1966-11-01

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: I rise on a question of privilege respecting the right of all hon. members of this house to receive proper information in answer to questions presented by them to ministers, or in the course of statements made by ministers on motions.
My question of privilege arises out of remarks of the Postmaster General reported on pages 9063 and 9064 of Hansard for Tuesday last dealing with symbols used by the Canadian post office. At one point the minister said:
Notwithstanding the practice in the past, it is my view that the latest proposal-
That is, the proposal for a symbol
-is a matter of such a nature as to require cabinet approval.
Later, he said:
I think I made it clear that the object of the proposed new symbol now under consideration is merely to provide a symbol of the post office which would be uniform for postal purposes.
I wish to emphasize the use of the words "proposed new symbol".
In Halifax recently, and perhaps in other parts of Canada, post office employees have been delivering a document which I hold in my hand, headed "An apartment number is a necessary part of a postal address". At the bottom of the document appear the words "Issued by authority of the Postmaster General" and alongside the word "General" appears a modernized form of what I presume to be a maple leaf with the initials C. and P intertwined.
I think it was fair to interpret the remarks of the Postmaster General in this house a few days ago as meaning that while changes were being considered, they would first have to go before the cabinet and that in any event they had not as yet been approved. Yet this is the fait accompli with which we have been presented.
23033-592i



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether the government will give reconsideration to what many regard, and rightly, as an unjust decision not to redeem the perpetual bonds which, as a result of the hon. gentleman's announcement, have fallen approximately 50 per cent in price, causing undue suffering to older people.
In view of the minister's explanation that he did not want speculators to make a killing in this regard, would he redeem those bonds from those who have held them for, say, 15 years? All across this nation there are older people who are in a very difficult position today as a result of the government's policy announcement.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: The government gave very careful consideration to the question of redeeming these perpetual bonds and after considering all the matters which were relevant, including the position of some of the original holders of these bonds, we came to the conclusion that it would not be in the general interest to redeem them.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister not reconsider this decision in view of the fact that many of the older people have kept these bonds throughout the years and now find themselves with only 50 per cent of their value on hand?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is one of the matters which did cause us great concern. We knew there were some older people who had held their bonds from the time they were issued. Unfortunately, quite a number of people in a similar position had sold theirs from time to time during the years. It certainly would not be equitable to have regard to the losses suffered by those who held the bonds and not the losses suffered by those who sold them at an earlier date.


John George Diefenbaker: What about your promise for the future of the new bonds?
9364	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY



ALLEGED TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION TO FOREIGN POWER BY CIVIL SERVANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice regarding a report that the R.C.M.P are investigating a new security case involving civil servants who, it is alleged, have made information available to agents of a foreign power. Is such an investigation being conducted and has the minister anything to report regarding it?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question I can only say that an investigation is being conducted to determine whether there has been a breach of the law or security, and when that investigation has been concluded and the necessary decisions arrived at, an announcement will be made to the house as soon as possible. I hope, and I believe the hon. member will share my view that I ought not to be pressed any further on this question.


John George Diefenbaker: Don't leave it on your desk for two and a half years.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the minister said he did not want us to go any further on this, but as a further supplementary question I would like to ask him whether there have been any suspensions of people in the civil service, as the report suggests? This is an important matter in the civil service of Canada. Have there been any suspensions while the investigation is going on?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I ought to attempt to answer that question, but I assure the hon. member that I shall be as frank as possible at the appropriate moment.



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is now about a year since the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) promised to appoint a commission to deal with security procedures in the government service, can the minister give the house any information as to when this commission will be set up to review this whole problem?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
DEBATES	November 1, 1966


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was on October 6 that the Prime Minister informed the house, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) that he hoped to be able to announce the membership of such a commission shortly. This is still the Prime Minister's intention.
I can assure the hon. member that every effort is being made to find the ablest people possible to undertake this important work, and as soon as this is done an announcement will be made.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, or possibly to the assistant to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a letter which was sent from the Prime Minister's office to representatives from the north, and I would direct attention more particularly to the first two lines in the second paragraph of that letter, which are as follows:
The government's decision of October 4th-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I would bring it to the attention of the hon. member that he cannot read any part of the document to which he has just referred.


Murdo William Martin: In that case, Mr. Speaker, possibly I can paraphrase the question I originally intended to ask. Can the Acting Prime Minister inform the house when it became government policy to have its decisions dictated by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited or any other company?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it has never been the policy of this government to allow anyone to dictate its policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Would he use his influence on the government so that it would set up a tripartite committee, composed of government, industry and labour representatives, to assess on a continuing basis the effects of the Canada-United States auto pact?
November 1, 1966


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that such a committee is not needed to give evidence of the great positive results of the Canada-United States automotive pact-


Mr. Ricard:: Five thousand people lost their jobs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -which has resulted in increased employment-


Michael Starr: Where?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -and which has resulted in increased production.


John George Diefenbaker: And increased profits for Studebaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to useful discussions, Mr. Speaker, I would tell my hon. friend that this afternoon the government will be discussing other phases of this matter with labour, just as we have unhesitatingly discussed these matters with management, and speaking for myself I hope the day will come soon when we can have discussions between labour, management and government at the same time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Regimbal (Argenleuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that thousands of small marginal industries throughout the country, such as the multimillion dollar Christmas greeting card industry, would be in jeopardy in the event of a postal strike, could the minister give a report on the progress of his talks with the postal employees and could he indicate whether a solution is probable to avoid a strike?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I, and I am sure everyone in Canada, is hopeful that such a strike can be avoided. I should like to indicate to the house that last week we met with the postal workers and today officers of my department have been meeting with them and carrying on talks with regard to their demands, which appear to us to be unreasonable, and with regard to the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, which they think is unacceptable.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government given any consideration to the suggestion I made several weeks ago that the government appoint a mediator, who would be outside the total picture and who would be familiar with comparable wage rates in industry, to look into this matter and advise as to some reasonable figure which might be acceptable to both parties?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government has looked into all aspects of this matter and is considering all possibilities which might develop in the future.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to address to the Minister of Fisheries. When the minister's estimates were before the committee of the house I asked the minister whether a decision had been taken concerning the moving of the fisheries officers from Gasp6 to Quebec city. I received no answer and now I should like to ask the minister if, as indicated by the telegrams I have received, the officers working under the fisheries indemnity plan are being moved to Quebec city.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question which might very well be placed on the order paper.


James Russell Keays: On a point of order: Apparently this order has now been given and there is deep concern about this in my riding.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. As a result of the many studies made by the minister during the past few weeks, can he announce today his decision concerning the temporary removal of tolls on the Champlain bridge?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been doing my studies on the spot. On Saturday I visited
November 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry the Jacques Cartier bridge and found that the work is proceeding so rapidly that it appears it would hardly be necessary for me to continue my studies. I believe it will be finished very shortly.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps in his absence the parliamentary secretary would like to take it as notice. Can an indication be given by the government as to when we might have an announcement concerning the date of payment and the amount of the subsidy per ton on the 1965 Canadian sugar beet crop?
. Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):	Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I will endeavour to have a reply for him at an early date.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. One June 5, 1964 the Minister of Fisheries announced changes in the fishing vessel assistance regulations whereby 30 per cent of the approved cost is paid on wooden vessels over 55 feet in length. Is the Minister of Fisheries or the government giving consideration to increasing the sudsidy on wooden ships from 30 to 50 per cent and would the minister indicate the present state of development on this matter between his government and the provincial governments?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: There is no intention to increase the subsidy on wooden vessels over 55 feet in length from 30 to 50 per cent. We are, however, discussing with certain provinces the implications of a 25 per cent subsidy on wooden vessels between 35 and 45 feet in length.

Mr. Speaker, to avoid any misunderstanding perhaps I might be permitted to
[Mr. Piekersgill.l
make a slight addition to the answer I gave a few minutes ago to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. Discussion is taking place with some provincial fisheries loan boards with respect to the application of a 50 per cent subsidy on a special class of wooden vessels under 55 feet, of approved design, and related to specific fisheries development programs.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I shoud like to ask the Minister of National Defence-I notice he now has disappeared from the house-whether he is in a position to answer the question I asked him last week in respect of the very large increase in the cost of the refitting of H.M.C.S. Bonaventure^
Possibly the associate minister might answer this.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I asked this question last week and at that time it was taken as notice. I expected the minister to provide an answer at any time during the last three or four sitting days, but I am now told that it will again be taken as notice.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, this question was taken as notice by the minister last week, and not by myself. I am taking it as notice today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) I should like to direct my question to the hon. member for Norfolk in his capacity as vice chairman of the committee on Indian affairs. When is it intended to call that committee into action, so it can carry out the mandate given to it by this house before the recess last summer?
November 1, 1966


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, I have been away and this is my first day back in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I agree 100 per cent with the suggestion of my hon. friend and I will certainly get in touch with the chairman to see what can be done in this regard.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask as a supplementary question whether the Prime Minister will take cognizance of the force of that reply, and consider putting that hon. member in the cabinet so we can get some action on some of these things.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: I will take note of that suggestion.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. I addressed this same question to the Prime Minister some months ago at which time he said he would take it under advisement and reply shortly. Will the government give consideration to referring the whole subject of cruelty to animals to an appropriate committee for study and report, in view of the great public interest and concern in this matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of an announcement made a few days ago regarding regional air subsidies. Is the minister or his department now accepting applications from the regional air carriers in order that they may take advantage of this policy? If that is not the case, does the minister or his department intend to take any action to familiarize these regional air carriers in respect of how they can take advantage of the subsidies?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Air Transport Board advised me yesterday that a circular was to be issued almost immediately to all interested parties covering precisely the point raised by the hon. gentleman. I do not think there is any reasonable doubt that this circular will be sent out this week.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister indicate to the house the effective date of these subsidies in order that the regional air carriers will have that information?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course the effective date would depend upon a judgment made by the Air Transport Board in respect of each case, which must be considered on its own merit.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Postmaster General. Will that gentleman assure the house that no material will be distributed by his department which bears the unauthorized symbol I mentioned earlier today?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it may be that the symbol mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax has appeared on some departmental brochures. What I said in the course of my statement was that I would ask for the approval of the cabinet with regard to whether that symbol is acceptable to represent the Post Office Department or Canadian Post everywhere, and to where it should be used. But I can assure the hon. member that if that symbol has been used, it was not to the detriment of the Canadian coat of arms.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question, in view of his explanation, with regard to the advertisement in question. Has there been any authorization by the cabinet to the alteration of the insignia to a maple leaf with
9368	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry "CP" or "PC" on it? My second question is: When the minister says that the notice in question did not come out under his authority-that is what I took his explanation to mean-is this correct? This document says, "Issued by the authority of the Postmaster General".


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. As far as the second question is concerned, perhaps 10 or 15 different symbols have been accepted to go on the brochures, like postal cancellations or stamps, and things of that sort that have been used for years and years.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it correct that this particular brochure bearing the maple leaf with "PC" and "CP" on it is just one of many that are being issued to try them out on the public?


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: It is one of the many that have been issued, but one that I think would be acceptable for use on more important places.



REQUEST FOR EQUALIZATION OF POSTAL RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Eskimo-Saanich regarding the rate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: That is the kind of trouble I get into when I try to speak in English.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Under provisions of the convention of the Universal Postal Union, Christmas cards posted unsealed and bearing conventional formulas of greetings expressed in five words or five initials at the most are classified as "printed matter" and subject to the postage rate applicable to this category of mail.
As far as letters going to Britain, our printed matter rate is 4 cents for the first two ounces and 2 cents for each additional two ounces, which is our general international printed matter rate based on the charges prescribed in the Universal Postal Union Convention. Thus, a Christmas card weighing two ounces or less and conforming to the conditions mentioned above is subject to a postage rate of 4 cents.

DEBATES	November 1, 1966
I can add that the special arrangements between Canada and Britain relative to preferential postage rates cover only letters, post cards and second class matter. These rates apply also to every other country in the world except the ones that belong to the Postal Union of the Americas and Spain. As far as Spain is concerned, our printed matter rate is 3 cents for the first two ounces and 1 cent for each additional two ounces in accordance with a provision of the Convention of the Postal Union of the Americas and Spain which prescribes that member countries are bound to extend to each other their domestic rates of postage for all categories of surface correspondence, including printed matter. Thus, an ordinary Christmas card posted unsealed is subject to a postage rate of 3 cents, which is the general rate in effect in our domestic service for printed matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister. I had some doubt yesterday when the question was asked as to whether it was a proper question, but hon. members represented that it had to do with Christmas mail and I allowed the question to stand. However, it was obvious that the question was seeking very detailed information. The information the minister is now giving would to my mind be more appropriately given by way of ministerial statement.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on October 27 I asked the Minister of Finance whether he could give the house an indication of when we might expect legislation to set up a federal deposit insurance corporation. The Prime Minister said he would take the question as notice and the Minister of Finance would answer perhaps on Monday. Is the minister able to answer the question now?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is now in process of being drafted and I hope it will be on the order paper very soon. I share the desire of the hon. member to see it on the order paper, so that when the Bank Act and the other legislation is being discussed in the committee the members at least will know what the government's intentions are with respect to deposit insurance.
November 1, 1966



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the winter works program is getting under way today and that those municipalities which have not yet received payment for last year's projects cannot begin this year's winter works program, since they cannot obtain bank loans for the coming season, would the hon. minister tell us if the delay in making payments for last year's winter works projects is caused by the Ottawa or the Quebec government and, if Ottawa is responsible for the delay, would he inform the house as to when these payments will be made to the municipalities?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government makes payments as soon as the projects have received the approval of provincial governments. I do not think there is any delay on the part of the federal government.
However, the question is too wide-ranging. If the hon. member had a specific case to submit, I would be able to tell him who is responsible for the delay, but as I am not fully cognizant of all such instances, I do not feel justified in committing myself.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Could the minister, through his department, send a circular to the responsible officials in the provinces and ask them to tidy up their office as soon as possible so as to get municipalities now faced with that problem out of the mess?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making representations of which, I have no doubt, the minister has taken note.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. This will be the 38th time I
Inquiries of the Ministry have raised the matter of the possibility of our having legislation on the order paper in regard to old age pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask the
Acting Prime Minister when we might expect it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It isn't ready yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the legislation regarding old age security pensions is ready.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that that is an impertinent question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He also knows that when this legislation is brought down, this government will do something that is consistent with a record in the field of social security that no other party in this country can emulate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the latter portion of that statement nobody will disagree. Is it not a fact that under this plan the means test is going to be applied to the old age pensioners of Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the supplementary question was in order. Perhaps the answer given by the Acting Prime Minister was intended to provoke debate; therefore I think we should go on to further questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not intend to provoke debate, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to welcome the right hon. gentleman back from Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I now ask the hon. gentleman the simple question: Is the government going to impose the means test on the old age pensioners of Canada? Is that the new plan the government has in mind?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is no.
9370	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric Alfred Winkler: On a point of order, I simply want to rise and tell the Acting Prime Minister-


John George Diefenbaker: It is going to be the needs test. What is the difference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce rises on a point of order -would the hon. member kindly resume his seat-to tell the Acting Prime Minister something. If the hon. member rises on a point of order, it should be addressed to the Chair.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My initial intervention may have been impertinent so far as the Acting Prime Minister is concerned, but it is not irrelevant so far as the senior citizens of Canada are concerned.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary question? If the legislation respecting an old age pension increase is ready, will the government put it on the order paper so we can see whether there is a test of any kind in it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to say that the question is hypothetical.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: So is
the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, has the government because of spurious reasons the right to keep on refusing to put legislation on the order paper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the first to recognize that that is not a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: They are playing cat and mouse with the old age pensioners.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to go from the political football to the pigskin variety, if I might, and address a question to the Secretary of State. Would the minister do her best in intervening with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to help remove the ire of the many thousands of football fans in Saskatoon who will not be able to see the play-offs since they have been

DEBATES	November 1, 1966
blacked out by the C.B.C. in this one-television station city? In view of the fact that the Saskatchewan Roughriders will undoubtedly be the next Grey Cup champions, what can be done by the minister in this regard?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker I suppose that if the latter statement is correct most of the residents of Saskatchewan will be out watching their team, not at home watching television. However, I will be very pleased to take up this matter with the corporation.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour which arises out of his answer yesterday on the availability of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans. Have guide lines been set for local managers on what the minister yesterday termed the very urgent loans, and are these guide lines in print and available to home owners or builders?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In light of the recent tragic passing of John Drainie, one of the foremost voices in Canadian radio, I wonder whether the minister would commend to the C.B.C. that they look into the possibility of producing a memorial album of some of the best works of John Drainie over the past 25 years of broadcasting on the C.B.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Although there is no doubt a good deal of sympathy for the suggestion which has been made by the hon. member, his suggestion should be made either by communicating with the minister or by putting a question on the order paper.
November 1, 1966



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport arising out of what is said to be a shortage of railway cars, in southern Alberta in particular. The minister said only yesterday that he had been advised that the situation had improved a good deal. I want to ask the minister whether he will use his good offices in this regard. I have a wire here, as a matter of fact sent only-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member has now asked his question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer, sir, is yes.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to pose a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but I see he has left his seat, so perhaps I could refer my question to the Acting Prime Minister who might refer it to his colleague. My question is: How soon may we expect the new regulations which are to be drawn up under the Canada Assistance Plan, so that those persons in Canada who are suffering from disabilities may have improved opportunities in respect to receipt of their pensions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will see that this is passed on.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is back with us I should like to direct this question to him once more. Could the minister tell us how soon the regulations under the Canada Assistance Plan will come into effect so that those who might be eligible to receive disabled persons' allowance will be able to apply for the allowance under more lenient conditions?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I know that officials of my department have had pretty lengthy discussions with officials in the provincial departments in order to complete
23033-593|
Inquiries of the Ministry these regulations, and I will check to determine exactly the present situation. With respect to the payment of any benefits under the Canada Assistance Plan, I should like to tell my hon. friend that the law is retroactive with respect to payments to April 1, and that provinces can claim from that date payments they have made under the plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether agreements between Ottawa and any of the provinces have yet been made under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think any agreements have been signed, but I will also check into that.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport; I hope he is not being neglected in this house. I should like to ask him whether he would use his good offices to see that the Canadian National Railways supply the "Chaleur" train with a toaster so that in the mornings passengers can have toast instead of cold buns?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Due to the failure of Air Canada under its new schedule to provide adequate servicing of the major cities in Saskatchewan, would the minister now consider approaching Canadian Pacific Airlines to see whether they could provide alternate service to this fastest growing province in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at the moment, sir.	'


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister has any reason for saying that, in view of the inadequate service we are now receiving?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The supplementary is out of order.
9372	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



HOUSING-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he received a request from the governments of the three prairie provinces to convene a federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs, particularly to deal with conflicts that have appeared in the area of housing?


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering whether the question as asked is acceptable, but perhaps the minister wants to reply to it.
Kon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):	Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked me a similar question. He wondered whether we had had protests from the three prairie provinces and I told him that I was not aware of any. I now find that there had been a meeting in October in Winnipeg where representatives of the three prairie provinces put forward some criticisms, particularly with regard to housing. However, I have received no representations from the provinces collectively.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister yet in a position to answer my question of yesterday regarding the excessive radiation on the beach at Port Hope caused by the atomic waste from Eldorado Mining and Refining Company?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is prepared to answer that question.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the radiation levels at the beach at Port Hope, reported on Saturday night C.B.C. television news featuring Professor Andrews, are not so high that they would make the beach an unsafe place for children to play. I am also informed that the beach is not one on which children habitually play.

DEBATES	November 1, 1966
The concern that was expressed in the television interview appears to have been based on a misunderstanding and the misapplication of the regulations made pursuant to the Atomic Energy Control Act, which are intended to limit the exposure of a person to ionizing radiation from radioactive materials during any period of 13 weeks. In the interview implications regarding the permissible intensity of radiation were drawn which were entirely unwarranted and contrary to the intentions of the regulations.
Children in their play are exposed to many risks of injury, poisoning and infection. Compared with these, the hazards from the reported radioactivity on the beach discussed in the television interview are insignificant. The publicity that has been given to these entirely unwarranted suggestions on radiation hazards unfortunately has probably caused needless anxiety and distress on the part of parents of children in Port Hope. The Atomic Energy Control Board and the Ontario department of health have this matter under investigation.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question. Is the minister or his department keeping a constant watch on the radioactive substance on the beach in order to keep it under control at all times?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is what I said, Mr. Speaker. I said that the Atomic Energy Control Board and the Ontario department of health have this matter under investigation. I presume that this is something on which they would keep a constant check.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State whether she has given any thought to the proposal that I made some time ago that an ad hoc committee of the House of Commons to look into the question of a youth parliament should be set up. It seems to me that a great many of the young people of the country are extremely interested in this project, and I would hope that the minister would convene this committee so that they can decide whether or not such a project is going to be held in Canada's centennial year.
November 1, 1966	COMMONS


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for over one month for the Centennial Commission to forward the proposal, which I understand it has been considering, for an alternate provision for politically minded youth in the country. When that has been received I shall have an opportunity to consider it. I hope then to call together those members of the house who will be kind enough to give their time on the said committee, so that we may see what the situation is.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he use his good offices, or make inquiries to find out whether trains Nos. 2 and 4 between Sherbrooke and Quebec city, which are the only trains serving the people of that area, should be maintained?


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be put on the order paper.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I directed a question to the Minister of Finance which related to the extension of the cut-off date for the sale of proof-like sets in the mint and the possibility of the disposal of the surplus of some 200,000 to 300,000 sets. The minister said he would take the matter under advisement. I wonder whether he has done so, and whether he can now reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: I regret that I did not bring the material with me. I shall endeavour to answer the question tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
DEBATES	9373
Granting of Further Powers to Committee ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has yet given consideration to the suggestion that as a tribute of sympathy to the people of Aberfan a school be built by Canada as a memorial. I ask that in view of the widespread support across this country being given to the suggestion.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minisler: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has followed up the question put by my right hon. friend with regard to his suggestion for a school in the distressed community. Consideration has also been given to other devices that are being suggested. The Prime Minister regrettably is absent because of a cold, but I can assure my hon. friend that he is following this matter very closely.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved:: That, in addition to the powers granted July 13, 1966, to the Standing Committee on Northern Affairs and National Resources, the said Committee be also empowered to obtain further information relating to matters and projects dealing with national parks and historic parks and sites;
That for this purpose, the said Committee be authorized to sit while the House is sitting or during adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the Clerk of the said Committee and the necessary supporting staff do accompany the said Committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say only a few words on this resolution to authorize a committee to sit in places where there are national parks.
The few remarks I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, deal with the general structure of those committees. I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the house, in two minutes, the fact that there is a group in this house, whose members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member immediately, but I wish to remind him that what we must discuss at this time is the motion brought before the house, and not the committee structure. If the hon. member wants to refer to another matter, as an introduction or preamble to his remarks, there is, of course, little objection to that. But he knows that what we must consider at this time is the motion itself.
9374	COMMONS
Granting of Further Powers to Committee


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I feel I would not even have had time to make preliminary remarks because I was stopped before doing so, but by way of introduction, I would like to say to the house, on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and myself, that we are the only two members, and I would like to call this to the attention of the house, who are not members of committees and who are denied the right to sit on any committee whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I rather suspected the hon. member wanted to comment on a situation which, incidentally, he has already discussed with the Speaker of the house. I should like to remind the hon. member again that this is not the time to discuss the grievances he may have in this regard and that he must limit his comments as much as possible to the question now before the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question before the house is whether or not to allow a committee, like others affected by other resolutions, to depart from the rules of the house by consent of hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, this is precisely a committee which is going to sit. The house is asked to pass a resolution concerning the proceedings of a committee but at the same time, I would like to point out that we are not in a position to speak or make representations to any committee because we are the only two members who do not belong to any committee, neither the committee of northern affairs and national resources nor any other. Then, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that my comments are relevant because if I want to speak on this matter, I must do so in the house and not in the committee, because I am not-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the member to ask him to co-operate with the Chair; I can be mistaken naturally, but in my opinion, the house is only considering at present the motion introduced by the minister about certain powers which the house wishes to grant a committee.
The hon. member says that he cannot discuss certain matters in a committee, and he infers that he must raise those matters in the house. He is right, but that does not mean he should deal with them right now. He may have to wait for a more appropriate opportunity to do so.

