item 93, the resolution to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act; item 101, second reading of Bill C-241 to amend the National Housing Act, and item 82, the medicare bill in committee of the whole.
The order of calling these items may have to be adjusted day by day. For instance, tomorrow, should interim supply be passed, it is proposed to call items 100, 79, 83 and 82.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask the house leader whether there is any information concerning when the old age pension legislation will appear.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I have indicated the business that is proposed to be called this week when interim supply has been concluded.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), under whose jurisdiction the National Housing Act comes, whether he had received representations from the city of Vancouver asking for an amendment to the National Housing Act which would permit federal help to be given for the building of recreational facilities in public housing projects. My question was not in the correct form and therefore I am raising the matter again now.
This is a very serious matter and one which has caused much concern over quite a long period to social workers, civic officials, elected representatives and responsible citizens in all walks of life, so much so that the Vancouver city council, which is not noted for making up its mind hastily in these matters, in September decided that it would provide one-third of the necessary money to build recreational areas in its four low-rental housing projects if Victoria and Ottawa each
9656	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion would pay one third also. The federal Minister of Labour said that such assistance is not permitted under the National Housing Act. Therefore, on October 25 the Vancouver city council decided to send the mayor and a senior alderman to Ottawa to meet the Minister of Labour in November to press for an amendment to the National Housing Act which would permit this to be done. Two days later the Minister of Labour introduced into this house his proposed amendments to the National Housing Act. X have looked over these very carefully and there is not a word concerning any provision for federal aid to build recreational facilities in these public housing projects.
For a moment or two I should like to discuss the need for these facilities in the four low-rental housing projects in Vancouver. As I say, there is a great and growing public concern about this matter. In order to give the house some idea about the need I will take one example from some of the material in a brief which was prepared by the Skeena Terrace Tenants' Association. Skeena Terrace is one of the low-rental housing projects in Vancouver in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). Perhaps more than any other this project is illustrative of the need to have these homes made into real genuine homes for tenants instead of boxes for beds which is the case in a good many of these housing projects right now.
The reason for the need for recreational facilities, above all, is that there is a tremendous density of people in a very small land area. Skeena Terrace would cover about three city blocks. I think it houses over 800 people of all ages, including nearly 600 children. I know Skeena Terrace well. It is located in a hillside with very steep land gradations. There just is no place outside that is suitable for children's games and there are no proper facilities inside for recreation. On the north, south and east Skeena Terrace is bounded by heavy industrial projects.
On the north and west boundaries there is only a very short distance between Skeena Terrace and exceptionally heavy traffic arteries. In effect this has made an island of the area, with no green or flat space on which children can play. It has isolated the people in this area and remember, Mr. Speaker, they are low income people. There is a heavy concentration of children in the area and a large number of elderly people as well.

DEBATES	November 7, 1966
The trouble is that the two existing community recreational facilities in that part of the city are situated too far from Skeena Terrace for the children to use. For the majority of tenants on low income the cost of transportation to existing facilities, especially for families with several children, is prohibitive. In addition to membership cost at the community centres, many programs have fees attached to them and familites on limited incomes find this a heavy burden.
The closest park facility has to be reached by crossing a main traffic artery. Indoor facilities there are negligible and the grounds are used by organized teams, so that children who reach it from Skeena Terrace sometimes cannot use it. Added to this is the problem of the senior citizens who have difficulty in getting access to the community grounds.
The Vancouver board of parks and public recreation did supply one full-time recreational director during part of the summer months but was forced to remove her as there were no satisfactory areas in which she could work with the children. Local housing authority officials are handicapped because they are not allowed any money for expenditure on recreational facilities.
The tenants themselves have tried through their own efforts to get help from private organizations. Alexandra neighbourhood services association has supplied them with a qualified worker for two days a week, and the Company of Young Canadians recently sent them two fine young people to work there full time. However, there is not even office space, let alone recreational space, in which these people can work.
I suggest that before it is too late the minister should consider adding this type of amendment to his proposals to amend the National Housing Act. People living in commercial housing and apartment buildings enjoy games rooms and party rooms. They have terraces and swimming pools. If these things are desirable for people living in the cramped space of commercial housing and apartments, then surely they are necessary for the tenants of public housing.
The delinquency rate in the Skeena Terrace housing project has been remarkably low so far, but I have talked to social workers who are afraid of what will happen to these children when they grow older and do not have adequate facilities to keep them busy. At present they are completely cut off from
November 7, 1966