DEBATES	November 1, 1966


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker; you are asking for my co-operation, but I intend to ask for yours so as to enable two members, alone in their corner-


An hon. Member:: They asked for it.


Gilles Grégoire: -who are deprived of a right or a privilege belonging to all others to enjoy the same advantages as their colleagues.
I precisely appeal to your co-operation as the depository of the members' privileges and rights. Since we have none of those rights and privileges, we are asking you to help us and to plead for the underdogs so that we may enjoy, like all the other members of the house, the privilege of sitting on at least one committee.
Mr. Speaker, with your co-operation and your permission and because this is the first opportunity in the three or four weeks elapsed since the situation exists, I simply wish to add that the house would make a commendable gesture in considering this matter, a (3:30 p.m.)
I also wish to make another point which may be related to the motion under study. It is about another committee, but I shall relate my remarks to the motion dealing specifically with the committee in question, in giving my example.
I am now unofficially attending, not being a member, the sittings of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, and when the committee starts its proceedings there is never a quorum; the sitting starts with 5 or 6 members, and later, maybe an hour or an hour and fifteen minutes later when nine members have shown up, the committee passes what was discussed before there was a quorum.
Some members attend these sittings who are denied the right to belong to that particular committee and yet would help to make up a quorum; there is no quorum precisely because the interested members are not authorized to belong to those committees. I hope the same does not apply to the standing com-mitte on northern affairs and national resources. If it is authorized to visit our national parks, I hope its members will manage to have a quorum, which is more than happens here. I do not particularly care to belong to that committee, but, in the case of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, where there is never a quorum at the beginning of a sitting, if any of its members who have yet to attend one of its sittings is here in the house, I trust at least one of them
November 1, 1966

will hand us back our privileges or part of the privileges, that we might become members, in short, that I might become a member of that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $371,999,867.43, being the aggregate of-(a) one-twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Items for Citizenship and Immigration, Defence Production, Forestry, Industry, Legislation, National Revenue, Post Office, Privy Council and Veterans Affairs, already provided for in Appropriation Act No. 6, 1966, and except Agriculture Item 35, Atomic Energy Item 5, Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Finance Item 15, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 40 and 70, Transport Item 103, and Loans, Investments and Advances Items L40, L75 and L80, for which no proportion is granted-$309,794,765.50;
(b) an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Public Works Item 65 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,600,000.00;
(c) an additional two-twelfths of the total amounts of National Defence Item 35, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 20 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates-$3,175,900.00;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L30 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates-$9,-166,666.67;
(e)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a and Transport Items 102a and 103a, for which no proportion is granted-* $26,276,101.92;
(f)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amounts of External Affairs Item 35a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L22a (Schedule D) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$11,304,-250.00;
(g)	an	additional	two-twelfths	of	the	total
amount of Secretary of State Item 40a (Schedule E) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$713,266.67;
(h)	an	additional	one-twelfth	of	the	total
amounts of Finance Item 15a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40a (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$4,716,666.67;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total amount of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Loans, Investments and Advances Item L32b, for which no proportion is granted-$2,252,250.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
Interim Supply
["Order. 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 Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Montreal, Quebec-construction of motel on new C.B.C. site; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), Transport-terms of reference of Atlantic provinces study; the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), Lotteries-possibility of government action to meet infractions.\nPerhaps the house would consent to go into committee now, so that we can commence our work directly at seven o'clock.", 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.']
Mr. Churchill:: I had the floor last night and I intended to speak immediately, but I am informed that some of our colleagues are leaving very shortly for Moscow, and one of them, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, would like to take part in this debate before he leaves. I would defer to him if the Chair would recognize me after he has concluded his speech.


Mr. Fawcett:: First, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for yielding the floor to me. I intend to be very brief. Indeed, I must necessarily be brief. I shall give the minister of defence a chance to regroup his forces, and, maybe, to set up another line of defence, because the subject with which I am primarily concerned is the proposed route of the new gas pipe line.
I rise to take part in this debate with a deep feeling of frustration because it would seem that my words, or any words spoken by hon. members in this section of the house, will be to no avail, and that the subject matter is closed and finalized as far as the government is concerned. We are faced, so to speak, with a fait accompli.
I am referring, of course, to the routing of the proposed new gas pipe line. I would be a poor representative of northern Ontario if I did not register a strong protest over the way in which this matter has been handled. I was most interested to receive a brief from the Lakehead Industrial Commission suggesting an alternative to the United States route which, to my way of thinking, is a very logical one. Some indication of the probable cost is given in this brief and it would appear that a Canadian route would cost more money-about $35 million more than the United States route. But the question which arises is this: is the spending of another $35 million or even $50 million of such importance in connection with a project such as this when all the other factors are taken into consideration? First of all, there is the huge expenditure which would accrue in Canada on wages and on materials during construction. I think this is an item which multiplies itself many times when one considers the impact of a scheme such as this upon the whole economic picture.
Second, we should take into account the additional employment which would be provided in connection with the maintenance of the pipe line. It is not just a matter of the

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
wages involved; there are personal and corporate taxes which would have to be paid, and these would also be part of the total economic picture for many years to come.
The third consideration we should bear in mind is probably the most important: Canada would have complete control over a tremendously important natural resource. It would seem to me that if a portion of the line were built through the United States, that portion would definitely come under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Power Commission. I do not think there can be any argument about that; I believe we would lose control over that portion of the line.
I have heard a great deal about the size of this pipe line. We have been told that the size is not a matter of great importance, but that it is the pressure which makes the difference. I should like the committee to consider the example I am about to give. Take a water line, for instance. A line an inch in diameter will certainly carry much more water than a half inch line under the same pressure. So it seems only common sense to suggest that a 36-inch line would carry a great deal more gas than a smaller line.
The Lakehead Industrial Commission proposes the construction of a line which would run parallel to the present line, cut through Fort Frances and reach the lakehead by that route. It would then "twin" the line from the lakehead north of Nipigon, pass through Nipigon, go through Terrace Bay and Marathon to the "Sault". Along the north shore of Lake Superior there is a great potential for the sale of natural gas. There are a great number of pulp and paper mills. There is a tremendous area ready for development, an area which is rich in iron ore. In the Wawa area in particular there is room for expansion, and the same applies to the Manitou-wadge area farther north. I believe that if gas were made available in these areas there would certainly be a great deal of expansion in the mining industry throughout the region, not just at those points I have mentioned.
From Sault Ste. Marie the proposed line would go to Sudbury, and at Sudbury it could be "junctioned" to provide extra gas for Quebec. It could also be routed south, and if there is a sale for gas across the line, as no doubt there is, why could this gas not be taken across the border at Sault Ste. Marie or, for that matter, at Fort Frances?
I should like to draw attention to the position farther north in the area around Nakina. North of Nakina there is a large iron

ore body. Any hon. member who knows where Nakina is, realizes that a long rail haul is involved in connection with shipping this ore. This is one of the reasons development in this area so far has been slow. If natural gas were made available in this area, the cost of processing the ore would, I believe, be reduced to such an extent that it would be possible to pay freights charges on an economic basis. a (3:40 p.m.)
If it were feasible for the iron ore to be developed and pelletized at a reasonable cost, then I think we could be assured that devel-lopment in the Nakina area would go ahead. This is something which is important for northern Ontario because, as most hon. members realize, Nakina is, shall we say, a doomed community. It will only be a matter of time until the main industry in the town, which is the Canadian National Railways, will be moved away from there. The community hospital, the composite schools and various other public enterprises require a large community to support them, and it would mean a great deal to the whole area if Nakina were permitted to survive. This, I suggest, is one of the ways that that could be done.
I frankly admit that the Sudbury area is serviced with gas, but there is continuing expansion taking place there. International Nickel is spending a large amount of money to enlarge its plant at Copper Cliff, and with all this new expansion there will be a need for a greater supply of gas. The whole Sudbury basin is going through a period of development and expansion, and if it should happen that a shortage of gas resulted in curtailment of this expansion it would be a serious thing, not only for Sudbury and northern Ontario, but also for the economy as a whole.
Perhaps I may be getting a little political when I say that we in northern Ontario are becoming a bit tired of all the platitudes about the potential of the great north; about it being the source of our mineral supplies and requiring development. Here is an example where expansion in the north could be given new impetus. But instead of providing the north with the services it needs, the new gas supply will be going across the border where it will help industries there to compete, not only with our northern industries but with the whole iron ore industry of Canada.
November 1, 1966

I am limited as to time, Mr. Chairman, so I shall not spend any more on this subject. In conclusion, I hope that if it is at all possible reconsideration will be given to this matter, and I heartily recommend the submission of the Lakehead Industrial Commission as a pattern for development with regard to the new pipe line across Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I want to take part in this debate on the subject of national defence because I think it is one of the most important subjects-


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman yielded his place to the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I wish to point out that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has another engagement later this evening and would like to speak at this time in reply to some of the points raised yesterday. In the circumstances I wonder if my hon. friend and you, Mr. Chairman, would agree to let him speak at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How long will your speech be?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the reason for asking this privilege is that tonight the Canadian government is host at a dinner in Montreal for the delegates to the water pollution conference, and if possible I would like to be there at six o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the minister would limit his remarks to 12 minutes I would willingly agree. If not, he can follow me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member yielded his place. Surely, there is no reason why we should not hear from the minister now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister is trying to get autocratic again. I think I will go ahead with what I want to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister can come back tomorrow; the issue will still be alive.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Exactly; that is a profound statement and I agree with it. Both issues that have been before the house will still be alive. Certainly, the issue of national defence will still be alive, because I do not know of any problem of greater concern to the people *of the country than that of national defence.
If we continue this debate then hon. members will get the significance of this issue. The people of Canada will get the significance of it, and it may even be that C.B.C.
Interim Supply
radio and television will begin to understand what is going on here in the House of Commons. Once the C.B.C. gets L.B.J. home from Korea and Alaska, and keeps us fully informed which governor in the United States is going to be affected by the backlash, and once it gets the political situation in Germany settled to its satisfaction, then perhaps it will draw to the attention of the Canadian people a serious situation right here in the House of Commons and right here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know of any graver
charge made against the Minister of National Defence than was made yesterday by the five hon. gentlemen who spoke on this subject, the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, the junior hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Greenwood. Each one in turn made charges against the minister. They charged him with irresponsibility and with failing to give full information to the house.
I would say this to you, Mr. Chairman, that this minister runs the gravest risk of having a charge made against him in the house, not only of misleading the house but of knowingly and deliberately misleading the house. I do not know of any more serious charge that may be laid against a minister of the crown.
Let me point out what happened here yesterday. In the space of just five minutes when I was present I made notes of the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary North, with respect to the charges he made. You can find the first one at page 9310 of yesterday's Hansard, where he is recorded as saying:
-the Canadian public is paying more for defence and getting much less of it.
That is the opposite to what the Minister of National Defence has been telling the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the same page of
Hansard, in reference to the minister, the hon. member for Calgary North said this:
He has been attempting to go ahead with that unification in spite of the fact that there has been no parliamentary approval for it. and in effect has been attempting to present us with a fait accompli.
That is charge number two which I casually picked out.
As recorded at page 9311 the hon. member for Calgary North was talking about antisubmarine capability. The minister has stated

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
over and over again that it is greater now than it has ever been at any time in the past, but the hon. member for Calgary North said:
It does not take an expert to know that this statement is not correct. It just cannot possibly be correct.
These are serious charges against the minister. On the question of how much money was being spent on equipment, the hon. member for Calgary North said, as recorded at page 9312 of Hansard:
Last year, as a matter of fact, I think the minister spent a smaller proportion on equipment than in many years past, about 12 per cent.
That is not the impression that the minister is giving to the public.
As recorded at page 9313 of Hansard the hon. member for Calgary North said:
He is thus trying to cover up a completely irresponsible action in suppressing evidence.
The hon. member was referring to the evidence of Admiral Landymore that was suppressed by the minister. His speech contained five serious charges, and I could And more in it. Similar serious charges were made by the other members who spoke yesterday.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
No more serious charge was made than that made by the hon. member for Peace River who showed that the minister, by his action, was destroying the committee system of this house. He was doing this by tampering with evidence and preventing people called before the committee from giving the evidence the committee required in order to form a judgment. The hon. member for Peace River showed very clearly that he was talking about facts that the committees require. He was not talking about witnesses making statements with regard to policy. Now, these are serious matters. The Minister of National Defence is quoted in the papers as having snapped back at his critics. Let us have recorded in the news media the charges made against this minister, and we will see how much snapping back he will do which will carry any weight at all. The minister is under a very serious cloud. He has been asked questions day after day and week after week. Charges have been made against him on a question of privilege, and he has not cleared his name. We are going to give him an opportunity this week to do just that, and to show to the Canadian people just what is going on in the national defence department. I hope we can smoke him out before this week is over and find out from him what exactly his policy is.

Let us find out whether the minister's policy is to destroy the army, the navy and the air force. Let us find out whether his policy is to put all these men in one uniform, or whether his policy is to reduce the size of our forces, and if so to what figure. This is the information we certainly require. Is he going to go on blandly informing us and the people, through various agents he has, that everything is fine and that we have a better force than we ever had in the past. I intend by actual figures to show that the situation is not as clear and rosy as the minister tries to show.
Let us look at the picture over the last three years. In 1963 the Liberal government set up a committee on defence. You would have thought it was the only committee on defence which ever had been set up. They made it a standing committee, and it may meet now each session. It should be meeting right now in the fall of this year, but we are blocked at every turn when we ask for the re-assembly of that committee. The minister does not want it re-assembled because he cannot stand the type of evidence which would come before the committee and the exposure to which he would be subjected if that committee met and had the privilege of calling outside witnesses to appear before it.
When the Prime Minister was dealing with this subject in 1963, it was the calling of outside witnesses to appear before that committee which he mentioned. Of course the Prime Minister said that the committee, if it has serving officers or officials of the departments in front of it, will not question them with regard to	policy-with which I
agree-but will have the opportunity to question them with regard to facts. I should like to refer to Hansard, 1963, volume I, May 30, page 458. The Prime Minister's words are as follows:
It is also provided in the resolution that the committee, if it so desires, can send for outside witnesses. By that I mean witnesses who would not be serving officers of the armed forces or civil serants of the government of Canada, who would naturally appear before the committee only to give information in regard to matters of fact. But outside witnesses whom the committee felt by their knowledge and experience could contribute to the work of the committee would, it seems to me, be very appropriate witnesses for the committee to summon if it so desired.
That is exactly what we want at this stage. We want the outside witnesses. We know that the witnesses which would be provided from the defence services themselves would be hampered and restrained now by the Minister
November 1, 1966

-of National Defence. He will examine the [DOT]evidence they propose to give and will strike out things which he does not want made public. But, let us get some of the outside witnesses; let us examine some of these officers who have been removed from the services because they would not go along with the minister's policy. Let us have these witnesses in front of us and let them tell us how it happened that they resigned, retired or were fired from the services, and the reasons therefor.
We have had a serious depletion of experienced men in the three services, men who have spent a lifetime in learning their trade, the professional sailors, soldiers and airmen. These are the men we want to appear before us. Let them tell us just what has happened. Let us have their views with regard to the policy of the minister. When we were discussing the seating up of that standing committee on May 30, 1963, I used these words as recorded at page 463 of Hansard of that date:
What happens when the committee is discussing some matter dealing with defence policy and discovers that the decision has already been made by the government?
I asked a second question:
What will happen if during the course of this committee the government is faced with some problem relating to defence on which a decision is required? Will that be referred to the committee for consideration before the government makes its decision-
In the course of the debate in 1963 the minister was arguing that we could discuss policy. Well, that was a sham and a delusion, because when we were discussing or attempting to discuss policy in the house committee on defence in 1963-and I was then a member-we were faced with this situation: We were discussing the navy and the program of shipbuilding with regard to frigates. While we were in the course of that discussion the minister issued an order that the frigate program be discontinued. He did not tell the committee that this was going to happen. He just proceeded to discontinue the building program for frigates and left the committee in mid air.
On October 8, 1963, just before this happened, I asked him a question as recorded on page 332 of the committee reports:
-does the minister now want the committee to make a recommendation to him with regard to the naval program?
The minister replied that that was not necessary. He said:
I think a decision will be taken shortly and it will be announced just as soon at it is taken.
Interim Supply
Then Mr. Smith, a member of the committee, said:
Then why do we not adjourn now?
I must say that that was a very sensible suggestion. A few minutes later the hon. member for Vancouver East, at page 334 said:
My other question is perhaps out of date now in view of the minister's statement that he does not want any advice on the navy.
There we were misled by the minister and the Prime Minister. This committee was blazoned as a committee to discuss defence policy, and the minister wanted no advice whatsoever from the committee. He would announce the policy and if we wanted to discuss it afterward, well and good, but not otherwise. He did a similar thing to us with regard to the reserve forces. He set up a committee to study the reserve forces and removed any hope for consideration by the committee of this matter. He went ahead, made his decision, cut down the reserve forces, and we were permitted to discuss the matter after it had been done.
From 1963 on the minister has been acting in this fashion. He has been pretending that the committee on national defence is a useful assistant to him. He has said publicly that the committee may discuss policy, and he has created the impression that the committee will influence his decisions with regard to national defence. At the same time, he is carrying on and making decisions without asking the advice of the committee. He completely ignores the advice of the committee when it tries to offer advice and, as we now have found out, has tampered with the evidence that witnesses gave to that committee.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
One of the reasons I withdrew from the defence committee after that 1963 session was the attitude of the minister. I realized that it was futile to attempt to do anything to influence his decisions because he had made up his mind and, in the face of professional advice and evidence, was determined stubbornly to go his own way. I think he had been busy reading "The Making of a President" to see how things were accomplished in the United States, in order that he could move ahead politically.
The next step was the presentation of a white paper on defence in 1964, and the debate in 1964 on amendments to the National Defence Act which did away with the chiefs of staff committee and appointed one man in

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
charge, the chief of defence staff. We opposed that move as vigorously as we could. We discussed the white paper and pointed out its deficiencies. It was our suggestion that it was wrong to go back to an outmoded system and appoint just one man in charge, a "supremo", and attempt to conduct national defence policy under those circumstances.
I will not quote my own words again because I have already done so too often, but it was our suggestion at that time that if we had a minister of defence and a chief of staff who were in disagreement one or the other would have to go. We suggested that if we had a minister of national defence and a chief of staff who were always in agreement this must mean that either the minister or the chief of staff was a puppet. When you have two men and one is of an extremely strong character, or very stubborn, then the other would have to be an agent or a puppet. In the circumstances what would happen when the minister was changed, as he will be some day? If the chief of staff was a strong man then the minister of national defence would be a puppet in the hands of that chief of staff.
It is my hope that our serving soldiers, sailors and airmen who have reached high ranks, many of whom have seen active service and served their country well, will not be subjected to the control and authority exercised by this Minister of National Defence. I think it would be humiliating to place men who have seen active service under the authority of this minister and make them just water boys.
At this time the present minister has his senior officers travelling around the country selling his ideas with regard to integration, and his ideas with regard to a common uniform for all service personnel. Why are they not dealing with the efficiency of our services? Why are they not insisting that the navy be restored to its former position? Why are they not insisting that infantry battalions be brought up to strength? Surely, that is their job. Why are they not dealing with the really serious matter of morale within the service? Instead of doing these things, they are travelling as spokesmen for the minister in an attempt to sell his policies.


John George Diefenbaker: They were also out during the election campaign.


Mr. Maiheson:: Do not be bitter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is something seriously wrong with policy when a minister has to depend upon his senior serving officers to sell it to the public of this country. I think our senior officers have a duty far and above their duty to this temporary civilian head of the department. These senior officers owe a duty to the people of this country, because we are relying on these trained experienced men to maintain our fighting forces in good shape. We are relying on them to look after the young men who enter these forces, so that if they are called upon to risk their lives they will do so under circumstances which will be somewhat advantageous.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You can rely on them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope that I can rely on these senior serving officers, but I can place no reliance at all on the Minister of National Defence. The minister gave the whole story away last night. He has been talking for three years about what he calls the savings he is going to effect in our defence budget. He told us early in 1963 about the $100 million he intended to save in the national defence budget. I succeeded in getting him to change his words when I pointed out to him that this would not actually be a saving but a transfer of funds within the national defence budget. He was attempting to tell us, and sell the people of this country, the false information that he was saving money and creating greater efficiency in the forces.
Last night the minister gave the game away. All along, for three years, he has said that as a result of integration there would be this transfer of funds and that we would have more funds for equipment. The hon. member for Calgary North pointed out the complete failure along those lines. The minister has told us that through integration, and as a result of other policies, he would have extra money for other purposes. Last night he told us that this was the result of a reduction in the strength of our forces, including a reduction of 7,000 civilians. He has reduced the forces by 23,000 and he says the savings amount to $150 million. He also suggests that we have a more efficient force as a result. During the 30 odd seconds I spoke last night, I pointed out that if he reduced our forces by another 23,000 this year he could save another $150 million, but that if he repeated this each year we would eventually entirely cut out defence spending and would end up with no army, navy or air force.
November 1, 1966

One can easily see how the minister has misled the people of Canada. He suggested that integration had accomplished a savings when in fact any savings effected were the result of the reduction of personnel within the armed forces. He told us in 1964 that his objective was a reduction of 10,000 armed forces personnel. At that time we had 120,000 in our armed forces. He has now cut that strength down by over 20,000. How misleading can this man be?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You better get your statistics straightened out.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister now tells me that I should get my statistics straightened out. Let me tell him that I was quoting from the minister's words, and from the minutes of the proceedings of the national defence committee. I invite the minister to give us some statistics upon which we can place some reliance.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot in 30 minutes begin to cover the various things that must eventually be said on this occasion. I will give the house a rest from my words, and later on today or tomorrow present some more information. In the five minutes I have left, let me deal with one or two other matters. I warn the minister not to think that I do not intend to deal at some length with unification when the time comes, and with the subject of Admiral Landymore's evidence when that opportunity presents itself.
At this time I should like to pay the highest tribute possible to Admiral Lan-dymore for the public service he has performed. I know enough about serving officers to realize how reluctant they are to get into the field of political life, and to realize that the course of their lives over 20 or 30 years is devoted to carrying out orders and performing their duties. Naturally, as a result, they hesitate to plunge into the maelstrom of political life. Admiral Landymore performed a service to the people of Canada when he stated his position, yet he was fired by the Minister of National Defence on July 12. It was on July 15 that he made his public statement.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Last night the minister attempted to tell us-he misled us again-that Admiral Landymore made his public statement when he was still under orders not to do it. But he had been told on the 12th that he was fired; that the paperwork had to go through because it had to be posted and this, that and
Interim Supply
the other thing. Admiral Landymore deserves the thanks of the people of Canada for exposing what the minister is attempting to do to our armed services, and particularly with regard to the navy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let me just deal with the strength of the navy at the present time. Three years ago 60 ships were operated by our navy. Now, we are down to 23. Admiral Landymore points out that unless recruitment for the navy is stepped-up we will be down to about 13 ships in the spring of 1967. Yet the minister tells us that our navy is in better shape than it was three years ago.
Some of the ships are old and have to be retired and replaced. Admiral Landymore pointed out that there will be a six-year gap before the new ships are ready, because there was a very serious delay by the minister in placing the orders for the keels to be laid. What do we do in that six-year gap? The minister says he will not keep some of the older ships in commission; recruitment for the navy has dropped to an all-time low, and so our navy will become very small indeed by the spring of 1967. Yesterday the junior member for Halifax stated that he had the report that the chief of staff had forecast that within five years the navy would be nonexistent, except for transport purposes. That is the future that faces us with regard to the navy, and I think it is a very serious matter indeed.
Let the minister tell us what is the strength of the army. On June 8 of this year, as reported at page 6132 of Hansard, in answer to a question by the hon. member for York-Sunbury the minister replied:
Canada has twelve infantry battalions and one anti-tank infantry battalion. On 30 April, 1966, eight infantry battalions and the anti-tank battalion (less one detached company with the Canadian brigade group in Germany) were serving in Canada; three infantry battalions were serving overseas with the Canadian brigade group; and one infantry battalion was serving in Cyprus.
The total strength of the 13 battalions on 30 April, 1966, was 8,718.
That gives an average strength for a battalion of 670 all ranks, and the establishment calls for a strength of 857 and upward for all ranks. Every infantry battalion, on the average, is under strength. So it is not only the navy that has suffered from this decline in recruitment and this hasty removal of personnel; the army itself has suffered. If the minister were called upon to provide two or

November 1, 1966-
Interim Supply
three battalions for overseas duty somewhere, he would have to start making transfers from other battalions within Canada to bring them up to strength.


Donald MacInnis: Now
tell them what a battalion is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is the result of the minister's policy. He intends, apparently, to wipe out the navy; the army is now under strength, and the air force is designed for just a transport role. The minister claims that he is saving the taxpayers' money and, in order to do that, is reducing the strength of Canada's armed forces. This is his policy: he is going to put the whole group together into one single force and in one uniform. I do not know what we will have by the time he has finished.
The minister has not given the house the information that we should have had over all these months. I intend, Mr. Chairman, to quote chapter and verse pointing out the evasion of the minister and the misleading statements he has made to the house which show that he is incompetent to hold his present position.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I should first like to apologize for my absence yesterday; however, I think it was justified. On Sunday, I had the opportunity to speak to the members of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Some of those present also did not look too favourably upon the project of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company Ltd. but, of course, for different reasons than those of some of the members in this house.
Yesterday in Montreal I was at the opening of the conference on water pollution and, this morning, I was part of a group of ministers who welcomed a delegation from Nova Scotia.
This explains why I did not study yesterday's debate in depth. I may overlook some of the arguments set forth or leave uncorrected some of the possible mistakes in speeches made by some of my hon. colleagues.
Before going into the proposal in detail, I should like to submit three or four general comments to the house.
The first one is somewhat philosophical; it deals with the very nature of the government. It has often been said that to govern
lMr. Churchill.]
is to foresee. It should be added that to govern is to choose. Mr. Chairman, very seldom is that choice made between good and evil. An English author named Burke, very close to the party opposite, claimed that "to govern is to choose among inconveniences." Such a choice is therefore not made between good and evil; in every decision made, there are always good and bad points.
Mention has been made earlier of the brief submitted by the Lakehead Industrial Commission, but it must be kept in mind that in its brief, that organization actually points out the advantages and disadvantages of the project now under discussion.
The commission concluded that the disadvantages were greater than the advantages while the government concluded that the advantages were greater than the disadvantages. But both parties weighed the pros and cons before reaching such a decision and it is a matter of judgment or as you would say in English, Mr. Chairman, "most of these decisions are taken on balance."
Those decisions have also been reached by the government taking into account the overall interests of the country. It is obvious that they will displease certain areas of the country even sometimes for the wrong reasons, as I will have the opportunity to explain it later.
But again, it is with the interest of Canada as a whole in mind that the central government must make decisions such as the one made in this case.
My second remark, Mr. Chairman, is to say that a government decision must deal with an existing project. Such project might very properly be compared with other projects that might exist. Indeed, the National Energy Board did compare this project of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to one which might exist, that is the twinning of the northern Ontario pipe line. But, in the end, the government must render a decision on something concrete, on something that exists and not on something which might exist in the future. Those decisions must be made now. It is very well to bring forward other alternatives at this time, but we would like to know who exactly is ready to implement such alternatives.
I also wish to submit that this project is presented to us by an honourable company. I do not feel we are justified in questioning its intentions.
November 1, 1966

The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) criticized Trans-Canada Pipe Lines yesterday, but I think he was referring to the wrong company and that he meant the Northern Ontario Natural Gas Company. I feel this point is worthy of note and we must also remember that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is just as much Canadian as anyone here, that 92 per cent of its shareholders are Canadians. And I do not feel we are justified in systematically questioning this company's sincerity as some members tried to do yesterday, if I interpreted their comments correctly.
We must also take into consideration the fact that this project is supported by several provincial governments, several natural gas producers associations, by natural gas distributing companies, several members of the house, several well-known members of the economic press and, I suppose even by several supporters of the N.D.P. throughout the country. Therefore, this is no hoax presented by the government. This is a very serious matter, it is a project which has the support of a very great number of people who know their business.
The government is often confronted with newspaper articles disapproving of its policies. I find it quite strange that it is so seldom quoted in favourable articles. I believe that, in the present case, several qualified members of the press admitted that the new project, as presented, as approved, was a great deal better than the first one. Some writers even felt that the first project was very valid and that the government should have approved of it.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
But there is one fundamental aspect which we must take into account. This project, this program, this Great Lakes Pipe Line project has the support the National Energy Board which has legal jurisdiction in this field, whose controlling authority is quasi-judicial and it is, moreover, the advisory authority in the matter, having at its disposal the specialized technical and economic apparatus enabling it to evaluate this type of situation.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) blames the government for not having followed the advice of the National Energy Board and, at the same time, accuses us of selling our country to the United States. I suggest that he should make up his mind, because the National Energy Board has clearly approved of this project.
Interim Supply
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said that, in view of the fact that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited had been incorporated by an act of parliament, it was up to the parliament to decide on the worthiness of the project before us at the present time. I do not believe I am distorting his line of thought in saying this.
It must be pointed out at this time that Canadian companies operating interprovincial and international gas or oil pipe lines, have all been incorporated by a special act of parliament. Indeed, section 25 says that:
No person other than a company shall construct or operate a pipe line.
And the definition of "company" is given in section 2 (Q) which reads as follows:
"Special Act" means an act of the parliament of Canada authorizing a person named in the act to construct or operate a pipe line.
Thus, this is not an unusal case; indeed it is the general case in all existing situations.
Thus, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines created in 1951 is given by that special act powers to construct and operate pipe lines. Now, it is the duty of the National Energy Board, under the act authorizing them to do so, to grant licences and permits, within the framework of the general legislation, taking into consideration the acts creating the said companies.
The only thing peculiar to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. is section 6, paragraph (a) which reads, if my memory serves me right, as follows:
"Trans-Canada Pipe Lines agrees to build its main pipe line or lines in Canada."
That is the only special aspect of that incorporating act. Now, in 1957 and 1958 the company built a pipe line which is its main pipe line. The company now undertakes, by a formal agreement signed with the Canadian government, to respect that situation.
In effect, the agreement signed by the company and the government, which agreement I tabled in the house Friday, will ensure that "The main pipe line of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will remain in Canada."
I really cannot see what is wrong with that agreement. I feel that we have respected the law in this case.

So, the main pipe line of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will remain in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize the minister has been very busy and probably has not had time to read everything that has been said in that last couple of days, but does he not feel, as I argued yesterday, that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is obligated by the commitments that its officials made to parliament through the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee in 1951, when it promised that it would not use the charter it was given at that time for the purpose of building a line outside of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, as far as the company is concerned the obligation that it undertook in 1951 was to build a pipe line across Canada, an all-Canadian pipe line. That it has done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not aware of the fact that Mr. Tolmie made a commitment in the committee that the company would not use the charter that it was then getting to build a line outside of Canada; that in fact if it made such a request it would be acting in bad faith?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Does the hon. member suggest that the company should now ask for another charter to build other pipe lines that would-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly what I suggest. I am saying that if the company wants to do something other than it committed itself to parliament to do in 1951, it should come back to parliament again. That is precisely what I am saying.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On this matter of pipe lines, all other special acts of parliament give the companies which have these special acts the right to build pipe lines within or outside of Canada. This provision, therefor, would be redundant. Unless the intentions of parliament was not to give this company the advantages that it has given other companies. There is no reason to do this, even if I were to accept the hon. member's interpretation of the law, which I do not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister contend that the phrase "within or outside Canada" in the opening part of section 6 (a) of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Act covers the building of pipe lines outside of Canada? Has he read the evidence given before the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee in 1951?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it does cover that and the company already has four other pipe lines connected with United States

pipe lines. So, you will have to make your law retroactive and deprive the company of an advantage that it gained in 1951.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, I think we could end this debate very quickly if the minister would remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that there was also a committee of parliament which dealt with this matter in 1954, in which committee this matter was thoroughly discussed and decided upon.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am grateful to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle for letting me have the benefit of his experience and his very intimate knowledge of these matters, which I admit I have not. I have done my homework as well as I know how, but there are elements connected with the history of this problem that still escape me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Act of 1951 was amended in 1954 or at any other time?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, but if it has been I will try to let him know later on in the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My contention is that if the act is still in force it should be lived up to.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that the National Energy Board, which has the respect of everyone in this house and outside it, has made a decision, which was rendered last August. In making that decision the National Energy Board brought to the attention of the government certain matters of public interest, such as the control that the Federal Power Commission would exercise on the transportation of gas from western Canada to eastern Canada, the possible economic disadvantages that might follow the construction of a pipe line through the United States, and so on. The government then looked at these reservations and made a decision, stating that it could not agree with a project that of necessity did not route the main line through Canada. I think this was both in the national interest and in accordance with the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Act.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for changing from English to French, but my notes are in French and so I shall continue in that language.
November 1, 1966

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. answered the objections put forward by the government by offering guarantees, which hon. members know very well and which I shall not enumerate here. There is the guarantee of 50, 60, 65 per cent-everybody knows what I mean-which prevents the company from selling its interest in the Great Lakes project without the consent of the federal government; there is also the guarantee ensuring that the building or looping of the Northern Ontario pipe line will begin in 1970. This agreement was formally set down in a document which may be criticized-it is the privilege of hon. members to do so-but which, in my opinion, offers maximum security. I find it a precise and clearly written document, and it even contains a section, that is section 9, providing for rather severe penalties, since every time the company violates one of its guarantees, it will have to pay a fine of one million dollars.
Consequently, I do not think we can say that the commitment is not serious. I do not want members to think-far from it-that the government lacks confidence in the company by imposing such a heavy penalty, for any breach of its promises.
Hon. members must keep in mind that the National Energy Board will continue to keep watch on the implementation of this project. The company cannot export natural gas without obtaining a permit from the National Energy Board and, consequently, it will have to keep the National Energy Board-this is stated in the formal agreement -informed of its progress, of its transactions.
Therefore, the National Energy Board will thus be in a position to watch over things and inform the government if it feels the company is not fulfilling its obligations entirely.
A third point, Mr. Chairman, to say that, upon reading over yesterday's discussion and comments printed in certain newspapers, along with the observations made by certain associations, I have a feeling that an assumption prevails throughout the debate, and in the mind of some, an assumption which is not openly expressed but which is continuously present in the background. This assumption is that the Canadian government should own and operate the pipeline itself. The answer to that is very simple.
We have in Canada other means of transportation: transportation by radio, by television, by railways, by airplanes, by electricity, in which federal and provincial governments have interests, but where private enterprise
Interim Supply
also has its share. This is a situation of mixed economy, private and public.
We also have in Canada other means of transportation wholly owned by private enterprise, such as highway transportation, water transportation, telephone transportation, as well as interprovincial and international pipe fines. Some of my hon. colleagues in the house would perhaps disagree with this system. They might want the government to take over gradually or at once these means of transportation through nationalization or otherwise.
But, the fact remains that the Canadian people have not yet expressed the wish to change this system thoroughly. If the party which I am thinking about succeeds in convincing the Canadian people of this need, in a very democratic way, we will bow before their decision. At present, I think that, as they are good democrats, they should abide by the will of the Canadian people, who have not yet expressed the opinion that the government should nationalize all these means of communication.
Thus, it is within the framework of the general philosophy existing right now in Canada that this decision has been taken by the government to allow the building of this pipe line.

I was saying a moment ago that quite recently an association called the Lakehead Industrial Commission presented the government with a brief. In the brief, the disadvantages of the project are mentioned. I do not deny that some points raised are quite valid. I will not say that some of these ideas will not be used at a future date. I do not know. I agree that some of the reasoning in the brief makes sense.
As I said ten minutes ago, the association thinks that, on balance, the disadvantages are greater than the advantages. These gentlemen were honest enough, and I congratulate them for that, to mention also the advantages of doing it the way we are. There are indeed some major advantages.
The first advantage, as they stated themselves, would be lower construction costs resulting in lower gas prices in eastern Canada. This fact is adduced in the hearings conducted by the National Energy Board. Trans-Canada's application established that the Great Lakes proposal would make possible the delivery of western Canadian gas to eastern Canada at prices lower than otherwise could be realized. Nobody will deny that.

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
The reductions may not be as great as some people-myself for example-would have expected. It must be remembered that the National Energy Board stated that these reductions in transmission costs were not as much as had been suggested. The view that there would be reductions in the price of gas in eastern Canada was supported by all the distributors in eastern Canada, including Northern and Central Gas Company which serves the Ontario north.
The greatest advantage would accrue to industrial customers. Consequently, the cheaper gas would encourage industrial development in Quebec and Ontario, including northern Ontario. It is easy to see that what is true for eastern Canada in general is also true for northern Ontario, where we get most of the complaints with respect to this project.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister a question? Would the minister tell us what saving is involved? What is the comparison in rates between the Great Lakes line and the northern line?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Northern and Central Gas Company, the northern Ontario distributor, stated at two National Energy Board hearings that the contract concluded between itself and Trans-Canada contingent on the approval of the Great Lakes project, would result in savings of three cents per thousand cubic feet of gas purchased under the contract compared with prices which would otherwise apply. There is no change in the present price of gas, but there is a reduction of about three cents per thousand cubic feet in the new contract already negotiated between the local company in northern Ontario and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. So, there is a clear advantage.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister another question? Were these prices checked and approved by the National Energy Board? The figures do not seem to agree with the figures given by the National Energy Board itself in its report.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They are part of the report of the National Energy Board, yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is a difference of one fifth of one cent in transmission costs.


Jean-Luc Pepin: One fifth of a cent for what?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the difference between the rates in transmission costs.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry. We might discuss this later on.
The second advantage is the shorter construction time. The original plan envisaged construction of the Great Lakes project in two years. While it is obvious that no construction can take place this year, it is possible that the whole project could be constructed next year. This would obviate further imports of United States gas into Canada, as well as give the advantages of lower costs more rapidly than might otherwise be the case.
The third point the brief mentions has to do with exports. Already 103 million cubic feet of gas for export at Emerson to Midwestern is contingent on the Great Lakes project. Eighty seven million cubic feet are contingent also on the Great Lakes project. These 87 million cubic feet would go to the Michigan and Wisconsin company, through the projected line.
* (4:40 p.m.)
In the letter of August 25 last, the company also stated that American Natural Gas, its partner, agreed to purchase 100 million cubic feet more. The company also stated there was an additional possibility of selling 100 million cubic feet more.
As I said last Friday, the government decision does not rely on these potential exports, though it takes them into consideration. It is quite likely that the National Energy Board would have to approve these further exports with priority given, of course, to the Canadian national interests and to the surplus possibilities.
I do not think anyone disagrees that there is a need to export to the United States. One out of five Canadians lives on the earnings from exports. We export all sorts of things to the United States. We are exporting at the present time $104 million worth of gas. Some people argue that we should not export gas. That argument might be applied equally well to any of the other commodities we are exporting to the United States.
There is no doubt that if we in Canada wish to continue living at the standard to which we have grown accustomed, we need to export a lot. Only by exporting goods can we import others. One hon. member underlined the fear of continentalism. Well, this fear has been with us for 100 years or more, and I presume it will be with us for another 100 years or more. It is something geography dictates. I am often asked, with respect to
November 1, 1966

water, in particular, whether I am a nationalist or a continentalist. I answer, by a pirouette, perhaps, that I would be a continen-tal'ist if it were in the national interest. But this is the kind of decision Canadians have been making for 100 years and which, I venture to suggest, we will be making for 100 years to come.
With respect to financing, the lakehead brief accepts the idea that financing of the Great Lakes project would be easier. At the March, 1966, hearing, Trans-Canada emphasized the difficulty of financing the alternative northern Ontario route, and this difficulty was reiterated in the company's letter of September 26.
It is difficult to estimate precisely the difference in cost between the possible northern loop and the Great Lakes loop. The brief to which I referred mentioned $35 million, but other figures which are available to me suggest a greater difference in cost. Whatever the figure is exactly, nobody denies that the cost of the Great Lakes project would be lower than the likely cost of a northern Ontario loop. Moreover, everybody is aware that it is difficult to borrow money at the present time, and I presume this is one of the considerations which is in the mind of the company and of the government also.
With respect to the looping of the Ontario pipe line in 1970, it seems to me we are gaining an advantage at the moment in the sense that the Great Lakes project is more favourable at this point. Perhaps I am flattering the government too much-and if this should be the case I apologize to members of the committee-when I express the belief that we have protected the long term Canadian interest, by making it necessary for a northern Ontario loop to be constructed, beginning in 1970. Indeed, I might blandly say that we have the best of two worlds, because we have the immediate advantage of the Great Lakes project while maintaining the future advantage of the looping in Canada. This is a real Canadian solution, and I thought it was a rather good one, when we reached it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister
whether there is any completion date to which the company is committed with reference to this looping of the northern line? There is a commencement date, but is there any completion date?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No. There could not be one because one would not think of forcing a company to do something which was not
Interim Supply
commercially viable. But the 60 per cent progression is tied to the forecast of sales presented by the company to the National Energy Board and accepted by the board as being rational and possible. Thus, if the growth of markets progresses as the company expects, and as the National Energy Board agrees is possible, then the looping would become necessary in 1970 and it will take place faster or slower depending on the growth of sales. I do not think one can force anybody to do more than that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it not true that the commencement of the loop by 1970 is contingent only upon it being required on the basis of sales?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No. It is an obligation upon the company to begin looping by 1970.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But only if sales require it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, it is not tied to the forecast. It is absolute. What is tied to the forecast of market growth is the 60 per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Ah, yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The company will begin by 1970. How many miles of pipe line will be looped in 1970, I do not know with precision. It will depend, of course, on the growth of markets in the meantime.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And upon what time in 1970 they start. They might start on December 31.


The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.
Is there unanimous consent to enable the minister to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will proceed more rapidly from now on. The other favourable argument is connected with safety and security. There is no doubt that a second pipe line would lead to increased safety in the transportation of gas from western to eastern Canada. Of course, some of our lakehead friends will say that a similar element of increased safety would exist if their north shore project was built. Indeed, but I can say also that the construction of a line along the north shore would be more expensive according to everybody's calculations.

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
There are other advantages which the lake-head brief does not mention. One is the additional capacity immediately available to the northern Ontario line if and when the Great Lakes project materializes. Idle capacity would then be available for additional sales of interruptible gas if required by industry in northern Ontario. I have already stated that the assurance has been given that no "firm" gas had been refused to industry in the area. What may have been refused is interruptible gas.
My reasoning is simple. If there is a second line, more space will, of course, be available in the northern Ontario line and consequently more gas will be provided for people served by it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Therefore, I really do not understand exactly why the commission complains. It may complain because northern Ontario did not get the pipe line. My answer to that is; I am very sorry but circumstances do not permit. We have tried, however, to safeguard this advantage for 1970. I think this is a defenda-ble compromise. With respect to the availability of gas in northern Ontario the assurance is given. It seems to me to be a fact that if we have two lines there will be more room in the northern Ontario line for gas going to industry in that area.
The brief talks about the great potential mine development in the Pre-cambrian shield, and just a little while ago the hon. member for Nickel Belt referred to this. It is the responsibility of the National Energy Board to make sure that gas is first made available to Canadians, and it fulfils this responsibility. It would be quite difficult to justify the building of a pipe line solely on future prospects. The gentlemen who are willing to pay the cost of pipe lines usually like to work on something more concrete than potential developments. Therefore if northern Ontario should grow and grow, and become the richest part of North America, something which I hope very much will happen, there is no doubt that further looping will take place. But in the meantime, it does not seem justifiable to build a pipe line on future prospects.
May I also say that gas will be provided by the Great Lakes line to Sault Ste. Marie at a reasonable cost, and that the use of the Dawn storage fields for the moving of gas in and out of storage will benefit customers, because of the lower transportations costs.

Another advantage is that the Great Lakes project promoters have contracts with the distributors already signed.
It has cost the company quite an amount of money to do all the necessary preparatory work. If we were now to kill this project, we would destroy the preparation of months and years, the company would have to renegotiate a different project, which would be quite expensive.
There are many more points I would like to cover, but I shall deal with only one more. Some hon. members seemed to be flabbergasted by the fact that the 30 inch pipe line in northern Ontario will be carrying more gas than the proposed 36 inch pipe line through the United States. The answer is that it is not a question of diameter but of volume. I am no expert in these matters but volume is conditioned by pressure, by the number of compressors which are put on a line. You can get more delivery by adding more compressors.
May I also point out that there could be a quantity of gas for export going through the Great Lakes line. When you assess the capacity of the Great Lakes transmitting line you must deduct the amount of exportable gas going through it. This will be quite a good percentage. I cannot say precisely what this percentage will be because this, of course, will depend on sales made in the United States and these have to be approved by the National Energy Board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it not true that at least one third of the gas going through the Great Lakes line will have to be exported in order to keep within the terms of the agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only say that this is a reasonable possibility.
In conclusion, the declaration that more than 50 per cent will go through the northern Ontario line is not an absurdity. The looping of the northern Ontario line will begin in 1970, and at all times more than 50 per cent will be carried by the northern route. By 1976 more than 60 per cent, and within a further reasonable period of time 65 per cent of the gas will be carried. All of this is a very rational prospect.
That is the story, Mr. Chairman. These things must be considered with reason and in a peaceful atmosphere. I am not one to say that the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines project is the absolute in perfection. I can only say that it is a good project in the present circumstances. The producers in western Canada
November 1, 1966

will be given the opportunity to produce more gas. Apparently these gentlemen are very aggressive in their efforts to produce more gas, something which applies to oil producers as well.
There will be more production of gas and industries in eastern Canada want more gas. We had representations from the presidents of consumer companies begging us to go ahead with this project because they needed the gas. Now, if this project is accepted by the United .States Federal Power Commission they are going to have their gas. At the same time we feel that we have protected a future advantage by ensuring that the northern line will be looped beginning in 1970.
Some hon. members may ask what about control by the United States Federal Power Commission? I am not going to say that this is not a problem, but by making sure that the main line will be in Canada, I think we have minimized the possible disadvantages of the control that the federal power commission would have on this line.
Hon. members can say everything they want on this subject. They can pinpoint disadvantages here and disadvantages there. I will not complain. I might even at times agree, but I simply say that when you make a decision of this kind you have to line up the advantages on one side and the disadvantages on the other. This is what we have done and, taking into consideration all possible circumstances, we have decided that this project is more advantageous, despite any of the real or exaggerated disadvantages which hon. members have mentioned yesterday and today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has outlined what he thinks are the advantages, and I agree with him that there are advantages and disadvantages. It is a matter of opinion what the decision should be, on balance. But I want to ask him, did not all these advantages obtain when the cabinet rejected this proposal on August 25? According to the Prime Minister the cabinet decided that this should be an all Canadian project, and that the pipe line should be wholly and exclusively within Canadian jurisdiction. What happened to bring about this change of principle since the government decision of August 25?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am frantically looking for my communique of August 25.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Read the last paragraph.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I shall:
This has been a difficult decision in a very complex matter. However, the gas transmission industry
Interim Supply
is a public utility on a vast scale, and is important to Canadian national well-being. The development of its main links between west and east should, we believe, remain wholly under Canadian jurisdiction.
This is what we have done. The hon. member can read as well as I do, and probably better, at least in English. It says that we believe; "its main links between west and east should remain wholly under Canadian jurisdiction". That is very clearly what has been ensured, and I do not feel there is any contradiction.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the government rejected the proposal at that time. If the minister will read the Prime Minister's statement, he will see that the Prime Minister said the cabinet had rejected this because we would lose control of the operation and this could cause embarrassment with the United States government.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Because we lost control of the main link between western and eastern Canada? You will have to look quite a long time, I think for many years, to find a contradiction in the communique. From the beginning, the decision was to keep the main line in Canada. As I said before to the hon. member, I think we made only one decision. The idea of saying the government has revised its decision, in my view, is quite wrong. I explained that to some people in Calgary who now see the light. Some of them said they regretted not having seen it before. I think the hon. member will do the same thing, in due course.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


Mr. McIntosh:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks on interim supply will be in connection with the Department of National Defence. Because of the minister's evasive action, I think the Canadian public is becoming concerned and alarmed that all is not well within the Department of National Defence. The Canadian public is becoming suspicious that the minister is attempting to bring about an ill advised, radical change in the policy we have been carrying out in the past, a change which would be contrary to those policies which have proven themselves. In fact, I think the minister, by his remarks in the house in the last couple of days, and by his press releases, has conveyed to the public of Canada an impression that there is some mystery behind what is taking place in his department at the present time.