the games and recreational facilities they should have. There is no use talking about waging a war on poverty if we do not provide recreational space for people in such projects, and so I urge the government to consider providing the necessary money.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary of Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, because of the absence of the minister, who I am sure would have replied much more adequately than I, it is my duty to respond to the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway urging the inclusion of recreational facilities in public housing. The fact that the hon. member has contacted the minister, the fact that the mayor and certain aldermen of the city of Vancouver travelled to Ottawa on October 5 to plead their case, and the fact that Bill No. C-241 will soon come before the house all show that the minister is fully aware of the arguments made on behalf of recreational fac lities. I do not think there is anybody in the house who would disagree with the argument of the hon. member that recreational facilities are needed, particularly in this type of housing project.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is not clear who has the responsibility for providing these facilities. Obviously nothing in the present housing act permits the federal government to assume jurisdiction in this area. I think it is encouraging to a federalist to know that the civic authorities are quite willing to share in the financial burden of this type of project not only with the federal government but the provincial government. I would be interested in knowing whether the provincial government agrees with the suggestion that they absorb one-third of the cost of such projects, as originally put forward by the civic authorities.
The hon. member and others will have an opportunity when Bill No. C-241 is before the house in the very near future to suggest this very worth-while amendment and the minister will probably give his reasons for opposition to or agreement with the arguments presented. It may be unconstitutional for the federal government to do this; I have no way of knowing that. But I assure the hon. member that she will have an opportunity in a matter of weeks to place this suggestion more fully before the house.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion FISHERIES-REMOVAL OF OFFICE FROM GASPE TO QUEBEC CITY


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, the problem I am about to raise is one that on three occasions already I have put before the minister and the house. It requires a very simple answer. My question is: What is happening to the fisheries office which is now in Gaspe? This office answers all the problems of the fishermen of the province of Quebec. They are not local problems but provincial problems and therefore that much more important. On three previous occasions I have asked for information on this subject and to date have not received an answer.
As the parliamentary secretary possibly knows, there are at the Gaspe office five employees who work under the fisheries indemnity plan. There are also seven or perhaps eight field officers who in some cases do the work called for under the fisheries indemnity plan and in other cases combine inspection service work and work under this plan.
I consider this problem important enough to raise during the adjournment debate because of the type of work that is carried out by the officers and those who administer the office. First of all, they administer the fisheries indemnity plan. They also deal with problems raised with regard to the insurance of fishing vessels. Further, they deal with the insurance of lobster traps, and more recently with the insurance of fixed gear. Beyond all this they administer the salt assistance plan of the Department of Fisheries. These things alone justify the office of the Department of Fisheries being in the area where the fisheries industry exists. You will not find any fishermen around the city of Quebec; you will not find them on the St. Charles River or the Red River. You will find them on the lower St. Lawrence, and the central point is the Gaspe area.
These employees have to oversee the insurance of 1,600 to 1,700 fishing vessels. This alone demonstrates the importance of the industry to the lower St. Lawrence. These fishermen are all quite close to the Gaspe area and need to have personal contact with officers of the Department of Fisheries. I hope hon. members realize that our fishermen are not white-collar executives. They spend a great deal of their time at sea, and conditions do not permit their using a typewriter when sailing over the rough waters of the St. Lawrence. When they are home on Sundays they do not require their wives to sit down
9658	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and write letters to the departmental officials.
I think the department owes them personal contact; the fisheries officials should meet the fishermen to hear their problems and to do something about them.
I will give a recent example of what happened in a small fishing village in my riding. A fisherman who had insured his boat under the fisheries indemnity plan saw it subsequently destroyed in a storm. The boat could not be used any longer so he brought it up on the shore and dismantled it. When the fisheries officer came to inspect the boat, it was gone. Many witnesses saw the boat, but the fisherman who is claiming insurance cannot produce proof of his loss. This is not due to any operations of a genius. He is a simple fisherman who said to himself: Since my boat is no longer worth anything, I will break it up and use it to kindle my fire. Nevertheless he had invested possibly $500 in that boat. He owes money to the bank but unfortunately he is not able to produce proof of the loss. How can he justify his claim?
There are officers working in the area but should the administrative office be moved back to the city they will still have to communicate with the fishermen. By the time they get to the fishermen there will be many more such problems. This situation is similar to what has happened with the closing of certain Unemployment Insurance Commission offices. You are putting the administration on wheels and the only people you are going to help are service station attendants and hotelkeepers. There will be more inspectors on the highway but this will not improve the service to the fisherman because by the time it reaches him it will be too late.
There are many other reasons I could bring forward but I will not take up the full time allotted to me. Fishermen in that area would like the administrative officers to be present in their area instead of being located in Quebec city. I hope we will realize the needs of the fishermen and will not revert to the situation which has existed in the past.


Mr. Richard Cashin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I can well appreciate the concern that the hon. gentleman has shown for the fishermen in the Gaspe region and his desire that they should be able to maintain close contact with officers of the fisheries department. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robi-chaud) has replied to the hon. member but he may not have received that letter because I
[Mr. Keays.l
DEBATES	November 7. 1966
know it was sent to the translation service. In that letter, with reference to earlier correspondence which the hon. member has had with the minister, the minister points out he has had an opportunity to review the matter fully and has authorized the gradual phasing out of the administrative office in the Gaspe region. It is hoped that this will lead to a more efficient operation. Nevertheless the minister will bear in mind the representations which the hon. member has made and I am sure he shares the hon. member's concern that the fishermen have as much access as possible to the Department of Fisheries.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I should like to remind the hon. member that the two F.I.P. officers and a clerk 4 who presently comprise half the staff of the office will remain in Gaspe, as well as the inspection officers. This will afford an opportunity for the fishermen of the area to maintain the contact that they have enjoyed with the department in the past.
It is felt and hoped that this change will in fact result in greater service to the fishermen of the area, and I am sure we are all anxious that this be achieved. Likewise, I am sure that the minister will want to bear in mind the comments the hon. member has made in regard to this matter.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order, please.