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
I wish to say also that the minister is adding to the suspicion by his reluctance to give intelligent answers to questions asked by responsible members in this house. Reference has been made this afternoon to a great number of those questions by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Hon. members have related that they are not satisfied with the answers the minister has given. Last week, when the minister was asked a question about a reduction in the armed services of 23,000 personnel, he replied that he had saved the country $150 million. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre later asked him why he did not forecast a similar reduction for next year, and save another $150 million.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It gets increasingly difficult.


John (Jack) McIntosh: pass rapidly and efficiently to a war footing. This always has been the policy in the past, and I think it should be the policy in the future. If our military structure is not capable of assuming the burden which will be placed on it in the event of the requirement to mobilize our military force to maximum national capacity, then I think the minister will agree that it is of doubtful value. He might as well tell us all the facts, and save the Canadian people the money they are spending for defence today.
Common sense tells us the technique of war is rapidly changing, and all nations must adjust their thinking to cope with these changes. Canada is no exception. However, only under a dictatorship can a radical transformation take place without questions being asked by the public. In a democracy it is not enough to trust blindly to the government to take wise decisions on these vital matters. Every responsible citizen has a duty to understand for himself, as the minister said, what is happening, and to exercise his judgment even on questions as difficult and complicated as integration and unification in our armed services. The disadvantages, it seems, have been completely ignored by the present minister. There are many reasons such a move may prove to be a very dangerous military experiment. I believe this is what the minister is doing; he is carrying out a very dangerous experiment. The Canadian public now is asking why the minister, at this time, decided to make this experiment, particularly when all other miiltary powers, after investigation, decided against it.
The minister has said in press releases that other countries will follow suit. I should like to ask the minister what he means by saying "other countries will follow". Some suggestion has been made that it might be Sweden or Switzerland. As the minister knows, both these countries are neutral countries.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the Swiss navy?


John (Jack) McIntosh: He will come to that later. My concern on this issue is, why has the Minister of National Defence chosen to ignore the advice of his top military advisors and arranged for their retirement from their respective services?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Surely, the issue is not as the minister stated in mid-July in Edmonton, "civilian control over the military". I think the minister owes this house an explanation of that
Interim Supply
statement if, in fact, he made it to the press. What is this controversy in respect of civilian control over the military? I, for one, certainly do not believe for one moment that any of our senior service personnel were planning a coup, and if that is what the controversy is about the minister owes it to the people of this country and this House of Commons to say so. What is behind all this except political expediency? I refer to this statement about civilian control over the military. There has never been any question in Canada about the military taking control of civilian authorities. Thinking Canadians are not gullible enough to accept that kind of statement.
Canadians realize that the adviser's role is to provide facts and figures, as well as warnings of any risks involved. It is the duty of the minister's military advisers to point out the consequences of any unorthodox action he may be contemplating. It is my belief that the minister revealed what he was contemplating to some of these high ranking advisers, and I should like to know what he was contemplating. Parliament surely has a right to know the real cause of the controversy and the reason for the changing of 13 senior officers in the space of three months. The mystery created by what has happened in the minister's department has caused people to ask about these changes. As someone has said during this debate, the number of changes has increased from 13 to 40 senior officers.
Is the real cause of these dismissals related to the fact that advice given by senior officers proved to be right at the time the minister decided to discharge 500 newly trained jet pilots? The minister admitted in the house that he made a mistake which cost over $100 million. I hope he will compare that to the $150 million that he says he has saved because he has not been able to recruit replacements.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The previous government
wasted $100 million by training them in the first place.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to know what happened in respect of these jet pilots. The minister has also said that we do not have enough technicians because no replacements have been trained for those who were discharged. In the face of this situation, many of our ships and aircraft are idle. As the junior member for Halifax pointed out last night, some of these ships are tied up to wharves in Halifax. What good is this equipment if we do not have the personnel and technicians to operate it? What good is the acquisition of more equipment if it cannot be used? Neither

November 1, 1366
Interim Supply
a cannon nor a rifle is of much use if it cannot be fired, and the same is true of ships and aircraft without personnel to operate them.
I should like to know whether the minister agrees with the statement of his present chief of staff who is reported as having said that the possibilities of total war are not considered great. If the minister does agree with that statement, how can he reconcile it with a recent statement by Reuters from Peking to the effect that:
China told its people yesterday to prepare for war sooner or later with the United States-perhaps within a year or two.
Would not such a statement lead the minister to believe that his present chief of staff is not facing up to the facts, and that Canada should consider the possibility of total war very great? Should Canada not be prepared to play its part in the defence of this continent, if and when that is necessary? This is one of the dangers I referred to when I spoke in this house at the time the defence committee was first formed. This same reference was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Let me repeat what I said at that time on the subject of organization and senior personnel. I believe we have delegated too much power to the chief of our general staff. When the defence act was revised in 1950 personal authority was given to the C.G.S. far beyond that of his counterpart in the British army. British parliamentary reforms, established the principle that no single commander in chief should have sole responsibility for control and administration of the services. Since 1904, after the Esher reforms, the British army has been administered by an army council composed of political, military and civil service officials. The council has survived severe tests in two world wars, and has remained an effective and efficient instrument of government policy in the administration of the services.
The weakness of full military control similar to that in effect at present in Canada has been illustrated over and over again in other countries. I refer to the warning in Germany when their original idea that one man should have sole responsibility for all services was defeated.
One of the pitfalls resulting from the power Canada's parliament has delegated to its chief of staff is the natural tendency for anyone to gather around him like-thinking friends. In this regard, I think the minister dug very deeply into his resources of military advisers to get someone who would say yes to

every suggestion he made. I also said in 1963 that when everyone thinks alike, no one thinks at all. I believe that is what is happening at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Only a Tory would know that.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You are not sorry that you do know that, surely.
There are many questions I should like to ask this minister. This minister has ignored the total weight of the professional opinion of all his senior advisers. He has disregarded the clear and repeated lessons of military history, and he has disregarded the practical knowledge and advice of top British, United States and Canadian commanders who have proven their ability in battle.
These are some of the questions I should like to ask the minister. Why has he disregarded the decision of military powers who have discarded the idea of unification? Has the minister and his government decided to adopt a policy of neutrality or isolationism for Canada? That is an important question in my mind. What purpose is to be served by disbanding our three military forces? I think the Canadian people are entitled to know the answer to that question. Is it the minister's intention to eventually withdraw our forces from military alliances such as NATO and NORAD? Is it the intention of the minister to leave the defence of Canada to the United States? Why has the minister decided to scuttle our armed forces? Surely, we are entitled to know his motives. I should like to know whether they have anything to do with ideas recently expressed by the author Terence Robertson or does he believe that NATO has outlived its usefulness and is now philosophized, as some writers put it?
I will admit that in the case of NATO and NORAD the principle of defence has changed and countries can no longer guard their borders as they did in days gone by, but does the minister believes that NORAD no longer needs Canadian participation? It is obvious that the concept of defence has changed completely so that we must now guard our borders on a continental basis. However, I think the pride of the Canadian people should be considered, and we should take our part in any future defence of the North American continent. I realize we have only one tenth of the power possessed by the United States, and I am sure that everyone in the house will agree that the United States intends to guard the North American continent whether Canada wants to be guarded or not. Most
November 1, 19G6

Canadians do want to participate in that defence. Let us be proud of this part we play. Let us not divorce ourselves from this idea or remain smugly under the umbrella of United States defence of this continent, whether we like it or not.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am quite convinced that the existence of NATO has prevented a third world war. I would go even further and say that if there had been such an organization prior to world war I and world war II, we would never have had those wars. So, Mr. Chairman, defence is the best deterrent to war. In this connection, I ask the minister another question: Has he adopted this policy because he believes that only the United Nations remains as an inspiration for external defence policies? Is it the minister's intention to disband our three services and replace them with a glorified police force, as some writers have expressed? Judging by the minister's action, I fear that such a statement may be very close to the truth.
I wish to refer to what the minister said in June, 1963, in a statement made before the special committee on defence. On page 23 of the text of that speech we find these remarks which may be the basis of his policy, and I am suspicious of what is happening.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You sure are.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes; but just wait until I finish reading this extract:
From time to time suggestions have been made that we should turn over part of our armed forces to the U.N. To date there has been no inclination on the part of the U.N. to accept this kind of offer-
I should like to ask the minister: Has the United Nations now requested assistance in this respect, or has the minister or the government been successful in convincing the United Nations that this is what should happen?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman.


John (Jack) McIntosh: We will find out as we progress in this debate, and as we consider the deterioration of our armed forces, whether this is the major question in the minister's mind. Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the synopsis of the defence white paper, in which the minister had this to say:
This section-
He was referring to defence policy since 1945.
Interim Supply
-gives the historical background of defence policy since 1945, outlining developments which led to Canada supporting the United Nations in its peace preserving missions-
A little later on in the synopsis of the white paper there is another reference to this question:
The white paper then outlines the various contributions Canada has made to United Nations operations and stresses the importance of our continued participation in such forces.
The minister then said:
The two brigades in support of NATO maintained in Canada are to be re-equipped and retrained as a mobile force to permit their effective deployment in circumstances ranging from the European theatre to United Nations peace keeping operations.
Is this to be the policy even if the United Nations do not want our participation in this respect? I should also like to refer to the change of uniform, and ask whether it has anything to do with the role the minister now has in mind for the Canadian armed forces. Is it because the khaki uniform being worn by the services at the present time has not been carried gloriously into battle?


An hon. Member:: That has nothing to do with it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is what we want to know. Perhaps the hon. member who has interjected should be the minister, because he is giving us the answers. I would not be asking these questions today if the minister had answered those asked by members of this house.
We are concerned about what is happening to our armed forces. We want to know the minister's policy in this respect. What does he intend to do with the forces? We think he intends to scuttle the armed forces. I think I have offered the committee sufficient proof that this is the path the minister is following. The scuttling of our armed forces will take place before the Canadian people know about it, unless we can convince the minister to answer some of these questions today.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I failed to express a few thoughts which occurred to me since the beginning of the debate on the problem of integration and unification of our armed forces.
I agree with most speakers on the other side of the house who stated that it was an extremely important matter which should

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
normally arouse public opinion and on which it is difficult to have a well-grounded opinion. I consider that it is essential, therefore, to keep the debate on a moderate and normal plane when dealing with such an important problem and to try to have an idea as close as possible, through arguments, facts and evidence of what is now being attempted and since yesterday, I have personally been struck by two speeches which led me to ask myself a few questions.
The first is that of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) who tried first to establish that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) had not really made the savings he had announced. And to prove that statement, the hon. member for Calgary North quoted statistics. However, I think that one should not be guilty of leaving things out when quoting statistics. I see, for instance, that for the year 1962-63, the only figures quoted-they are taken from the public accounts-are for expenditures actually made during that year. But it seems to me that it would have been important to give the budgetary estimates for defence which had been prepared by the hon. member for Calgary North, at the time he was minister of national defence. A study of those estimates shows that the amounts really spent reached $1,571 odd billion when in fact, if the estimates at the beginning of the year had been given, it would have been obvious that they amounted to $1,675 billion and that, therefore, that so-called saving of $100 million had, in fact, been made as early as 1962-63.
There are other errors in those statistics, unless my own officials, who checked their accuracy, also made mistakes. For instance, a check of the estimates at my office shows that our actual expenditures for the year 1965-66 amounted to $1,548 billion, that is almost $13 million less than the figures given by the hon. member for Calgary North.
You might say, Mr. Chairman, that such amounts-$13 million out of $1.5 billion-are not very important and I agree with you. As far as statistics are concerned, mistakes can sometimes occur on one side or the other.
But, in the end, the trend is contrary to that indicated by the hon. member for Calgary North who seemed to maintain that we had, in fact, spent more than expected, whereas in fact we spent $13 million less.
But here is what troubled me in the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary North. He said that the Minister of National Defence

through his integration policy had reduced the efficiency of the armed forces, especially that of the navy.
I would like to refer to his statement at page 9311 of Hansard where he said:

Time after time, the minister has said here in the house and elsewhere that the navy's anti-submarine capability is greater now than it ever has been at any time in the past. No naval officer, either serving or retired, to whom I have spoken agrees with the minister in this matter. I have spoken to a considerable number, and not one of them agrees with this statement.

He goes on to make a comparison to the effect that one might just as well say that the more water one takes out of a pail, the more water there is in it.
Well, that statement left me a little puzzled and, since the hon. member for Calgary North had said that he had spoken to a large number of naval officers, I took the liberty to refer to the minutes of the meeting of the special committee on defence held on June 23, 1966, when Admiral Landymore was the main witness. At that meeting, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) asked the witness the following question:
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)

What I am concerned with actually is our role as part of the NATO complex in the anti-submarine warfare sector. We have a responsibility that has been assigned to us from time to time. Do we have the ships to fulfil that commitment as of today-
That is, June 23, 1966.
-and, say projected to 1970, or is there going to be a short-fall in the commitment as now outlined?

And in the last part of the answer given Admiral Landymore on June 23, 1966 was-

For my money, I would say that the force of ships that we have available now to offer NATO are infinitely more valuable than the large number of ships which we offered to NATO in, say, 1954. I do not see any way to add and subtract numbers and come up with an answer on a NATO commitment.

That statement is completed by a supplementary question and answer, asked once more by the hon. member for Edmonton West: [English]
All right, I will follow on with that. Are you satisfied that we will fully carry out our commitment in so far as effectiveness, the commitments, say, to 1972, are concerned?
November 1, 19S6

Rear Adm. Landymore: The answer to that is yes, I am well satisfied.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled by those obvious or less obvious contradictions from the members of the opposition. I do not suspect their motives. I appreciate their concern with regard to the drastic and significant changes which are taking place within an institution as important as the armed forces. 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, and I agree with them on that score. Besides, it is always the same thing. We have the armed forces council. Earlier reference was made to the national defence council, which has not been abolished; it is still in operation as it has always been.
When I wanted to make up my own mind, free from any political influence to which I am subjected, an unbiased opinion which would be the result of my own experience, once again I called upon a military authority.
It was no one else but general Foulkes who was, as you know, the chairman of the armed forces council. In an article which appeared in the Star Weekly Magazine of October 14, 1961, General Foulkes said, and I quote:
At the end of his article, in the last paragraph-mind you, at that time, he was chairman of the chief of staff committee-he said this:

We need one single armed service under one supreme Chief of Staff in one uniform. We need to organize our armed forces in the form of task forces designed for their particular jobs, at home or off our coasts or in Europe or with the United Nations. They should each be given the strength they need for their particular job at a given time. They would have no fixed establishment with rigid ladders of promotion, as the three services have now. They would all come under one system of administration, and by this means-and only by this means-I believe, the taxpayers' legitimate complaints of extravagance, duplication and waste can be removed and Canada can start to get real value for its defence budget.

Mr. Chairman, General Foulkes is a reliable source upon which called the members of the opposition, and I am not blaming them for that, since I have a great respect for General Foulkes. But we hear: what is the meaning of words? My conscience has been 23033-594J
Interim Supply
appeased, my mind put at rest when I saw a man with such experience, holding an absolutely necessary position, realize the urgent needs of the Canadian forces and come up with that advanced formula, as it were, of the problem which is facing us today. I told myself at that time that we probably had not misinterpreted the substance of the problem and that it was the only solution at the present time.
We need not know, for the time being, whether other countries are going to imitate us tomorrow, in ten days, or a year from now. Mr. Chairman, it is pointless to try to impress me with what has been achieved in the British armed forces. I respect them highly, but I also recall that Parkinson's law whereby a plurality of offices creates states within the state, was checked and, as a matter, discovered through an analysis of the activities in the Royal Navy. You may recall that, at one point, there was a given number of high ranking officers "per capital ship". Eventually, the "capital ships" had disappeared but the high ranking officers to command them has been multiplied by "x". The so-called Parkinson theory was then established.
Consequently, I think that we should make those experiments by ourselves in Canada. I believe we have the proper stature to undertake such things, and when I read General Foulkes' message where he says that every service must be organized-
I consider what has been done by Canadian forces and note that the maritime command, for instance, has a special part to play. Nothing else is required of it. The same thing applies to the mobile force command and to the training command. I wonder why we should find it difficult today to accept in Canada transformations like those we have made.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with all hon. members that Canada must be defended, that we must be in a position to defend our country. Nobody questions that. But how does one defend his country today? That is another question which we should ask ourselves.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I maintain that one of the best ways to protect one's country is to prevent war. We had that experience in the past when we failed to prevent war. In spite of the whole system that we apparently would like to retain in certain cases, we found that in

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
1914-18, we were not ready for war. And that in 1939-45, we were ready for the 1918 war.
What are we doing today? We are first of all calling for a mobilization which will enable us to preserve that peace and thus provide for the defence of Canada. An unfortunate reference has been made today to the mercenaries of the Canadian armed forces. Now, I ask you, are we mercenaries in Cyprus and in the Negev desert? Are we mercenaries in West Germany? We are there as peace volunteers and as such we are protecting Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am sure when members opposite, apart from partisan considerations, will have recognized the need to reorganize and redefine the role of the armed forces, they will accept as I do integration as ineluctable and logical. As a matter of fact, some of them accept a certain phase of integration. I think that members opposite admit that integration which, by the way, is not due to the present minister but was started long ago, is a logical step.
I am asking them one thing: let them do as I did-I think that some of them do-and carry the logic a little further, and they will come to the ineluctable conclusion, as I did, that if we really want to establish that perfected system, we must take another step forward and that step is unification. I feel that when this debate is over, we will have thrown some light on this subject and we shall realize then that we are trying, without admitting it at this time, to achieve the same purpose, that is, to maintain in Canada traditionally glorious and efficient forces which do credit to Canada at present throughout the world and which are much more reassured than the critics of the system would have us believe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, we are blamed for our failure to consult high-ranking officers, but there is a national' defence forces council where they are grouped. All initiatives, or rather all decisions, which are eventually taken by the national defence council have been considered by experts on the matter. And I, for one, am satisfied with the extraordinary qualifications of those high-ranking officers and with their approach to all those complicated problems.

For instance, we have seen recently the new armed forces pay structure. Mr. Chairman, I have been aware for two years that a large committee of experts is working on this complicated question of the army pay system. Why did we want to conceive a reduction from 350 to 100 trades? For all sorts of reasons that most hon. members on the other side of the house are aware of. In that way, we arrive at a highly efficient system, and I do not see why, in a $1.5 billion enterprise, in Canada, we should be blamed for wanting to apply modern administrative and control methods.
That is what is intended, and technically speaking, I am satisfied that the high-ranking officers whom I see daily are also satisfied. Moreover, I think that the reforms we are now undertaking are an asset for Canada, that they are an example and an incentive, and I do not believe that the alleged matter of morale exists in the armed forces. In my opinion, people see before them a superior force, an interesting career progression and, on that basis, I think that the integration and unification that will ensue when parliament is willing to pass the proposed legislation will prove successful for Canada.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in participating in this debate which has to do with defence at the moment, though I am also concerned with education and with what happened at the federal-provincial conference last week. I listened to the Associate Minister of National Defence make his eloquent and sincere remarks, but I believe he protesteth too much.
I think all members of the house will agree that the calibre of officer remaining in the Canadian forces is high, as this transfer to a hybrid force takes place. The trouble is that the Minister of National Defence and the associate minister have more facts and figures at their fingertips than other hon. members. Perhaps their confidence is justified. I intend, in my participation in this debate, to ask the Minister of National Defence to follow the admonition of the Prime Minister. Let the minister take his feet out of the bucket of sand. Let him revise his thinking, and hold defence committee hearings so that we can explore in detail all the ramifications of the integration-unification program.
The minister no doubt may be correct in what he says, when he refers to the white paper. The trouble is that when the white
November 1, 1966

paper came in, in 1964, many members presently in the house were unable to participate in the debate on it. Whether those members participate constructively or not, they at least ought to be given the chance of participating. At the moment, in the supply debate, there are many issues before the country, and many members on all sides of the house are sincerely concerned about where the integration-unification road is to end. If we had the benefit of some of the advice given to the minister and to the associate minister we might share some of their confidence. This may not be entirely possible, but the minister could at least convene the defence committee with the consequent hearing of witnesses. That would help.
If the minister believes that what is being done represents a step forward in defence, represents the great new politics and the great reasoned approach, why does he not go one step farther and convene this defence committee?
The Prime Minister gave words of advice which I am sure the minister would wish to heed. Those words of advice were given at a certain convention in June of this year, as reported in the Toronto Telegram of Thursday, October 13. The Prime Minister is reported to have said:
Remaining firm and immovable in a bucket of hardening cement is nothing to boast about. Political leadership is being steady not stuck.


An hon. Member:: There is a bucket over his head.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is no bucket over anybody's head, but we want to see some cement on the other side of the house. Since parliament convened in January we have seen it bogged down in one kind of cement. In some ways, though, I think the minister is to be given credit for making advancements in a program which has new avenues to explore. If the minister were to follow the Prime Minister's advice and take his feet out of the bucket of sand, why would he not listen to some of the reasoned views on this side of the house and convene the defence committee? I do not know whether the minister heard the member for Halifax speak last night. I heard him, and I read what he said in Hansard. He dealt with the whole subject more ably, and with a wider approach then I could bring to it. I found the facts and figures as reviewed by the hon. member for Halifax very interesting and very important. They have a serious impact on the maritimes.
Interim Supply
The hon. member for Peace River reviewed the constitutional problem, which the minister attempted to answer last night. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre reviewed the history and the halos surrounding some of the minister's statements. That review was in major tones. The hon. member for Calgary North pointed out the so-called savings and the so-called substitutions, again in reasoned tones. There are many across this country who want to develop and explore this topic of defence, but they want to do that in reasoned tones.
Knowing this requirement, with which all members agree, why does the minister not convene the defence committee? If the defence committee were convened we might question the witnesses, and gain some information.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Let us at least call the witnesses before the defence committee, then perhaps we can get on with this debate and proceed to other business which is also pressing. Frankly, I have real reservations about the value of unification and integration. The process did not start with the present minister, of course. In a sense, General Eisenhower and General Montgomery were commanders of integrated forces. The minister has taken pride in saying that Canada is a showcase for his policy. Of course, Canada is a showcase. This is a new program and all countries are interested in seeing how it is progressing. It is like watching micro-organisms on a slide; everyone is interested in looking through the microscope to find out whether they will live. But they do not want to get onto the slide themselves.
If the minister would agree to reconvene the committee and let witnesses be heard, he might be able to convince those countries abroad which are watching this experiment that unification will strengthen our armed forces, not emasculate them.
The minister has pointed with pride to the example of certain countries abroad. I intend to refer, not to Great Britain but to a country which is like Canada in many ways as far as the size of its population is concerned and the potential of its contribution to world order. I shall take the example of New Zealand, and place on record part of an article from the Canadian Press about the New Zealand white paper. New Zealand has studied the Canadian experiment and come out positively as saying that the type of force Canada is advocating is not a force which would be suitable for

November 1, 1386
Interim Supply
New Zealand. I quote from a report which appeared in the Chronicle-Herald of June 11: A force of this type which New Zealand could afford to maintain in peacetime would never be large enough to give a truly independent role in limited war. Because of the 'separateness' of the three services of all our principal allies, a combined New Zealand force would have to be logistically self-contained or largely so. The government has concluded that New Zealand can make a larger, more flexible, and more effective contribution to collective defence and to the demands of the cold war in the form of three separate service elements than with a combined balanced 'national force'.
The white paper refers specifically to the study made in Canada, and suggests it is specious and foolish to think that we in Canada could ever have a truly independent striking force. We are simply not large enough. We have to integrate our own forces with those of other countries. We are not a military power, and we should not pretend we are. If the minister has clearly defined road signs indicating the end of the path along which his policy is leading, perhaps he will tell us about them. He might even obtain agreement in this house with the idea that we are supposed to become a peace-keeping nation. But let us call the committee, and let that committee have power to call witnesses.
I suggest that New Zealand has adopted a reasonable and logical approach to this question on the basis that New Zealand, with a population of about 2,500,000, will never be able to provide a truly independent mobile force which would mean anything in terms of international power. The same applies to Canada.
If the minister has something else in mind, and he thinks it is so good, why does he hesitate to convene the committee so that we can study his proposal and dissect it? Let him take his feet out of the barrel of cement. I could understand the minister standing firm in his purpose, but let him not stick obstinately to his refusal to convene a committee which could direct us out of this dilemma. The experts and the critics could be heard. Perhaps the hon. gentleman himself could find some answers which have not been given as completely as they should have been.
There is another element which causes me concern. I refer to the implications of this policy as far as the maritimes generally and my own constituency in particular are concerned. I would remind the minister that his counterpart below the border, Mr. McNamara, had his defence problems-and he blazed a lot of new trails. But he did not act specifically for his own purpose, and

refuse to act when others made their wishes known. When there were painful decisions to be made he had a computer make the plan, and he published the decisions right across the country so that everyone knew what the implementation of the policy would mean.
The base consolidation plan is not a new idea. This was started a long time ago by McNamara. I wish the minister would play "McNamara's Band" and let the people know what the implications of his policy are. The radar station is closing in Kamloops; the base at Cornwallis is to be closed. The minister is not showing us his whole hand. He shrugs off criticism from this side of the house; he cannot be too much concerned about the constructive criticism that comes from over here. Let the people have an idea of the full import of these plans. Perhaps they can somehow be persuaded to believe that the end result will be to the benefit of Canada. The withholding of information, and the confusion to which it leads, will never win the confidence of people who might very well be on the minister's side.
Not much public support is aroused by taking a stand behind a few Generals or a few Rear Admirals. But I think the opposition in this house has a real responsibility to try to find out what is happening to a quarter of our budget.
I thought that the minister, taking pride in the announcement he made last night, would have referred this whole matter to the defence committee, taken it out of this partisan area and discussed the subject with defence experts, his own men and interested bystanders present.
I suggest we have international integration right now. We have it in Cyprus, in the Gaza Strip and in Viet Nam. No countries other than the United States and the Soviet Union are in a position to have independent striking forces in today's world, and the sooner we face this fact the sooner we shall know where the minister is heading. If he has in mind a peace-keeping force for the United Nations, he should let us know about it. The mass of the Canadian people may well be on his side. But the present confusion, together with some flippant answers from the hon. gentleman, does nothing to win confidence from this side of the house, let alone from the people at large.
I think the people of Canada will be amazed when they realize the full import of this consolidation program.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
November 1, 1966


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I wonder if I may call it six o'clock? I have another section to discuss and 1 would prefer to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Progress reported.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think it is agreeable if we were to break off for the dinner hour from six to seven, and resume at seven o'clock.


Lawrence T. Pennell: That is agreeable to members on this side of the house.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Montreal, Quebec-construction of motel on new C.B.C. site; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), Transport-terms of reference of Atlantic provinces study; the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), Lotteries-possibility of government action to meet infractions.
Perhaps the house would consent to go into committee now, so that we can commence our work directly at seven o'clock.

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-$309,794,865.50;
Interim Supply
(b)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Public Works Item 65 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,600,000.00;
(c)	an additional two-twelfths of the total amounts of National Defence Item 35, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 20 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates-$3,175,900.00;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L30 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates- $9,166,666.67;
(e)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a and Transport Items 102a and 103a, for which no proportion is granted- $26,276,101.92;
(f)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amounts of External Affairs Item 35a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L22a (Schedule D) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$11,304,-250.00;
(g)	an	additional	two-twelfths	of	the	total
amount of Secretary of State Item 40a (Schedule E) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$713,266.67;
(h)	an	additional	one-twelfth	of	the	total
amounts of Finance Item 15a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40a (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$4,716,666.67;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total amount of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Loans, Investments and Advances Item L32b, for which no proportion is granted-$2,252,250.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
['Mr. Speaker, yesterday I drew the attention of the Solicitor General of Canada to the fact that a poor little bunny girl and four stock traders had been charged in Toronto with operating a hockey and football lottery. The details available to us in Toronto simply are that they were printing tickets, one for each second of the hockey game, and selling these for $1 each. The person who had the proper second at which the winning goal was scored in the professional hockey game played in Toronto would come in for a small prize. I use the word "small" because of the comparison with the vast amount of money that would be secured by the sale of the tickets.\nEvidently the government is enforcing the present pristine pure laws which we have against lotteries and sweepstakes in this country. It is interesting to know that they have even come down to the level of the poor bunny girls in taverns. I only hope that when they served the summonses on the four stock traders on the Toronto stock exchange those men were not selling Windfall stock at the time, because it would be a laugh to them to be served with a summons for selling lottery tickets when they might have been selling Windfall stock.\nHaving sympathy for the poor little bunny girl, I asked the Solicitor General if any action is being taken against the bank presidents of this country who are selling the premium savings bonds, series B, put out by the British government. I buy these right here in Canada, usually in Toronto, and have no trouble whatsoever. I hold in my hand a prospectus for these savings bonds. The British government calls them premium savings bonds, and I suppose the Canadian government recognizes them as premium savings bonds, but everybody else in this world knows them as the British lottery bonds.\nNovember 1, 1966', 'These bonds were first discussed in 1956. You can read all the details in the British Hansard in the parliamentary library. The suggestion first was made by Lady Tweeds-muir, a member of the British House of Commons. She was the wife of the son of a former governor general of Canada. It is a terrible thing to think that the fact that her husband lived in Canada for four or five years and was exposed to the purifying atmosphere of our lottery laws had no influence on her introducing such a heinous thing as lottery bonds. But worse than that, Lady Tweedsmuir was supported in the introduction of these lottery bonds in the 1950\'s by the prime minister of Great Britain, Harold Macmillan, who spent five years in Canada. I regret that we had no influence on the lives of those people who had resided here. If people like Lady Tweedsmuir and Harold Macmillan can spend years in Canada and return to Great Britain still wanting to buy sweepstake tickets or, indeed, start a sweepstakes, I think we can realize why Canadian citizens who live in this country are interested in buying whatever sweepstake tickets are available.\n[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)\nThis British lottery bond institution is an amazing one. Every month it has a draw for prizes and you can get a prospectus from any Canadian bank. I have underlined on this prospectus a score of places referring to draws, prizes, drawings, monthly draws, monthly prizes, and the word "drawing" would indicate to anyone but the Canadian cabinet that these are lottery bonds.\nIs the cabinet going to take any action against these bank presidents? I do not like to see the police instructed to confine their attention to tavern bunny girls and stock traders who are dealing in stocks that make lottery tickets look like a wisk of wind in a hurricane compared to what they are selling on the floor. I wish the police would spend some time in respect of these men who are dealing in lottery bonds.\nAnyone can go to the banks and get a prospectus which sets out exactly what you must do. Of course the bank itself does not actually sell you the bond. The clerk tells you to go over to the foreign exchange counter where you buy a British pound note for every bond you want and you then mail the pound notes to Great Britain. This whole thing is conducted by the British government through the post office and there are two\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion addresses given: General Post Office, London,\nE.C.l and Premium Savings Bond Office, Lytham St. Annes, Lancashire.\nIs the Canadian government stopping all the mail going to the General Post Office, London, E.C.l and to the Premium Savings Bond Office, Lytham St. Annes, Lancashire, as it does in connection with Irish sweepstake mail? You cannot use the mail to sell Irish sweepstake tickets. This prospectus points out that the British government will inform the winners of monthly draws by post. Has the Canadian post office no instruction through the Solicitor General to examine mail coming into Canada by post from the British government?\nIt says in rule 10 on this prospectus that the winners will be notified by post. If the post office is going to stop the mail going to the Irish hospital sweepstakes because this transgresses the postal regulations of Canada, why does it not stop mail going to these addresses in Britain, because this also breaks the laws of this nation?\nFar be it from me to ever suggest that the Canadian cabinet should adopt such a sensible idea as a lottery bond so that the people of this nation might have the opportunity of paying off the national debt in a manner that would appeal to many of them. As Mr. Harold Macmillan said in support of Lady Tweedsmuir: If the people are willing to forgo the certainty of interest in order to have a chance of winning a prize each month that is nobody\'s business but the buyer of the bond.\nI cannot see any reason why Canadians should not be given the opportunity of buying Canadian lottery bonds put out by the Canadian government in the same way the British government puts them out, but until the cabinet wakes up and smartens up considerably and introduces such a sweepstake in Canada in order to reduce the Canadian national debt, I simply want to know whether they are going to enforce the law of the land only by chasing bunny girls through taverns and prosecuting stock traders while they flimflam the public on Bay street. Certainly the cabinet ought to prosecute these banks which are issuing the premium savings bonds prospectus, series B, and selling foreign exchange so you can send it to England and get your bonds back by post. Why should we just chase the little bunny girls and leave the bank presidents alone?\nNovember 1, 1966\n9432\tCOMMONS\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member for York Humber has raised an interesting and novel matter. Unfortunately I have no personal knowledge of these premium savings bonds but I shall have a look into the matter. However, I would point out that the enforcement of the Criminal Code is, generally speaking, a matter exclusively within the', 'jurisdiction of the provincial authorities. This applies in particular to sections in the Criminal Code relating to gaming and lotteries. I am sure the hon. member will be as pleased as I am to learn that the Department of Justice is completing a study of the sections relating to gaming and lotteries.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.', 'Wednesday, November 2, 1966']
Herman Maxwell Batten: Pursuant to the order made by the house, I do now leave the chair.



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


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is there a quorum in the house.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, when the debate was suspended the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings had the floor. I wonder, if we waited a moment or two, he could be sought out.

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, it was made clear by the hon. member that he would not be here at seven o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Port Arthur.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon I was not aware that the very important subject of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was about to be debated. As is quite proper I was attending to other responsibilities in the committee on transport and communications. It came to my attention after the dinner hour last evening that it was the subject of the discussion. In reading yesterday's Hansard with great interest I noted at page 9316 that the hon. member for Timmins had made reference to me in these words:
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
The other day the hon. member for Port Arthur read to the delegation from the north, before they met with cabinet members, a carefully prepared and very sound statement-
I feel quite sure that having brought this to his attention he will want the record to be corrected. He was present at that meeting and knows that my statement was made in the joint presence of cabinet members and the members of the delegation and not to the delegation before it met with cabinet members. As a matter of courtesy to the hon. member for Timmins I suggest that this error may have been one of transcription rather than any attempt to establish a significantly distorted history of this episode.
My stand on the pipe line has been quite well known since the Trans-Canada proposal was first made to the National Energy Board last December. With regard to the proposal which has been approved and was explained during the meeting to which I recently referred and on other occasions, my concern revolves around my conviction that the best interests of northern Ontario are not being met.
The deal now approved is unquestionably better than the first proposal by Trans-Canada which made no provision for expansion of the Canadian pipe line from Manitoba through northern Ontario. In terms of timing, however, the commencement of twinning the existing northern line in 1970 is not soon enough. I have asked as forcibly as I can that every attempt be made by the government to advance the commencement of the twinning and construction of the northern line, and I shall continue to press for such action.

We also want assurance that the existing price differential advantage between northwestern Ontario and eastern Canada is maintained when the economies of volume provide a price decrease, and we want that price decrease spread over the whole system. We would certainly be adamant about the benefits of that price reduction going to eastern Canada. The price advantage which exists now exists for good and sufficient reason, simply because we are closer to the source. In many other ways, however, we suffer disadvantage and discrimination. For example, in respect of freight rates we experience an unnaturally imposed disadvantage.
There is a third main consideration we in northern Ontario envisage. We want to see concrete measures taken as a matter of firm policy so that the supply of natural gas to our industries present and future will be a primary consideration before natural gas is exported as a result of this new plan.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is aware of the worry about the adequacy of natural gas supplies to northern Ontario industries, present and future. This worry has been expressed to him many times, most forcibly last Wednesday evening. On October 27, as recorded in Hansard at page 9167, the minister informed the house that one of his officials had telephoned a distributor in northwestern Ontario about the supply of natural gas and was told that the company has never had to refuse a supply of firm gas. He said that the problem lies with interruptible gas and that a pipe line could not function solely on the basis of an interruptible gas supply. The people in my constituency are asking, as I think they quite rightly should, for a more complete investigation of the question of gas supply. On that aspect I have what I think is a concrete suggestion for the minister.
I specifically ask that the National Energy Board delegate to at least one of its senior members the responsibility of accompanying the minister, myself and other interested members from northwestern Ontario to that region to check at first hand the present and future needs of that area. If this can be arranged I will schedule meetings with industrial consumers, not just distributors, throughout that area. I most certainly will include in that tour a visit to the iron ore centre of our area to see one of its representatives who only yesterday informed me that the iron ore pelletizing potential volume in
November 1, 1966

our area is 18 million tons per year. At the present time production capacity is about three million tons so it can be seen that a significant increase can be forecast over the next few years.
Just to indicate the market trend in potential capacity let me refer to another example. One Canadian steel company recently indicated that its requirements would increase from the present level of one million tons of iron ore pellets per year to three million tons by 1970. While the 18 million pellet tons forecast for production in northwestern Ontario is unlikely to be on stream at one time it does not take sophisticated arithmetic to realize that natural gas requirements for that industry alone in that area alone are going to increase to billions of cubic feet annually. I give this as one example of information which may not be available or known to the minister or the National Energy Board. This is the sort of information that should be made available. I want to be assured, as do my constituents and others in northern Ontario, that factors of this kind are known as a result of first hand, on the ground investigations and that they are given proper consideration.
My own experience on the transport committee has proven to me that one cannot hold all hearings effectively in Ottawa, particularly on such a vital and contentious matter, and get the full story. This applies also to the National Energy Board.
I repeat, therefore, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources my invitation to him and a senior member of the National Energy Board to accompany me and other interested members of parliament immediately on a field trip throughout northwestern Ontario.
Many facts have been stated for and against the pipe line decision, and in respect of my own area of northwestern Ontario I want to add an additional consideration. The pipe line, over and above its specifics, is really a manifestation of an issue on which has been based the frustrations of the people of northwestern Ontario. This situation has been developing for a long time as a result of attitudes on the part of both the federal and provincial levels of government. My colleague who represents Kenora-Rainy River expressed it most effectively last night and I am simply joining in his statement.
Northwestern Ontario is what I might call the unnecessarily underdeveloped heartland of Canada. It lies right at the geographic 23033-595
Interim Supply
centre of Canada and right in the centre of our distribution system. It is an area that has natural resources.
We in Canada know that we have a geographical distribution system which is uneconomic. One reason is the scanty population. Northwestern Ontario is about 250,000 square miles in area and has a population density 100 years after confederation of less than one person per square mile. These facts cause a real distribution problem and its effect on east-west trade is evident in many ways, not the least of which is the railway bridge subsidy which has existed for some years and is now going to be removed if the transportation bill goes through. In the interests of Canada I do not think it can be disputed that to realize the potential of the area it should be developed, populated and industrialized. The economic facts and figures in respect of the population situation are an issue in northwestern Ontario, and I want to register this point with the government.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Northwestern Ontario feels that it has been by-passed. It has suffered from a lack of designation. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has given hon. members a further example of what has happened in this regard. An industry that we were endeavouring to have come to our area decided to go to the Georgian Bay area near French River because of the designated area there and the lack of such designation at the Canadian lakehead. This is just another example of the apparent neglect of the federal government and provincial governments which has stirred the people in the area to feel very strongly that somebody must speak for them and work in their interests. If I do nothing more than register the fact that this feeling exists because of the actions of the government on this issue, there will have been some value in my remarks.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that I want no part of the accusations of insincerity or other ulterior motives that have been bandied about and applied to the ministers who are responsible for the pipe line decision. I genuinely disagree with some of the factors and points leading to that decision and some of the results therefrom; but I have no hesitation in commending the ministers' sincerity in the taking of those decisions. I feel that the ministers concerned are overlooking the interests of my area and that in the broadest sense the interests of my area

November 1, 1986
Interim Supply
have to be recognized as being in the national interest as well. I also believe that even at this late date, the agreement between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and the government having been tabled, major improvements can be effected in this transaction. I am quite sure this can be done, and I ask the government to pay great attention to the requests that have been put forward and do something to improve the pipe line arrangements.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, my remarks this evening will be related, as have been the remarks of most of my colleagues, to the question of defence and foreign policy. I thought I had better make this clear because my initial observations will be directed to some of the new rules changes in the house as they relate to this particular problem.
Last evening the hon. member for Peace River pointed out in great detail and very capably that a recent decision of the Minister of National Defence-the minister elaborated further in this regard-has done a great deal to damage and in fact destroy the new committee system that was established on a trial basis by the house. As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, a year ago, as a result of much criticism in the press and other public media involving dissatisfaction on the part of members of the house and the public generally, attempts were made to streamline and revise the rules of the house to try to bring them more into line with modem conditions.
As we are all aware, at the present time we are using the new rules on a trial basis. It was hoped by many that the new system of parliamentary committees would be a useful and effective means of providing information to members of the house and the public at large with regard to details of many of the complex problems that all Canadians face. The committee system has not worked out as well as was expected. I think we all realize this. One problem, of course, has been that the government has attempted to control all the committees. I might add that this is normal; it has always been the custom. But the government, having only 130 members, 25 of whom are members of the cabinet and thus not able to attend these committees, finds itself in a very awkward position in trying to maintain a majority in committees when several are meeting at the same time.
As a result we have found that in most of the committees it has been very difficult to obtain a quorum, and very often government members have been at fault in this respect. This is no fault of theirs, necessarily. It

simply stems from the fact that there are not enough bodies to go around when several committees are meeting at the same time. That is one mechanical fault.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even a Liberal cannot be in two places at the same time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I must say that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has made a very appropriate observation and I am inclined to agree with it. Another problem that has arisen in this regard is that apparently the government now has cold feet in connection with the activities of committees. Having the honour to be vice-chairman of the committee on external affairs, I know that a number of the members of that committee had great hopes for the committee system quite apart from examining the estimates in detail. In this regard the committee on external affairs has done very well. We spent a great deal of time on examining the estimates of the department and generally, I think, fulfilled our duties very well in this area. However, many of the members of that committee, which is rather analogous to the defence committee, hoped that when we had approved the estimates and sent them back to the house we might be given the opportunity of visiting the General Assembly of the United Nations for perhaps a week. We hoped that we might be able to discuss further such matters as Viet Nam, Rhodesia, NATO and other areas that are very important indeed and of great public interest in this country. But for some reason or other the government has not seen fit to do this. It has dragged its feet in this regard and has not seen fit to permit the committee to carry on in this way.
I now come to the defence committee. While I am not a member of that committee, it seems to me that the question of the integration and unification of our armed forces is a highly complex matter. This subject is very much misunderstood by almost everyone. It is a matter of great detail. Matters of this kind should be clarified because it is perhaps one of the most important subjects that will come before the house. As I understand it, the meetings of the defence committee have been frustrated by the government and, I take it, by the Minister of National Defence in particular.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He hasn't frustrated it; he just will not allow the committee to sit.
November I, 1966


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I understand that the committee has not been permitted to sit, so it is unable to obtain information on this highly important matter. Some people might say that various parties in the house are playing politics on the matter of defence. I do not think that is the case. I believe that all members of the house of whatever party are very sincerely interested in the defence of this country and the policies to be applied in this regard. Our very existence may depend upon the policies the house decides upon.
Requests have been repeatedly made to the government to have this committee sit. I do not blame the minister entirely for refusing to allow the committee to sit, because his colleagues have supported him in this regard. I blame the government for this situation. Members of the opposition have repeatedly requested that the defence committee be called to sit in order that it may look very carefully into the questions of integration and unification, clarify the issues, call witnesses and hear what is going on so that when the defence bill is presented to the house, as the minister has assured us it will be, all hon. members and the public at large will be able to discuss this matter in an informed, intelligent way, which is not possible at the present time. I cannot understand why the government will not permit the committee to sit.
The decision of the government in this respect is inexplicable; there is just no reason for it. The only reason I can think of is that there are some aspects of integration and unification that the government fears will not meet with general public approval and for this reason it does not wish the committee to be called at this time. Therefore, when the bill reaches the house and receives approval in principle, which it no doubt will in view of the fact that the government has the largest group in the house and will probably be supported by some other group, the minister will be able to say: "Well, the bill has been approved in principle on second reading and anything the committee does does not matter." On a matter as important as this I believe the committee on defence should be called right away. Members of the house, the press and the public could then be informed of what is really going on with regard to the question of integration and unification. I do not know how we can discuss the matter when the bill reaches second reading and approval in principle if we are not apprised of a great many facts. I will deal with this point in a moment.
Interim Supply
There are a great many pieces of information to which we on the committee are entitled. First of all, there is the difference between integration and unification. It is generally understood that integration refers to the non-fighting branches of the armed services, that those associated with medical services, dental services, communications, supply, purchasing, accounting and the like should be amalgamated under one service instead of there being three.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
It is alleged that certain economies would result from this. I think most members of the house and most members of the public would agree with that. I understand, however, despite the fact that this step has already been taken, that to some degree costs have gone up rather than down. This is something we would like to know about.
The position with regard to unification is much less clear. The minister in his statements in the house and outside has never been very clear as to what is meant by unification, and certainly we do not know what the government means by it. It is generally understood that there is to be some sort of hybrid armed force, the members of which all wear the same uniform.
I recall that the minister told the house one day that there was no reason why a gunnery officer in the army could not replace a gunnery officer in the navy almost overnight. Perhaps the minister has forgotten that other duties besides gunnery are associated with these ranks. Certainly as an ex-naval officer myself I find it difficult to envisage such a situation. However, the question should be cleared up.
Are we going to have some jack-of-all-trades armed force? In these days of modern weapons and the high degree of specialization that is required to utilize modern military hardware, as it is often called, it would be very unusual indeed for a person not to be required to possess some specialty knowledge, as is the case in the army, navy or air force. These are all things that we should be informed about.
We have also been told that money is being saved by this change. I have been told that at Camp Borden and at many other camps in the country there are thousands of motor vehicles-trucks, jeeps, cars and the like- which have been parked for two or three years without turning a wheel, and this because of the restriction placed upon militia training. The minister should give us some