EXPO '67-MONTREAL, P.Q., SUGGESTED IMPOSITION OF RENT CONTROLS

Mr. Milton L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, last week I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in which I asked him whether the government would consider imposing the necessary measures to freeze leases and to establish rent controls on all dwellings and housing accommodation in the city of Montreal within a radius of 60 miles until May 1, 1968, when the abnormal accommodation problem created by Expo would have subsided. I think that the reason for this question is obvious. Up till now the emphasis has been on protecting visitors who will be coming to Expo. However, I believe the citizens of Montreal equally require the protection of the law with respect to their right to the accommodation they now occupy.
November 7, 19G6	COMMONS
The statistics projected by the Expo authorities indicate that, considering the number of people who will come to Montreal during Expo, accommodation will be required for these vast numbers not only in the city of Montreal but also in an area extending to Ottawa, St. Jovite, Three Rivers, Cornwall and down to the United States border. If this is true, and I have no doubt that it is, it indicates that the existing accommodation within the immediate vicinity of Expo and the island of Montreal itself will become premium accommodation. It will be very tempting to landlords who now own property in the city of Montreal to lease it out on a nightly basis rather than to keep their tenants who were with them previously in the property on a yearly basis.
I believe it is unrealistic to think that somebody who wanted to visit Expo for two or three days during one week would room in Ottawa, travel to Montreal, visit Expo, come back to Ottawa at night to sleep, then return to Montreal the next day to visit Expo, and do this two or three times during the week. During the operation of the world's fair in New York the state of New York imposed rent control and the situation was handled adequately as a result. Furthermore, the world's fair took place during the period May 1 to October 1 when the tourist trade in New York city is at its lowest ebb. The reverse is the case in Montreal. From the period May 1, 1967 to October 1, 1967, when Expo will be in operation, the tourist trade is at its highest level, and accommodation raises some problem even when Expo is not a factor as it will be in 1967.
My feeling is that Expo is a national undertaking. Because of this the situation that has been created is in fact of national interest. It seems to me that the government ought to provide stand-by legislation which need not necessarily be put into effect immediately but can be implemented if the situation gets out of hand. This legislation should be retroactive to November 1, 1966.
It may be that all parties in the house would consent to putting through such standby legislation rapidly. I point out that the machinery required to operate this legislation is in effect in the Montreal area at the present time. There is rent control, but in my view it is not adequate to cope with the situation that I believe will arise probably by February 1, 1967. Many tenants may not even be aware that when their leases expire on May 1, 1967, under certain circumstances 23033-6111
DEBATES	9659
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion they are not even entitled to notice but may be told that they must vacate. This, I submit, will create great hardship in Montreal and will place many of our citizens in a difficult position. The last thing we want to do in our centennial year, I should think, is to place large numbers of our citizens in positions of hardship in Montreal during the term of Expo. I urge that in the interests of the citizens of Montreal steps be taken to control this situation.


Mr, Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister who is present in the house I am pleased to assure my hon. friend that the government of Canada, the government of Quebec, the city of Montreal and the Expo Corporation are fully aware of the importance of making good accommodation available efficiently and at reasonable rates to the millions of visitors expected at Expo '67.
The corporation has set up a reservations department called Logexpo which has already made 90,000 reservations covering some 370,000 hotel days or bed nights as the experts in Montreal call them. Logexpo is in a position to make reservations at reasonable prices for all inquirers at the present time. In this work the organization is receiving full co-operation from the Quebec Hotel Owners' Association, the government of the province of Quebec and, indeed, from a number of agencies in parts of eastern Ontario within easy driving distance of the exhibition site.
Hon. members will be aware that any legislative action that may be required is in the hands of the province of Quebec. In this respect the Prime Minister of Quebec has indicated on a number of occasions in recent weeks that the province is fully aware of its responsibilities as the host province during Expo and will take all measures necessary to ensure that visitors are well received and fairly treated. This legislative action might also include the protection of tenants now living in Montreal. We feel that the government's hands are tied. This is a provincial responsibility. The federal government can act only on a national basis and under certain circumstances.
All of us associated with the exhibition are keeping the closest continuing watch on the accommodation situation in Montreal. It is our hope that common sense and good citizenship will prevail and, indeed, they are prevailing up until the present time. Any
November 7, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion excesses or abuses can be expected from only a very small minority and will be dealt with firmly as they arise. The international reputation of Montreal, Quebec and, indeed, the entire country is at stake in this exhibition, as are the future prospects for our tourist industry. Expo '67 is a great business opportunity for Canada and we do not intend to permit a very few people to jeopardize its success.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Tuesday, November 8, 1966