November 1, 1963
Interim Supply
information on this, or if not the minister those in his department. If these vehicles are not going to be used and are just gathering dust and deteriorating, they should be disposed of.
Another question to which we should like an answer is: Who is the author of the unification plan? It is apparent that no other military power, certainly no major military power such as the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, Japan or Germany, is attempting to take this step. It is obvious that many senior officers do not agree with the minister's plan. In fact, over 40 of them from all three services have retired or have been fired. That is why we would like to know who is the author of the plan.
The minister has stated that the heads of the armed forces are subject to the control of the civilian authorities, and with that we agree. Is it the cabinet that devised this new scheme? With the exception of the Minister of Industry, who has had some previous experience at a senior military level, no other member of the cabinet has had any military experience of any consequence. Who devised the plan and what is the competency of the person or people who devised it? We should be given the answers to those questions.
There is also another matter in this regard that is rather offensive. Apparently the minister has a rather good public relations organization, and I do not blame him for that; but as a result of this, all of us have seen some of these cartoons which run down, disparage and make fun of our senior officers, or ex-senior officers, in the armed services. These cartoons describe them as "Colonel Blimps", "Old Fogeys", "incompetents" and the like. Most of these men, Mr. Chairman, are my age and I do not consider myself an old fogey. I think I am about the minister's age and I do not suppose he considers himself as in that category. These are people who have had experience with our NATO allies, the best kind of training, and are dedicated men in the public service; yet they are lampooned by a lot of it, I may use the vernacular, "kooks" in the press of this country who make fun of these people because they think it sells newspapers and is suitable to the minister and some of his colleagues. I say it is very unfair and most inappropriate.
If this committee were ever permitted to meet, one of the most important things its members would like to know concerns the question of where we are going and what is our defence policy. It has often been said-

and this perhaps is the most important thing of all-that the armed services are the strong arm of the foreign policy of the government, and with that I agree. It has been said in this house on other occasions that defence policy should be closely integrated with foreign policy, and with that I certainly agree. There is no point in having military forces and appropriate hardware for them unless there is co-ordination with the government's foreign policy.
I should like to know what our foreign policy is. It is certainly hard to figure it out. What is our foreign policy, for instance, with regard to NATO? The government pays lip service to NATO and to its commitments to NATO. On the other hand, there is every indication that the government seems to have the intention of withdrawing from NATO, if not immediately at least at the first reasonable opportunity in the future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On that point, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will allow me, I cannot permit his statement to go unchallenged. This question has been raised in the house several times recently and it has been flatly denied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would not want the press or anybody else to pick it up as having any substance at all because it was not challenged.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am very glad to hear the minister make that statement. At least we have had a definite answer to one question. I sincerely hope he is correct, but the indications have been otherwise. This is the reason we want this committee to reconvene, so that it can be given some information. I am glad the minister has said that. We have been able to obtain something this evening.
What is our policy with respect, say, to the recognition of red China? The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I am sorry is not in the house at the moment, has been very evasive when questioned on that subject both inside and outside the house. It is a sort of "recognition if necessary, but not necessarily recognition."
With regard to the admission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations the Secretary of State for External Affairs strongly advocates at the United Nations on behalf of Canada that it is necessary that the People's Republic of China be seated. When he was asked in the house whether we are
November 1, 1966

going to support their being seated, the minister said no. It is like the old saying:
Mother may I go out to swim?
Yes, my darling daughter.
Hang your clothes on a hickory limb,
But don't go near the water.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
That is about the way we ought to describe our policy with respect to the admission of red China to the United Nations.
What is our policy, for instance, with regard to the Organization of American States? The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that he thinks it is a good idea. He personally is in favour of it, but his colleagues are not. What is our position there?
What about Viet Nam? We have given lip service to supporting the United States, but at the same time the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister have been making speeches in Canada and the United States criticizing United States policy with respect to Viet Nam. It is quite understandable that some of us are at sea as to what is the foreign policy of this country. We should also like to know what the policy with respect to our armed services is to be. How can we know what our policy toward the services should be if we do not know our foreign policy?
For some time it has been said-it was said by previous administrations, both Liberal and Conservative-that the United Nations is one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy. I certainly agree that it is. I believe that successive governments have regarded the United Nations as one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy, along with our support of NATO, the Commonwealth, and our special relationship with the United States. Perhaps the minister would avail himself of the opportunity to give us further information at this time about our forces. Perhaps we could hear about it in the committee. We want to know what will be the role of the new hybrid force that is being created. We can only draw certain conclusions so far. All of us in the house, I think, fully support Canada's role in the United Nations. Canada has been the key contributor to peacekeeping forces over the years. That policy has been continued by successive governments, and I do not think many Canadians, if any, would disagree with it. If there are any who do disagree, they can only be a very small percentage of the people. I want to make it clear that I entirely support this policy. But providing a specially trained force for this purpose and training all
Interim Supply
your armed forces only for this purpose are two totally different things.
I should like to commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his work with the United Nations. The idea of a specially trained force for peacekeeping operations at the instant requirement of the Secretary General when necessary, initiated by Hon. Howard Green when he was secretary of state for external affairs and pursued very strongly by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, is a very good one. I believe we are all glad to see the role that Canada is playing in various parts of the world in this regard. The indications are, and this is a question that the government should clarify, that our present armed forces policy is to make all our armed services into a sort of hybrid force which would be available to the Secretary General.
It is very hard to keep secrets on Parliament Hill, as those of us who have been here for some time know. Certainly there are stories from reliable sources to the effect that in a year or two-this has been mentioned by other speakers in this debate and I ask the minister to clarify the situation-or possibly longer, possibly in five years, the navy and the air force will be relegated to a purely transport role in this new hybrid force. If this is so it seems that we are putting all our eggs in one basket. That may be all right if we are aiming for some kind of hybrid force which will be available whenever the Secretary General may require it for peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the United Nations. I have already said, and I think most but not all members of the house would agree, that Canada should provide a specially trained force which will be a sort of police force to serve the United Nations. But there are many of us who do not agree with the proposition that all our armed forces should be put, like eggs, into this one basket. This is something that I think the minister ought to clarify for us.
If this is the case, what are our responsibilities toward NATO? The minister has told us that there is no intention of giving up our commitments to NATO. How would some hybrid, quasi-police force fit in with our NATO commitments? How would it fit in with our NORAD commitments, our commitments to the defence of North America? These things should be clarified for us. It is most essential that all of us should know about these matters. There have been rumours and we have heard stories to the effect

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
that there are United States vessels in large numbers at our bases on the west coast. I was informed of this by another member of the house. It may be coincidental but it arouses a certain concern because of the unclearness of the government's policy in this regard.
We have heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and other members that our naval forces have been greatly reduced. According to the evidence of Admiral Landymore-the expurgated evidence-we may have a great shortage of naval personnel and ships by the spring of next year. It may well be that it is the government's intention to put all our eggs in the United Nations basket and to provide forces for use by the United Nations. If that is the government's policy, I do not agree with it. On the other hand, if this is not the case and we are not able to carry our load in our commitments for North American defence or anything else, though this policy may save the taxpayers some money I have the gravest doubts about our independence in the future.
It is often said that our voice in Washington is not all that strong at the present time. But how strong would it be in the future if we had no forces to contribute to North American defence? These are things that are very much in the minds of the people, members of this house and the press. I cannot understand why the minister will not permit the defence committee to be called so that these matters can be clarified. Or why will he not clarify them himself? I hope he will clarify these things before the debate is finished. If he is able to, that will be fine. It would clear up a great many questions which have been worrying us.
In conclusion I revert to my first remarks which had to do with the committees of the house. I agree that perhaps on matters of policy members of departments should not be permitted to come before parliamentary committees and give evidence. Perhaps the minister in his remarks last evening may have had a point. But certainly there is no reason why senior members of departments or of the armed forces cannot give factual information to the defence committee and other committees of the house. If, as the minister says, senior civil servants and members of the armed forces cannot give evidence before committees, there is no point in these committees meeting at all because their purpose, as I understand it, is so that members of the house can become informed and can

better debate matters of importance in the house.
If the government accepts the proposition outlined by the minister last evening there is no point in these parliamentary committees meeting, and I would think that members of this house, particularly members of the opposition parties, should give serious consideration to whether they should attend such committees if they are not to be permitted to receive factual evidence. Certain classified material and other matters involving policy ought to remain the responsibility-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has the hon. member read every bit of evidence that was presented to the committee on defence this spring by all the witnesses who appeared there?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have not, but I do not see that that question by the minister is in any way relevant.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was intended to improve the quality of debate. I do not know how anyone can say it is unsuccessful unless he took the opportunity to read it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister can go on dragging in herrings, red, blue, or any other colour, but the fact is he did not permit Admiral Landymore to give certain evidence to the defence committee. The minister has expressed his views, backed up by quotations from the Ottawa Citizen, a journal which supports the government on every possible occasion. He has given his opinion and he is entitled to it. I do not agree with him. If the minister and his colleagues on the treasury benches take the same view, that not only facets but opinions should be withheld from parliamentary committees, there is no point in our having any committees or in anyone attending them. I hope this will be cleared up in the course of the present debate. The question was dealt with most effectively by my hon. friend from Peace River and I do not wish to waste the time of the committee by further argument. In any case I see that my time has expired and that I must resume my seat.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the hon. member for Oxford referred in the course of his remarks to the usefulness
November 1, 1966

or otherwise of parliamentary committees. I believe this is one of the matters which is worthy of serious consideration as this resolution is discussed.
It appears to me that in 1963 there was a strong movement for reform in parliament resulting in the establishment of a special committee on defence under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine and the vice chairmanship of the hon. member for Edmonton West. This special committee was truly representative of the House of Commons of that day-I believe this is consistent with some of the best scholarly criticism available on the work of parliament. I should like to refer hon. members to the words of Hon. John Bracken, for whom we all have great respect. During the debate on the speech from the throne in 1946 he said in part:
It is my view that the whole committee structure of the house should be revamped, many of the present committees having no relationship to reality and some of them seldom functioning. There should be ten or more committees to cover the work of the different departments of the government.
Doctor J. A. Corry of Queen's University made a similar proposal in 1954. This can be studied in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Volume 20, 1954, in an article called "Adaptation of Parliamentary Processes to the Modern State." He entertained the hope that members might become semi-expert in the field of work of their committees. This, I think, is in line with the recommendations of Professor Bernard Crich who wrote a book called "The Reform of Parliament", published in London in 1964, very much to the same point.
Before discussing the specifics of this Landymore case I should like to inquire briefly into the background of parliamentary procedure prior to the establishment of the special committee on defence. I would ask any serious student of the subject to look at the Hansard of March 19 and March 20 of 1962. In 1962 the Conservatives polled 37 per cent of the votes and elected 44 per cent of the House of Commons. They formed the government. I would ask any person who wants to be fair on this matter to study the quality of the answers which were given to questions on supply in connection with national defence during that period. I refer particularly to those two dates, March 19 and March 20. I took part in the debate at that time and I felt completely frustrated. It seemed we were given no indication at all as
Interim Supply
to the purpose of our armed forces or the direction of defence policy. We were unable to clarify the situation in regard to differences of view within the cabinet. More important still, we did not know where Canada stood on urgent defence matters.
I think it is not unfair to say that that administration failed and was in due course defeated on the basis of defence policy. And I think it is fair to say we learned far more from the associate minister of defence subsequently-I refer to what he wrote in his book "This Game of Politics"-than we ever did during the course of any discussion of the defence estimates in 1962.
Hon. Pierre Sevigny writes:
Certain members of the Tory government could not make up their minds concerning the exact nature of their duties. On the one hand, they knew that we had to face up to our obligation within the framework of NATO and NORAD, but they also feared the political consequences of arming our services with nuclear devices.
Later, he said:
There was a deep division between the pronuclear forces and those who wanted to change our military policies. These conflicting views could have remained a well-guarded secret for a very long time if the Cuban drama had not come along. But it did happen, and at this point the Tory machine started to fall apart.
A little later, Mr. Sevigny writes:
We were now in deep trouble, and though the energetic actions of President Kennedy eventually put an end to the Soviet's military plans in Cuba, few believed that Canada had played the part it should have during the desperate hours that preceded the enemy's withdrawal.
I well remember the meetings which were held at the time of that crisis in the office of the then leader of the opposition-meetings which the present Minister of National Defence and the present Minister of Industry and Defence Production attended. We were all seriously concerned about the difficulty experienced in our attempt to find out Canada's course in that grave emergency.
It is in the light of all these developments that the Minister of National Defence resolved that never again would our country go into an emergency so ill prepared with respect to basic defence considerations. I think it can be said he took a bold and courageous step in establishing a special committee on defence the vice chairman of which, by my nomination, was the hon. member for Edmonton West, and whereon the official opposition was generously represented.

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
I notice in the proceedings for 1963 the names Baldwin, Churchill, Fairweather, MacLean, Martineau, Smith and others.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What are you reading from?


John Ross Matheson: I am reading from the proceedings of the House of Commons committee on defence for the year 1963. Frankly, I did not care to carry to this chamber the heavy volumes of evidence before this committee which were produced in 1964, 1965 and 1966. My point is that more information has been provided by this government in the field of defence, both strategic and tactical, than was ever the case in any western country previously. Our defence committee has already produced-and this I heard in England as recently as this summer-a bit of a model for the NATO nations.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: And more has been withheld.


Mr. Nugent:: Wouldn't it be better if both sides had been represented instead of one?


John Ross Matheson: Again we hear from a gentleman who did not adorn the committee in the past. Perhaps he will in the future. I will be most interested in hearing his contributions to this committee. Because he is not as familiar with these proceedings since 1963 as I am, perhaps I may tell him we have heard evidence from over 100 of the most eminent military men in the western alliance-there is no question about this-in Europe, in England, in Washington, and in Canada, some very outstanding people, and I personally hope that there was not one of those men who appeared before us as a committee witness who thought he has speaking purely for himself.
I hope that when we heard Air Marshal Slemon in Colorado Springs he was speaking with the vast technical background of the NOKAD command, and I hope when we heard the experts from West Germany that likewise they were speaking from some sort of a consensus of the best experience and brains available in their respective commands.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I hope they were allowed to give the facts too. I doubt it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you mind answering a question at this stage before you go on?


John Ross Matheson: I would be happy to, but I would hope this might be the last question before the conclusion of my remarks.
IMr. Matheson.]


Gordon Minto Churchill: You mentioned Air Marshal Slemon. Did you really believe his story about three servicemen standing beneath an atomic bomb and not being injured in any way, shape or form?


John Ross Matheson: I would not like to refer to what I recall was classified as an in camera briefing-


Donald MacInnis: Why
not? The minister has done it in Washington.


John Ross Matheson: -so I will make no comment with respect to that matter. I would be very surprised, however, if there were any degree of accuracy in that question. I was present. It happened that I greatly admired this man. His cousin operated on me in Italy within a few minutes of my being wounded, and therefore during our briefing I had my eyes glued on Slemon. I was amazed at the kind of reputation he had established in the defence field in the United States. I shall not make any further comment with respect to that question.


Donald MacInnis: I wonder if the hon. member would-


John Ross Matheson: No further questions.


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order-


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Cape Breton South on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: I do
not think that the hon. member should be allowed to get away with the statements he has made unless he is going to refer to the remark he made about the same air marshal when we left the headquarters. Would you repeat that remark now?


John Ross Matheson: A few days ago we had a spat which carried on for several days and took up much of the time of the house, when the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, although I believe he is a lawyer, attempted to lay a charge-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Did lay, and it still stands.


John Ross Matheson: Well, if he laid a charge it was the sloppiest bit of drafting I ever heard from anybody with any background in the law. As recorded at page 8553 of Hansard for October 12, the hon. member said:
-the charge "is based on" citation 308 of Beau-chesne. Let me read the first sentence of that citation. It states-
November 1, 1966

Then he read the citation. He said it was based on it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: That wasn't the charge.


John Ross Matheson: The hon. member said:
It is a charge against a minister of the crown, that cannot be raised lightly.
Then he said:
First, as to the charge the word "tamper" is used because it is the word in citation 308 of Beauchesne...
If it would help, Mr. Speaker, may I say I have looked up the word "tamper" in the dictionary and I have here a couple of definitions. It means "meddle with; make unauthorized changes in; exert secret or corrupt influence upon".
Then almost at once the Minister of National Defence said this, and I think we should remember exactly what he said on October 12, 1966, as recorded at page 8581 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona would add to his motion: "and such tampering constituted improper conduct on the part of the minister in the performance of his duties as a minister of the crown," I would agree that the motion should be accepted unanimously on our part. I would agree with the hon. member for Villeneuve, and I would put my seat on the line.
I too have looked up the word "tamper", Mr. Chairman, and there are about 40 or 50 definitions of it. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary it means "to deal secretly," "to interfere so as to weaken," "to try foolish or dangerous experiments."


Robert Jardine McCleave: That sounds like the minister.


John Ross Matheson: In Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary it means, "to use bribery"-which would be very serious-"to meddle so as to alter a thing," "to meddle; to try trifling experiments."
The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definitions: "to work or busy oneself for some end." Is that the charge? Other definitions are, "to machinate, scheme, plot," "to enter into clandestine dealings with," "to interfere with." Is that the charge? It also means "to affect, influence, sway (a person, his mind, passions, etc.)"
I would like to go into the question of just how you tamper with an admiral-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Ross Matheson: Well, I think this is important. We are not dealing with a cabin boy; we are dealing with an admiral. The New Oxford
Interim Supply
Dictionary gives the following definition, "to experiment officiously, foolishly or impertinently meddle," "to interfere or make alterations so as to pervert." Is that the charge? It also says, "to tamper with a manuscript." That is, after all, one element of this charge.
What is it with which the minister is being charged? Is it with doing something improperly, something contrary to-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: That is the essence.


John Ross Matheson: Then I would think, if that is the essence, that the brave hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona would stake his seat against the minister's seat, and he would be quite a Daniel if he did.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I think it is most improper that the hon. member should try to mislead the house. The question of a seat being put up is not a private bet between members. There is only one way a seat is put up and that is when a member stands in his place, formally makes a charge as I did, and takes full responsibility. He is in the hands of the house from that moment on, and should I fail to prove the charge, which I believe is unthinkable, then the house can deal with me to the full extent. The hon. member who is seeking to lecture the house should have some clue as to what he is talking about before he makes such statements.


John Ross Matheson: My point is that the hon. member, whether he knows it or not, failed to draft a proper charge, and he failed to do so deliberately. He chickened out.
To deal with the editorial by Ben Malkin, to which reference has been made-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: That is plain b.s. and you know it, and so does everybody else.


John Ross Matheson: The article is headed
"Editing of Admiral Landymore's Brief," and in it he says:
-much of the editing done on Admiral Landymore's brief was clearly inspired not only for policy reasons, but also to correct slovenly phrasing.
I happen to remember Ben Malkin, Mr. Chairman. I think it was in 1941 or 1942 that he was part of the team at first divisional headquarters, a member of the military staff of the commander, Royal Artillery. This man at that time-I do not know how you would judge him now-had skills, talent and judgment which I valued greatly. I think he is an able and responsible gentleman.

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply


Donald MacInnis: I believe you would make a better minister than the other fellow. You have a little bit of experience.


John Ross Matheson: I want to deal with this interesting problem of how you tamper with an admiral, because as recently as yesterday the Ottawa Citizen carried a Canadian Press story headed "Censor Had 'Field Day'- Landymore." The first paragraph read:
Rear Admiral William Landymore said yesterday someone in Defence Minister Hellyer's office had "a field day" making major changes in a brief which the fired sea operations chief prepared last June for the commons defence committee.
It is already on record that his evidence was given on June 23, and his complaint about tampering was not made until July 23, one month later.
I beg leave to refer to "Tremeear's Annotated Criminal Code" under the heading "Recentness of Complaint" at page 200:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
-the time which may elapse depends on all the circumstances of any case.
I should like to use as reference the case of Regina v. Jones, 84 Canadian Criminal Cases, 299:
On a trial for rape, the Crown tendered evidence of alleged complaints made by the complainant to a woman whom she met on her way home after the incident in question. According to her evidence, she had been with accused for over an hour in an unused outhouse, and there had been three acts of intercourse there. It was established that, while the offence was allegedly being committed, persons had been near who could have heard complainant if she had cried out, and that she had made no outcry. Held, in these circumstances, evidence of the later complaints could not be received.
Now, I was a member of that particular committee. Therefore I am interested in the appearance of Rear Admiral W. M. Landymore which took place as we all know on June 23, 1966. At page 334 of the committee's minutes of proceedings and evidence I asked a question of Admiral Landymore, and I might say with utter honesty that I had no idea of the importance of my question at that time.


Donald MacInnis: Does this mean that you have not been telling the truth before? What does "utter honesty" mean?


John Ross Matheson: May I ask my hon. friend to judge for himself, and in doing so may I ask him to try to answer the question, how does anyone tamper with an admiral? I was one of

the earlier people to question the admiral. I asked him to be frank with us with regard to the reluctance toward unification as demonstrated by certain naval people. Specifically I said: "Would you be frank with us on that matter?" Rear Admiral Landymore replied, "Well, the answer to that is yes". He went on:
I think there is great reluctance on the part of the navy.
He continued:
If there is reluctance, and there is, it is due to that factor more than any other-the factor of love of tradition and love of the sea-
Then we go on a little farther.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to read the words. From what page are you reading?


John Ross Matheson: My hon. friend may read my words at the end of my address.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are reading from the report of a committee.


John Ross Matheson: I am reading from page 334. May I have no other interruptions until I have concluded? I should like to remind the Committee of a question asked by the vicechairman, the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Ross Matheson: At page 336 he said:
Are you satisfied that we will fully carry out our commitments in so far as effectiveness, the commitments, say, to 1972, are concerned?
Rear Admiral Landymore, the compromised admiral, in answer to that simple question said:
The answer to that is yes, I am well satisfied.
I am not going to bother going into the other questions I asked and questions which other hon. members who are here asked, but I should like to assert that if ever Admiral Landymore had Irs chance to say his piece it was on that day, June 23, 1966. I should like to refer to some of the alleged changes, because I think they are interesting. I was fed up listen ng to a C.B.C. broadcast on Sunday on which we heard the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona being as slanderous as possible. However, I do not think anybody paid any attention. May I read the introduction to the evidence which was not changed.


Donald MacInnis: May I
be permitted to ask the hon. member a question?
November 1, 19G6


John Ross Matheson: No questions please. The admiral said:
It is a great privilege to have been invited to appear before you today. As I understand it, the reason I'm here is to provide for you an outline of the purpose of the Maritime Command, how we are organized to fulfil our mission, and what forces we have for the purpose.
That was not changed. He goes on without change, without change, and without change. I might say that some of the changes would have been made by any good secretary in any parliamentary office. In any event, let us go back to the conclusion of this interesting document. I think this is most important. Remember this conclusion in its entirety was unchanged. Here we have the unrevised final words of Landymore:
That, gentlemen, completes my description of Maritime Command.
Remember this is the tampered admiral.
In conclusion let me emphasize that as our maritime forces stand today we can hold our head up technically with any nation, big or small. In the field of anti-submarine warfare in all matters of development, tactics, and design we are second to none. In this way, we make a contribution to NATO which in importance far exceeds our size and financial resources to do so.
My command consists of approximately 2,015 officers, 12,030 men, and 3,187 civilians. We have the largest capital holdings of any command of the Canadian armed forces.
My inventory of ships, aircraft, and equipment gives me a reasonable capability of discharging my responsibilities, and the new construction and modernization program mentioned a few minutes ago will increase that capability once it reaches fruition.
Technically, my command is making fantastic progress, so much so that I am confident that the submarine threat, however potent-and I mean both nuclear and diesel-would, in the event, be controlled, and our vital sea lines of communication secured.
I feel that the officers and men I command are second to none in the anti-submarine warfare field. I need more of them, and I would like them to serve longer but those who do dedicate their lives to the protection of Canada against attack from the sea have no peers amongst the navies or air forces of the world in our particular specialty, anti-submarine warfare.
That was the unchanged conclusion of the admiral who had his evidence tampered with.


Donald MacInnis: Will
the hon. member permit a question?


John Ross Matheson: No. Let us have no questions from my hon. friend. May I now read other extracts from the evidence of the admiral before the committee-untampered evidence. He said quite on his own:
Both headquarters are now fully integrated, but this is no new experience for the navy or for our
Interim Supply
maritime air forces. Realizing the advantages to be gained by the closest possible co-operation between sea and air components in discharging a common task, the operations of maritime air and the navy were fully integrated some ten years ago.
In both Halifax and in Esquimalt for nearly a decade our operations staffs, our planners, intelligence staffs, meteorologists, oceanographers, operational researchers and communications have worked in an integrated organization, so that the move toward total integration was neither strange nor unreal and was really only felt in the logistics and administration branches of my headquarters.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Actually it is a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I should like to have a clarification from the hon. member. Consistently he has referred to tampered evidence and tries to deny the fact; yet he confirms the fact by referring to the untampered evidence.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Chair will make some note of the time factor on these interruptions. Addressing myself precisely to the point of so-called tampered evidence, I point out that this is what the tampered evidence of the tampered admiral says:
We must-and I stress the word must-continue to expend every effort to attract and retain men in our services.
This message he got out in excellent English. Farther on he said:
Still, this is not enough. The minister has drawn your attention to a number of service inadequacies and has expressed his intention of correcting them as soon as possible.
Another facet of the problem is the need for recruits to have a relatively higher education and technical adaptability.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
He said:
-we require a man who can absorb and utilize highly technical skills.
Then he said:
This makes it all the more important for the navy to have a high recruiting rate to cover this wastage.
In part of the admiral's evidence that was deleted he said:
I am happy to report that the R.C.A.F. portion of maritime command is in a very healthy condition, being manned to 95 per cent of its establishment of 3,210 airmen and enjoying an 87 per cent re-engagement rate, and at the moment there is no manning problem in respect to officers of either service.

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
Having read the foregoing I am immediately prompted to ask this question. If the policies are good enough to entice this kind of personnel into air force maritime command why are they as bad as the admiral claims they are with respect to the navy? My immediate answer is that they are not because I understand that the services are only short about 3 per cent so far as needed personnel are concerned, and at a time of maximum employment and high wage and salary conditions. The present indication is that we have a manning requirement of 109,000 and that we have at present 104,000 personnel. It is perfectly clear that we do not actually need all the people provided for in establishments.
Let me refer to a precis on unification that appeared in a Canadian army journal in 1958, written by W. H. Pope, MC, CD. In part he said:
It is the height of extravagance to have each armed service work independently-indeed, competitively. on its own pet projects.
He then developed what has really happened in respect of competition between the services. Let me now refer to the conclusion of this interesting paper in which Major Pope said:
Under unification ail the manpower in the force will be used to best advantage. No longer will the navy discharge men surplus when the army can't meet reinforcement quotas-the three services won't bid against each other on the open labour market.
He then said in summary:
A single unified service can fight any war better- even conventional war. In a nuclear war the disorganization caused by massive casualties will be such that chaos and defeat will ensue with anything less than a completely unified service.
Anybody who is interested in scholarly military writing on unification would I am sure also like to read what appeared in a Canadian army journal in 1959 in respect of problems of future war and the practical doctrine and organization required by land forces.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, it is agreeable to members on this side that the hon. member be allowed to continue, but I wonder whether he would allow me to ask one question before he continues?
[Mr. MathesonJ


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are agreeable so long as the extra time is limited to five minutes because, after all, other members want to speak.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The Chair is quite willing to ask for unanimous consent if the hon. member so requests, but he has not done so yet.


Donald MacInnis: I think the hon. member indicated his desire to obtain unanimous consent, but before doing so I hope he will permit me to ask a question. In view of the fact the hon. member stated that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona did not have the courage to place his seat on the line after making his charges, will he indicate what happened to the courage of his minister and members of his government who did not have the guts to make something of the fact that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona made what might be considered slanderous charges on the C.B.C. outside this house where he has no immunity? No one on that side of the house has the guts to do anything about it.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I think I can say without any unkindness that we on both sides of this aisle constantly live in a certain atmosphere of slander. I do not take the remarks of the hon. gentleman either on the C.B.C. or in the House of Commons too seriously.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is an outrageous statement.


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps I can refer again to the evidence of Admiral Landymore.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish extra time to complete his remarks?


John Ross Matheson: I believe I can conclude them in three minutes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Does the committee give unanimous consent to this request?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has suggested that we in political life live in an atmosphere of slander. That is an insult to hon. members of this house and I ask him to withdraw that remark.
November 1, 1966


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to withdraw that remark if it has caused any offence to my distinguished friend.


Donald MacInnis: The remark offends us, it does not offend you people.


John Ross Matheson: I have known our defence minister for some time and have admired his behaviour before the defence committee. I think he has been extremely frank with that committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I rose on a question of privilege and asked the hon. member to withdraw his remark in which he said that members of this house live in an atmosphere of slander most of the time.


John Ross Matheson: I did withdraw it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not hear the hon. member withdraw that remark. Let me hear the withdrawal.


John Ross Matheson: I do so and most humbly apologize for any offence or anguish I may have caused the hon. gentleman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The remark was not offensive to me individually but to the members of this house as a whole.


John Ross Matheson: Any offence I may have caused my hon. friends I withdraw.
It is my belief that some very excellent evidence was given by Admiral Landymore, and I hope that Canadians will read that evidence given on June 23 either in the original or the slightly altered version. I see very little difference between the two. I agree that the gratuitous advice volunteered about how we might assist in the difficulties in Rhodesia or Cyprus, or even the reference to the security threat in respect of Russian trawlers on the east coast, might better have been left out of this brief. I wish to be honest. I see very little change in what has been called the revised version. Frankly, I hope that when I appear at that committee again and ask a question the witness will be frank. I hope that if any witness feels he has misled the committee he will state that without waiting for 30 days. I should like to think that any witness would dare to speak immediately. Surely we have never had a witness before the committee who could not speak frankly. We committee members of all parties have always afforded such an opportunity to any witness to speak the truth.
Interim Supply


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think the hon. member will permit me to ask him a question in view of his nod toward me.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I will allow the hon. member to ask a question but I must point out again that the hon. member for Leeds asked for extra time, received it and has now resumed his seat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question is a very simple one. The hon. member for Leeds continually referred to the evidence given before the defence committee to back up his argument. How can he justify the minister's refusal to recall that committee so that this house, this party and the hon. member's government as well as the people of this country can get at the facts of the situation?


John Ross Matheson: Frankly I hope the government is not so gun-shy that it jumps every time there is a request for a royal commission or a reference to the committee. If that were the case we would be doing nothing but attending committee meetings. In due course we will meet with Admiral Landymore and Admiral Brock and any other qualified individual who wants to give evidence.


Michael Starr: What do you mean by "in due course"?


John Ross Matheson: Governments, the previous administration included, have always asserted the right to govern. I think the Minister of National Defence and his department have the responsibility to determine how soon the committee meets.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It seems they have a responsibility to hide the facts.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, there are so many tempting targets in the front benches on the other side that I should like to warm up on a few of them before getting down to the main business at hand. If I hit at some for their basic futility in governing this country and neglect others I hope the ones I neglect will not feel badly because time does not permit me to cover the whole field. When I hunt I hunt on the surface; I do not turn over rocks in order to take the approach we have witnessed on the part of the last speaker by his reference to a man of the calibre of Admiral Landymore who has served this country with extraordinary devotion.
Whether or not the Minister of National Defence agrees with Admiral Landymore is surely not the question. Admiral Landymore

November 1, 196G
Interim Supply
is not here to protect himself but he has at least the right to be recognized as a Canadian who has given good service. He should not be slighted. When I conclude my remarks-and it is obvious I have dealt gently with the minister, more gently than I think he deserves-perhaps the slur that the last speaker has cast upon us regarding slanderous warfare will have been removed.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
My first target has to be the Minister of National Health and Welfare. After all, he is my minister; he comes from Nova Scotia.


Mr. MacEwan:: He used to, anyway.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is the minister who last year promised $25 million in coal assistance. That fell through. This is the minister who promised medicare by July 1, 1967. That fell through. While he has been leaping from one disaster to another, like Little Eva jumping from one ice-cake to another to avoid the wolves, the minister has been given quite a build-up in the press. I think the lesson from this is that the day of the anti-hero has arrived; the minister is sort of the equivalent of the Friday night television actor, Maxwell Smart. As hon. members know, everything Mr. Smart does turns to disaster because of his way of doing things. It might be said that after the Prime Minister yanked the rug out from under the Minister of National Health and Welfare the chief's line really was, "Sorry about that, Mac."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Jardine McCleave: After his treatment at the hands of the Minister of Finance I would say he should be called Mac the Knifed. Then we have the figure of the Minister of Finance, who does his job bravely-I give him full marks for that-but I believe that at the dominion-provincial conference that concluded a few days ago the clock was set horribly backwards, which most Canadians will not relish when they appreciate what has happened. I refer to the so-called strong return to the original constitutional line taken by the present government, obviously at the suggestion of one part only of this confederation of ours, which could have the most disastrous effects on higher education and the financing of higher education in this country. Our constitution is not only the written word of the British North America Act; it is what the late Viscount Sankey, at one time British Lord Chancellor, would have called a living tree which is added to.

We have seen what I regard as significant steps taken toward a better deal coast to coast in the financing of higher education. However, with the stand that was taken last week I am afraid that, while constitutional purists may sit up and think that something significant has been accomplished, it will be very harmful to the intellectual growth of this nation. We are probably second-rate intellectually now, and under the policies of the Minister of Finance the approach is, Let us try for third-rate.
Another figure to which I must refer is the Postmaster General, who a few days ago announced that the government would consider the symbols that would be used by the Post Office Department. Nothing would be done, mind you, until the government had had a chance to consider the symbols; and what "symboltons" we were to take him at his word, because even while he was speaking the printing presses of this country were pouring out material-I showed an example here earlier this afternoon-on which there was the maple leaf and "CP", the new symbol being used by the Post Office. To compound the confusion the Postmaster General then said that they are trying out five or six designs to see whether the Canadian people will like any of them. Even when it sets its course in a new direction, the government has to follow as many different courses as possible. We used to have several flag philosophies in this country, but the Postmaster General has outdone every other colleague in the cabinet with his multiplicity of symbols.
However, Mr. Chairman, I turn to the business at hand and for which we are here, obviously that concerning the Minister of National Defence. It is a fact that once upon a time this country did have a minister of national defence. It had several of them. In 1936, the dear old days when the defence budget was $27,727,000, the minister of national defence was Hon. Ian Mackenzie. In a speech delivered in Victoria, British Columbia, that year he said there were three main responsibilities in the area of defence, the maintenance of internal security, the preservation of strict neutrality, law and order within territorial waters in time of peace, and protection of our coasts and seaborne trade in time of war. They may sound like modest objectives, but I think the way national defence was run then meant there was more likelihood of those objectives being attained than is the case at the present time.
November 1, 1966

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
One of his points, which is probably generally accepted, was that our efforts are being concentrated on a mobile force which can easily be used by the United Nations. There might be something in that, except for the fact that mobility never seems to be a great factor in transporting people to United Nations operations. There is usually a great deal of palaver in the Security Council beforehand and servicemen could almost take a charter trip on a luxury liner and get to these trouble spots in time rather than travelling by other means.
We have also neglected the anti-submarine role, one to which Canada certainly contributed considerable service on behalf of the allies in the second world war. I believe this is one role in which Canada is capable of giving more good service. We have a highly complex and sophisticated air force and naval operation in the anti-submarine field, and it would be a shame if we did not continue to play that role.
The minister talks of consolidation of bases. To me, his suggestion is that some of the anti-submarine patrol work would be done away with, though I hope this is not the case. There is a suggestion that Shearwater would be closed. My colleague has pointed out the dangers to the maritime economy if any consolidation of bases did not take into account the economic reliance we place upon such installations. There is also the point that an aviation industry and a very fine electronics industry are both located near Shearwater, and if something should happen to Shearwater those industries would not be in as good a position as they are now. Therefore the minister's consolidation policies, if carried out, could wreak extraordinary havoc on the maritime provinces.
Then there is this point about unification. The word was spelled out for us. Do not misunderstand me, Mr. Chairman; the word was spelled out-u-n-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n but what unification really means was not spelled out in the white paper on defence. I have talked to experts in this field and they assure me that if the recommendations of the report on national defence, which has been completed for some time, are carried out the minister will not succeed in reducing the three forces of this country to one force but will set up 22 or 23 different forces. The lawyers would all be in one crowd, transportation personnel in another, ordnance in another, and so the story would go. We would have 23 separate forces rather than one force.
[Mr. McCleave.l
This is probably borne out by Admiral Landymore's statement that the costs of administration have trebled in maritime command as a result of the minister's introduction of the first trembling steps toward unification. This is a point that has to be seriously considered, and no doubt the minister is capable of learning from experience.
We also have the statement of a former member of this house, Mr. Regan, who took his case before the meeting of the Liberal association a while ago. He was shot down but not without putting up a spirited battle first. I think his resolution praised integration but called for the continued existence of the navy, army and air force as separate, identifiable branches of an integrated armed force and, further, for the retention of a distinctive dress uniform for each of these three branches. Mr. Regan, as everyone knows, has a rather unenviable job ahead of him in Nova Scotia and it is not being made easier by the minister's policies.
Now to the Landymore matter. It is incredible how much time and effort have had to be spent in Canada by a few people with good intentions to clear up an amazing amount of public misinformation on this question. For that public misinformation one has to give the minister full marks. I do not think there has ever been a propaganda machine like his. When was it that Mr. Goebbels died in a bunker in Berlin? At least it was some considerable time ago.
Just consider, Mr. Chairman: Mr. Landymore was fired before he made his remarks publicly. Perhaps he should not have made them since technically he was still a serving officer, but he publicly criticized current policy. The national defence machinery went into action and these hired hands, these hired assassins of the minister-leaky Lee or whoever it was-did a very able job. For months the impression existed in this country that Admiral Landymore had spoken out before he was fired. That simply is not so. Even people as intelligent as Charles Lynch, for example, were caught in the clever trap which was laid by the minister.
Then there is the question of civil control. Anyone who knows Admiral Landymore realizes that he is as patriotic a Canadian as there is. Anyone who knows the officers, past and present, who have served either the flag officer, Atlantic coast, or the maritime commander realizes there is not an ounce of dictatorship among them. For dragging as fat a red herring as that successfully over the
November 1, 1966

tracks for a couple of days one must give the minister a great deal of credit; but what he achieved was nonsense, and a large number of Canadians were affected by it. So Admiral Landymore had to wait until the minister did the one decent thing in the whole business and rose from his seat on Friday to table a paper which showed that Admiral Landymore had brought his case to Ottawa, and that when he went to the defence committee a different speech was delivered there.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The Prime Minister knows how men such as Admiral Brock, Admiral Landymore and others have been treated. The Prime Minister has the responsibility in this country. Admiral Brock, the greatest naval personage produced by Canada in the second world war, was turfed out of office with a snap of the finger in a famous 20 or 30 second conversation that one would not use with the most disreputable hired hand, let alone a man who has given such service to the country.
We know how Admiral Landymore was turned out of office. We are beginning to find out some things. These things do not lie low forever. We are also finding out how six or seven other senior officers were turfed out. We are finding out how the Minister of National Defence is playing off against each other officers of different ranks with Machiavellian schemes.
People are being pitted against each other at different levels. Not only are we finding this out, but the Prime Minister of the country is aware of these things. When the wraps are off, when the officers in their memoirs five years from now show how they have been treated by the Minister of National Defence, his whole party is going to ask: "How come he was left in that position of responsibility"?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to write some of my own.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The result will be that this country will have a terrible reputation. The minister condemns himself out of his own mouth. I do not know why I am doing the job for him. He goes to Halifax where the most rabid type of meeting is held, where the officers of the Royal Canadian Navy are heckling, and where the remarks are so bad that Admiral O'Brien has to point his finger at the officers and say: "Stop your bloody heckling". Yet the minister emerges from Halifax saying that the weather was bright
Interim Supply
and sunny, that he never enjoyed himself so much and that he was liberally treated.
What happened in Toronto when he attended a Canadian Club meeting in October, 1966, and argued that the number of specialized jobs was few? He lives in Toronto. Was what happened an example of Toronto hospitality? In the same speech, answering charges that Canadian servicemen would be jacks-of-all-trades, he declared that the degree of specialization will be as great as it now is in the three separate services. Perhaps these remarks are contradictory. From my experience the assurance that specialization is a small factor in the armed forces is completely at variance with the facts. Some of the people in the navy are almost perpetual sophomores, studying from the beginning of their naval careers to the end. They receive highly specialized training, as anybody who has been to H.M.C.S. Stadacona can testify. It is hard to keep track of the initials and names of these establishments.
I have mentioned the inhuman treatment that has been meted out to certain members of the armed forces. The minister is working out a new structure in a new defence department. I do not think anybody is tied down to old policies or to old traditions but we hope that we will get something workable.
I have mentioned the cavorting at National Defence headquarters, the Machiavellian approach to some problems for no other purpose than to increase the sheen on the minister's ego. No wonder he wants a 36-storey building as a memorial to himself. This is all there will be to our national defence. There will be no ships, no bases or anything else. We shall have only this 36-storey building with all its personnel rendering adulation to the guy in the penthouse on the 36th floor.
I wish to mention two more matters. I think the minister's interference in the Landymore testimony will have its effect on the committee system. When any official comes before a committee I am going to ask him whether his brief has been shown to the minister and, if so, has the minister asked him to change it? It is not a pretty picture, and one does not enjoy getting up and making a speech about these things. Two courses are left open, one of which is that the minister repent. He can do this. It is not too late for him to see the light. True, he is 43 but he is an experienced 43.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is that his regiment?

November 1, 1986
Interim Supply


Robert Jardine McCleave: He has not lost his intellectual qualities. He needs to simmer down and to make his judgments on the basis of rational thinking and the advice of experts. He can call on all sorts of experts to help him devise a policy. He need not do it all by himself. He can take the matter before the defence committee and spell out what he thinks about unification and what he would like to achieve and get the views of the committee members. They will say: We think this will work, this will not or, why not try this another way? That is the way of give and take. Nobody has all the answers to all our problems.
National defence is too important to be left as purely a governmental responsibility. It should be the duty of members from all parts of the house to deal with it. I hope that will be done.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that people in the gallery are very surprised at the way this debate is going. There is a similarity, I suggest, between debates which have taken place in the past and this debate. I suggest that before interim supply is granted the Studebaker-Volkswagen deal will probably be thrown in as the third issue. This will not detract from the problem facing us because I think the House of Commons is concerning itself with the next election issue, the matter of continentalism.
I was also interested to note what has been done to the committee system we established. I was greatly shocked to hear the minister make the statement that he has a right to change and direct evidence to be given before a parliamentary committee. If this is so, when we get the chairman of the Wheat Board before the parliamentary committee will this mean that the Minister of Agriculture will speak on every occasion or will the chairman of the Wheat Board have some little say?
When the National Energy Board makes a decision, is it the board or the minister making the decision? Did the National Energy Board hesitate so long in publishing its decision in relation to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines because the minister had not made up his mind what to do? If this is so we may as well throw the whole parliamentary committee system out and govern this country with a small cabinet which we hope would listen to the discussions that take place. I would think that such a cabinet need only have four or five members, plus those who are fighting for
[Mr. Woolliams.j
leadership in the party. They would be the only ones involved in governing.
It is not hard to see what the minister's attitude will do to the committee system. I think the Prime Minister should be interested in this debate. I am always shocked when something serious is discussed and the Prime Minister is not here. History will indicate that the Prime Minister has probably spent less time in the House of Commons than any prime minister for many years. He really is not the least bit interested in what goes on.
My leader does not run the country. The Prime Minister is supposed to. I am sure he would not want me to run the country. I am sure he would not want any backbencher to do so and I would not disagree with him. If my leader were Prime Minister he would not permit me to run the country. The Prime Minister is never here to listen to the debate, which must be shocking to the Canadian public.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I believe that what has happened in the last few days is an indication that the whole system we have tried to devise cannot work. If the decision made by the Minister of National Defence is carried into other departments it will mean that our committees will go completely down the drain. I think the Prime Minister is responsible for deciding whether this is what the government is supposed to be doing and for making his decision with regard to the committee system widely known.
I believe that defence is a vital matter, not because of the arguments which have been raised so far but for a more important reason. I do not know, and I think the country does not know, what the defence policy of this nation is supposed to be. If we knew we would probably know where integration is leading and we would probably know whether or not we wanted our forces to be unified.
Before we decide whether we wish to proceed with integration we should decide what we wish our armed forces to accomplish. If we want an integrated force, a decision should be made regarding the role of that force. I have a sneaking suspicion, that the government, in accordance with its continental philosophy, has decided that our armed services should fit in with the NORAD and NATO forces and that this should be our role. If not, I believe the government should tell us what that role is to be.
November 1, 1966

If it is to be a role which handles Canadian defence on its own, then I think the minister is wrong in pursuing the program he has outlined. Integration is a necessity in the service field, but unification, the establishment of one force, will be justified only if that force is to be a police force, a force of the commando type, a force which can be put at the disposal of the United Nations when necessary. This is in tune, I believe, with the role Canada can best afford to play. No one who has looked at the record of Canadian servicemen in Cyprus, in Israel and the Congo will deny that Canadians have been exceptionally fortunate in being able to carry out their task without inflaming the local situation.
I think the people of Canada have a right to know what the minister wishes to accomplish. They would then be in a better position to make up their minds whether or not they want him to continue in the direction he has chosen. The hon. gentleman says he has been fair and frank with the Canadian public. I do not think that is true. I think he has told them what he has been doing with regard to day to day changes but he has not told them what he wishes to accomplish with the Canadian forces in the end, and I believe the public has a right to know this.
I was in the air force and I was told, as were other airmen in basic training, that the air force was considered to be a gentleman's service. This was an offhand remark made by the Governor General or someone else. But it did establish a certain tradition. Some people in the air force even tried to live up to it. The navy had a long tradition it could fall back on. I considered that they did a lot of stupid things for the sake of tradition, but they did them well. They did create a force which was highly disciplined and which made an excellent record for itself. It is also true to say that those who were in the army, particularly on active service, could establish a tradition for their regiments or for their battalions. Because of the fierceness of the encounters in which they engaged their reputations were made in a very short period of time.
I note that the Minister of National Defence spent a certain amount of time in the air force and a certain amount of time in the army. He might not have felt there was any difference between those two services and it might not have bothered him much had he carried the uniform of one branch from that branch to the other. But if we are to have
Interim Supply
military service in peacetime, tradition is not a bad thing because it does maintain competition and a certain dignity which would be hard to establish in any other way than by falling back on tradition and on the example of those who went before. Nobody should be ashamed of the traditions which have been established by the Canadian forces even though they are related to the traditions which the Royal Navy and the British army had established. I think it is true to say that the air force in a short period was able to establish its own traditions which are equally worthy of note.
If we decide that we should establish a world police force-and I hope this is the intention of the government-to supply troops to the United Nations and other agencies to contain outbreaks which occur from time to time, we shall be in need of forces proud that they are Canadians, though they wear the berets of the United Nations, and tiained in such a way that we will be proud of the way in which they perform the tasks allotted to them. This will involve a completely new type of force. Those serving in it will be responsible for the reputations that Canadians establish throughout the world. Each one of them will be called upon to provide leadership.
I believe the minister has been unfair in firing the leaders he has dismissed from the armed services. It seems odd that every time someone has a notion which differs from that held by the minister he should be fired. The minister has certainly been arrogant toward parliament and the members who are interested in the department which he has the honour to head.
I think he has shown a complete lack of respect for tradition because he himself was one of the victims of the parliamentary tradition. That was in 1956. He was involved with the government at the time of the pipe line debate and he is one of the 18 members of that party then who are still here. But he was not here in 1957 because the people in his riding decided that he was not the leader for them. I think he should remember this. A little humility in the House of Commons is probably a good thing. The people of Canada have indicated that they have a way of humbling those who show extreme arrogance.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There is a similarity between the problem in defence and the problem in relation to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines because I believe

November 1, 1965
Interim Supply
both represent the continental program oi the Liberal party which it is trying out on the House of Commons before trying it out on the electorate in the next election. I am one of those who are proud to be Canadian. I am proud to be a Canadian with a Canadian background of five or six generations. My ancestors, like most other people, came to this country because they did not like the situation somewhere else. In fact, they came from the United States because they did not like the situation there, and I have no intention of rejoining the United States either by the direct method or the back-door method.
I think most of the people who have spoken have been more interested in making a buck than they have been worried about where this will lead us in the end. The hon. member for Bow River spoke the other night, and some of his remarks should be carefully considered in relation to the question of whether we have really disposed of the philosophy which C. D. Howe spoke of, along with some of his colleagues, when they referred to the Texas buccaneers. I say this because I find that the oil industry has, without doubt, the most powerful lobby ever seen in Ottawa and probably the most powerful lobby that has ever been seen in Washington, and in both instances it is interested in bringing together the industries of the United States and Canada in order that the greatest gain may be obtained.
The argument has been advanced that it is more economic to move gas from Emerson into the United States and back into Canada than to transport it over an all-Canadian route. I think this may be true. I have seen figures to show that the cost amounts to about .01 cents per thousand cubic feet of gas.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Point five cents.


William Arnold Peters: The figures I have show considerably less than that, but this really is not the problem. The other night the hon. member made a great to-do about exporting gas. I am not interested in keeping an unreasonable amount of gas underground in Alberta. I am quite happy to see it exported but I want it to travel through Canada. I want it to be used all along the pipe line in Canada to the best advantage of the areas through which it goes.
In northern Ontario gas is going to be one of the crucial factors in deciding whether we can have industrial development of our basic and primary products. I believe that the pipe

line should go to Toronto and Montreal and to all other major markets. When Canada's needs are served I would be quite happy if, on a short-term basis, we then exported the gas that is surplus to Canadian needs.
It was also argued that a 36-inch pipe line is not much different from a 30-inch line. Those who say so do not remember their arithmetic because it is fact that a 36-inch pipe will carry 50 per cent more gas than a 30-inch pipe. Further, Parkinson's law says that if space is available it will be filled, and so the 36-inch pipe line will be filled. This is why the Canadian people, in my opinion are going to be protected against themselves by the United States national energy board rather than the Canadian body.
We asked that the National Energy Board estimates be submitted for consideration by the standing committee on energy because the National Energy Board items have never been considered by a house committee since the board was established. I do not think I am being unfair when I say that the chairman of the board was shocked when asked to answer questions about his stewardship. I do not think he ever thought he would have to do so, and he did not seem much interested in doing so.
I remember the remarks made during committee hearings by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and I was glad to see him carrying on the tradition established by the previous hon. member for Port Arthur in being highly critical of the exportation of gas and the exploitation of the gas pipe line in northern Ontario. I endorsed his remarks.
Both the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River are very competent young men. They are certainly familiar with the situations in their areas, and I would not like to see them sold a bag of goods and told, "You be nice boys and we will do something for you at home.'' That will not happen. They will not be here to collect.
They should take an example from the former member for Timiskaming whom C. D. Howe used to pat on the head and say, "You be a good boy and you will be the first woman cabinet minister in Canadian history." Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, gender has been mixed up more than once tonight. I suggest that these young members seek their own reward by fighting for the people they represent.
An attempt has been made to justify the government's decision by saying the government will see to it that the line through
November 1, 1966

northern Ontario is looped in 1970. I predict that this government will not be here in 1970 to make that decision.
I am quite pleased to see that my leader has returned to the chamber. I was rather surprised he was absent when I rose to speak but I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that when he is the prime minister of Canada and his ministry is dealing with the problem of gas distribution in Canada the gas will be shut off at Emerson until all Canadian needs are served and only gas that is surplus to our needs will be exported, no matter how much money is offered for it by any other area. If that is not the case you can rest assured I will be making the same speech then as I am making now. I will not be content to be patted on the back and told, "Be a good boy and maybe some day we will give you a promotion."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And he shut off the same development in Saskatchewan. We know that.


William Arnold Peters: I did not want to get into that argument.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He shut it off in Saskatchewan all right.


William Arnold Peters: I think the people in the Bow River area are a breed all their own. I believe the hon. member represents the gas industry. They have so little interest in the future of Canada, in the future of their children and their children's children that they do not care how much of our natural resources they squander today because they themselves will not be here when those resources are exhausted.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I have never in my history as a lawyer represented any oil or gas company in Alberta. Second, I am not representing a riding where those companies have their head offices. When my hon. friend makes that kind of statement his facts are based on the same kind of argument as the rest of his speech.


William Arnold Peters: Well, we heard the hon. member's speech and I think the facts will speak for themselves. However, I wish to apologize to the hon. member if he took it that I meant he was legally representing these people. All I am suggesting is that he supports the Social Credit policy in Alberta. Alberta says: Let us get rid of as many resources as we can and get as much money out of them as possible because we may not be here tomorrow. In
Interim Supply
Saskatchewan the policy is that we should like when we die to leave as much for our children as was left for us, or more if possible. We should like to have the resource regulated in such a way that everyone will get the maximum that is humanly possible from the line into the United States. There is no doubt about it; if we put the line into the United States they probably could dispose of more gas than we can produce.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow a question? I was interested in his comments about the gas resources which exist in the country. I recall reading the report of the energy board which suggested that their estimate of the reserves of gas over and above the projected needs of Canada for the next 25 years is greater than that estimated by Trans-Canada. This is one reason they were willing to allow this export line. In other words, we have more gas than we ourselves could dispose of in the next 25 years.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt this is true. I am quite sure we have it. But what does this really mean? Are you a Canadian? Do you want Canadian industry and Canada to develop? If you do, then we should be able to engineer our economy in such a way in Canada that we develop it ourselves rather than send the raw materials to the United States and let them develop them. We are no more stupid than the Americans. We just are not willing to take the chance. We really do not have the financial resources in many of the industries in Canada to do the development. I suggest that that argument is not a good one. If we have the surplus, then let us use it for the purposes that we can.
Let me give an example. Many years ago in my area the Ontario government did a survey. They found there were three major iron deposits in my immediate area, one in Cochrane, one in Boston township and one in Temagami. They checked these deposits, evaluated them, did some work on them, and then said they were not sufficiently economic to be developed. As time went on and as the market grew, these deposits became economic. Had we not had gas in northern Ontario, I am of the opinion that this property could not have been brought into operation. It was brought into operation because the Canadian government finally brought that line through northern Ontario and made gas available.

November 1, 1966
Interim Supply
The quantity they use, unlike what the energy board says, in northern Ontario has reached the maximum.
A considerable portion oi that line in northern Ontario will have to be twinned right away in order to meet the requirements of that area. A pulp and paper development in northern Ontario was refused a firm contract for power because it could not be supplied. I suggest this is only one part of it. I do not know what we will use the gas for; I cannot tell you. I think, however, there are people who know the resources of northern Ontario, who know the potential and the relationship between gas and the basic resource materials we have and will be able to tell you what you can do with them. I know there are arguments against developing steel in northern Ontario, but there also are good arguments against hauling iron pellets out of northern Ontario. They are shipping these from the Boston property to Pittsburgh by rail. They are shipping them all that distance and they are doing it because we have not decided in Canada to establish a steel complex around these major deposits.
We do not have coal and therefore gas would be the answer for power. Once you heat the pellets and make pig iron you have to keep up the heat or it is not economic. So there are things which can be done. I suggest to the hon. member from northern Ontario that it is all right to say that the lines will be twinned by 1970, but it should be done now. It should have been started some time ago. If you check the National Energy Board reports and go back to 1961 you will find that at that time they already had decided the capacity had been reached and were asking for increased pumping stations and increased production so that they could put more gas through that line.
I am of the opinion that the argument the hon. member for Bow River used is a good one, if he is willing to agree with me that we satisfy the needs of the Canadian public before we decide to sell to the American market the gas that we consider surplus. I am not asking him or his people in Alberta to supply that gas to the Canadian market at a higher price. I am sure gas will come in and be traded back and forth when the price adjustment is right. I am sure we are in the market in Canada to dispose of our surplus gas, but I think he will agree with me that
[Mr. Peters.l
what happened in British Columbia in relation to the Columbia River has already proven to be more advantageous to the Americans than had been expected.
I think the hon. member will agree with me that the Columbia River project has been more costly to the Canadian people than expected. The last figure was more than $100 million above the highest estimated cost, and the project is only well under way. As I see it, the problem is that this gas must come through Canada to our major markets and it must serve the needs of the people in the northern areas of Ontario and Quebec. We can now take gas off the line and ship it to Noranda. In the future I suggest it can go to the iron fields of Ungava or into the northern resource area of Quebec.


Maurice Rinfret: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I will end by saying that in my opinion there is a case to be made for the route through the United States but there is a much greater case to be made for taking the gas out of southern Alberta straight to the Chicago market. You will find it much cheaper to transport it the shorter distance. The Canadian government made that decision. A government was defeated on this matter. The establishment of an all-Canadian line was decided not by parliament but by the Canadian public. I believe we have an obligation to fulfil the obligation that has been undertaken. I think we also have an obligation to meet part of the problem mentioned by the members from the areas where gas is produced. These two things are not irreconcilable. They can be reconciled if we all forget the idea of con-tinentalism and concentrate on serving the needs of Canadians before we export those commodities which are vital to the development of so many areas of Canada.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I was taken this afternoon with the manner in which the Associate Minister of National Defence commenced his speech. He made an appeal for calmness, coolness and logic so we could examine this matter carefully. I subscribe to
November 1, 1966

everything he said in his opening paragraph to the effect that we should consider this matter in this way and on the basis of a thorough examination of the facts in order that we could come to a logical conclusion. No one on this side of the house will argue for one moment with that statement, but I hope he meant by it that he is on our side in our suggestion that an examination of the facts means an examination of all the facts. We certainly have a right to all the facts and a duty to consider them, just as the government has a duty to supply them.
I could not agree with one thing said by the minister. He seemed to feel that because the early steps of integration had had some success integration was generally accepted and that the department should go ahead with unification as the logical means of extending or expanding integration. I hope I am not misquoting his remarks. It is true that in recent times there has been a change in the formation of top army commands. Variations in this command are made from time to time, but a successful step in one direction does not necessarily mean one should charge in that direction or assume complete approval.
In reviewing certain remarks let me remind the house that I have been here during most of the debate on this subject and have paid attention to the evidence presented to us. I realize that certain steps toward integration were taken with some success. As a result of certain actions I am led to believe that when other steps were contemplated certain officers of high rank began to have grave doubts. It is apparent that when they voiced their uneasiness and disapproval to the minister they were promptly fired. As a result there gradually evolved a system under which if these gentlemen did not like what was being done they should keep quiet. This effectively deprived the minister of the respected advice available to him.
I have never heard anyone inside or outside this house suggest that the minister is such a military expert it would be wise for this country to act on his misguided military knowledge without the benefit of other advice. Certainly what we have seen happen causes us nervousness. Our entire argument is based on the suggestion made by the associate minister of defence that we must examine all the facts before coming to a logical conclusion.
Let me now say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Leeds who appeared today to be somewhat befuddled. He engaged in a practice that is becoming all
Interim Supply
too frequent in this house, namely, an attempt to confuse the house and the public as to what actually has taken place. I do not like to be repetitious. However, when a member such as the hon. member for Leeds, who is a lawyer, gets up in the house and gives a version of the facts such as he gave I cannot accuse him of deliberately misleading the house, but I must come to the conclusion that he has not been able to understand what has occurred, has not been able to understand the facts of the situation or does not know them all.
In view of what the hon. member for Leeds has done, I feel it is my obvious duty to put the facts forward again as clearly and concisely as possible so that no one will be taken in by the sorry spectacle of a member who is supposed to be informed giving us such a lamentably twisted version of what the situation actually is. I am sure most members were in the house on Wednesday, October 12, when I made a formal charge. There is only one way such a charge can be made against another member. We have heard the challenge passed back and forth across the house on many occasions. An hon. member who wishes to make a formal charge must take full responsibility for his action. I did just that and these are my words to be found at page 8553 of Hansard:
My charge, Mr. Speaker, is simply this; that the Minister of National Defence has breached the privileges of this house by tampering with a witness in respect of the evidence to be given before a committee of this house, the witness being Rear Admiral W. M. Landymore, the committee being the standing committee on national defence, and the evidence in question being the admiral's brief presented to the committee on June 23, 1966.
The minister objected the other day to the fact that the notice of the charge arrived only a few minutes before he came into the house. That is true. But the important thing is that he had it in writing for consideration rather than merely having a verbal indication of it. It was in writing and he understood exactly what it was and that it was properly drafted.
Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that few members appreciate that all questions of privilege in this house have long ago been settled. There is no such thing as a new question of privilege. If one is to charge another member with a breach of privilege it must come within one of the established rules in the same way as a charge in a court of law. As a defence counsel, if my client is charged with an offence the first thing I do is look up the Criminal Code to see if the

November 1, 1968
Interim Supply
charge is spelled out in accordance with the Criminal Code. If it is not there is no such charge and obviously if there is no such charge my client cannot be convicted. It is, therefore, my duty to this house to make sure that the charge is spelled out, that it is one well recognized by this house, the British house and our parliamentary system through the years.
If my charge does not come within one of the established rules of privilege obviously there is no case and no charge. The minister referred to the use of the word "tamper" and alleged that I should have spelled that out. The essence of tampering with a witness is the improper method of dealing with that witness. Surely there is nothing more I can say to make that more clear. The essence of the charge is the improper handling of a witness. Obviously if a committee considered the charge and found that the minister had done nothing improper he would not be guilty of tampering. I can only clarify this by suggesting that it would be just as foolish to suggest that a charge of theft should allege improper stealing because, after all, the essence of stealing is the improper taking of somebody else's property. The charge of tampering is the improper method of dealing with a witness and the evidence he intends to give to the house. Perhaps I should read citation 308 in Beauchesne so that everyone will understand clearly what I am suggesting. It states:
To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before either house or any committee of either house or to endeavour directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege.
That effectively sets out in essence what a breach of privilege is, and in order to be sure there was no misunderstanding I followed that wording in the formal charge I made.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
There was some suggestion that there was some difficulty with the word "tampering". In deciding what it means we have only to consider the fact that this word has been used for 100 years in this parliament and for more than 250 years in the British parliament. By this time there really should not be any doubt in parliament about what "tampering" means, because citation 308 continues:
A resolution to this effect was passed by the House of Commons on 21 February, 1700, and has been regularly renewed in every succeeding session, and in numerous instances persons have been punished for offences of this kind. Corruption or intimidation, though a usual, is not

an essential ingredient in this offence. It is equally a breach of privilege to attempt by persuation or solicitations of any kind to induce a witness not to attend, or to withhold evidence or to give false evidence. This matter was considered in 1935 by a committee of the Commons (United Kingdom) who reported that, in their opinion, it was a breach of privilege to give any advice to a witness which took the form of pressure or of interference with his freedom to form and express his own opinions honestly in the light of all the facts known to him, and the house resolved that it agreed with the committee in their report.
If I have clarified that situation so that even the hon. member for Leeds will understand it, I hope it will not be necessary to correct any other erring individuals in this regard, although I have found that some members of the press have had it explained to them in detail very carefully and have promptly gone out and distorted the facts again in such a way that I can only infer that they were not trying to be honest.
In the speech of the minister, since he has not taken the course of an inquiry which is the only way in which he can clear his name, he attempted today to put up the defence that of course he would have to put up if he appeared before the committee. He can correct me if I am wrong but his defence appears to be substantially this: The facts are not quite as I have presented them, there is a suggestion that the minister assumed Admiral Landymore had agreed and therefore this changed the situation, and the minister in his responsibility as minister had the right to do what he did.
I think we should deal first with the fact of Admiral Landymore's appearance. The minister has suggested that this service officer was appearing on the minister's behalf. Almost immediately Admiral Landymore took issue with that position. The witness was summoned by the defence committee. He therefore became a witness of the defence committee, no matter whom he was serving under. Whether he came from inside or outside the forces, whether he was a civil servant or a private individual, he was subject to the call of the house in the same way as witnesses are before the courts. His attendance can be compelled. He can be sworn. He can be treated, in other words, exactly as any other witness, and there is nothing in Beauchesne or any authority I have read on the subject which indicates that military witnesses are any different from any other witness called before a committee. The order that Admiral
November 1, 1966

Landymore obeyed in coming before the committee reads as follows:
1.	Standing committee on defence have asked for a briefing on organization and mission of maritime command at 0930, 23 June 1966 with preliminary briefing for minister at 0930, 21 June.
2.	Briefing to be unclassified between 45 and 60 minutes with 30 to 45 minutes for questions. Commander and briefing team are to be responsible for presentation and be prepared for questions.
There is no doubt about who is responsible for the preparation of the brief and who is supposed to be handling the questions, most of which the minister answered. Those were Admiral Landymore's orders. I continue:
3.	Briefing should include description of command mission, and brief review of organization. Present and projected savings in manpower and dollars should be included if reasonably firm. Description of equipment and command activities should be given. Mention should be made of Canadian forces bases consolidation as it affects command.
4.	Visual aids and other projections may be used. Charts, diagrams, photos of equipment should be produced on transparent slides for projection on rear projection screen.
That is the essence of the order that this witness received and which brought him before the committee as a committee witness not, as the minister has the temerity to suggest, as a representative of the minister.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would identify the document he was reading from?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: This is a copy of a signal that 1 understand is the order requiring Admiral Landymore to appear before the committee.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. gentleman table it or at least tell us its source, because I think he is giving the impression that it came from the committee rather than it being in fact a signal from the vice-chief of the defence staff? Also, Mr. Chairman, he might explain to the committee why Admiral Landymore ignored his orders in not submitting an unclassified brief, as was stated in the order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am not concerned about whether the admiral ignored his orders so much as I am about the fact that the minister overstepped his duty. I asked Admiral Landymore what his directions were and he gave me this copy of the signal. I have one quarrel with the facts that the minister sets out. I read from Hansard of yesterday, page 9347, 23033-596
Interim Supply
the top of the right-hand column. The minister was dealing with Admiral Landymore's testimony, or the brief with changes in it.
It was suggested that some extra copies of the unclassified portion of the brief might be made available. Subsequently members of the staff went over the brief in detail and suggested a number of changes including the rewriting of the section on personnel requirements and statistics. This section was sent to me to look at and following a quick reading at my desk in the House of Commons where it had been delivered to me, I noted that it was all right in so far as I was concerned, assuming the admiral was in agreement.
I read that far in the paragraph at the moment. I will now read from page 9336 of Hansard, the speech of the hon. member for Halifax in which he put on record the sworn affidavit of Admiral Landymore. In the left-hand column under paragraph 7 the following appears:
I attended the minister's office at approximately 9 a.m. June 23, 1966, prior to appearing before the standing committee that same morning.
He had appeared the day before with his brief and left it at the minister's office. This was the next step prior to appearing before the committee. The paragraph continues:
At the private meeting in his office, I was informed by the minister that the personnel section of my brief had been altered because he wished to have a more "positive" approach in personnel matters.
I suggest that perhaps the minister's memory is a little faulty in that apparently, according to his speech of yesterday, his recollection is that the brief was delivered to him at his desk in the house, whereas Admiral Landymore's sworn affidavit is that he appeared at the minister's office that morning before he went to the committee and it was the minister himself who informed him that the brief had been altered-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, that is not in the affidavit. Would the hon. member send me a copy of the affidavit? I am sure that is not in it because it is not in accordance with the facts.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I will be glad to do so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Please do it forthwith.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I have not the affidavit here, Mr. Chairman. It is in Hansard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have distorted the record enough. Try to keep it straight.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, the minister is fond of making these statements. I have been

November 1, 1986
Interim Supply
reading very carefully from Hansard. Would the minister mind telling me where I have distorted the record so I can fix it up right now?
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Stick to the facts. That is what you were suggesting.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: That is how much reliance we can place on the word of the minister. I have asked the question because I want the record to be accurate, but he persists in making these almost silly charges and then we see what they are.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member just said a minute ago that the admiral had been instructed by my office to change that section. That is not correct and he knows it. It is not in the affidavit. If it is, it is a lie.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, he did not say that.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You are putting words into his mouth.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I suppose the minister has misunderstood me, so I will repeat what I said to make sure the record is clear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You do not need to; it is already on the record.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I read from paragraph 7 of the affidavit, as recorded at page 9336 of Hansard, the left-hand column. The admiral said:
I attended the minister's office at approximately 9 a.m. June 23, 1966, prior to appearing before the standing committee that same morning. At the private meeting in his office, I was informed by the minister that the personnel section of my brief had been altered because he wished to have a more "positive" approach in personnel matters.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not true.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister has said that I have distorted the record enough. When I got up and read the statement as carefully as I could to make sure that I would be as factual as he has asked me to be, the minister attacked me and said that I had distorted the record. But he did not say how I was distorting the record. I would have thought he would jump to his feet and explain this apparent lapse of memory or this contradiction between his unsupported word and the sworn testimony of a very reliable naval officer as to what had occurred.
In most instances, Mr. Chairman, it would not be a critical matter whether the brief was
delivered to the minister in Ottawa or the minister informed the admiral in his office before he appeared before the committee that certain parts should be deleted. But if one looks at the defence that the minister is attempting to put forward to justify his actions in this regard, I think the matter is all-important.
From a reading of the statement that he made yesterday it appears that unknown to him some officials in his department had made some changes, that he had not bothered to look at them because they would not matter much and apparently Admiral Landymore would have agreed to them anyway. What a different story that is from the admiral having to appear in the minister's office and being told by the minister what the changes were, making it obvious to the admiral that the minister was taking the responsibility, that it was the minister's order, that the minister assumed authority to do this and therefore was effectively silencing the admiral.
In light of this, Mr. Chairman, does it not seem strange that so many members of this house should appear to be so puzzled by the apparent consent of or lack of complaint by the admiral? He is a man who has devoted many years of service to this country. His duties are deeply instilled and he deeply respects the tradition in the services that one obeys the minister. You must try not to embarrass him because it could embarrass him politically. Yours is not to reason these things; this is the responsibility of the minister.
I suggest that this correction of the record in connection with the manner in which these events actually occurred clears away some of the underbrush and not only brings home directly to the minister the responsibility for and the knowledge of what was done, with his admitting as much to Admiral Landymore, but it also removes any doubt as to the admiral's consent.
I would now like to deal with the question of consent. As was said by the hon. member for Greenwood in his very clear and lucid speech last night, consent would not really matter. I would go further, Mr. Chairman. In view of the clear cases on tampering with witnesses, if there was a conspiracy to prevent evidence being given to the committee on the part of the minister and Admiral Landymore the minister would still be guilty of a breach of the privileges of this house. He is tampering with the evidence that the admiral thought in his own mind was necessary

November 1, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
to be given to the committee. That is the sum and substance of it.
Time is drawing to a close, Mr. Chairman, but I would dearly love to deal with the minister's idea of what the responsibility of a minister is. I am sure that when he referred to "Government of Canada" by Robert MacGregor Dawson, the only part that meant anything to him as he read it, and which is recorded at page 9346 of Hansard, the right-hand column, was the last sentence which reads:
-and he therefore has the power to overrule any of his civil servants at any time.
I imagine that the minister took those words very much to heart and that it was the only part of the quotation in which he was really interested. For my part, I thought it most significant that the first part of that quotation read in this way:
The minister can never afford to forget that he will be expected to defend and justify his department's policies before parliament and the country.
Of course, this minister is not very interested in that part of the paragraph. It simply spells out and reminds the minister that this is responsibile government. Responsible government means that a minister is supposed to be responsible to parliament.
There is a similar sort of extract on the same page, the left-hand column. You can see the graciousness and kindness of this minister, Mr. Chairman, as he hands out these little goodies to parliament. At one point in his speech he said:
I have therefore concurred from time to time in the appearance of military officers to make statements and to give testimony.
There is an implicit suggestion here, Mr. Chairman, that the witnesses do not appear because a committee summons them but appear through the kind offices of the Minister of National Defence who decides whether or not he will let them come. I suggest to the members of this committee that this attitude is one of those things that we have to look at very carefully and instruct the minister in very deeply before we are through with this affair. It is ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
23033-596J
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General if he can tell us what our business will be for tomorrow.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the consistency of the government is to be noted by the fact that I am again calling interim supply, to be followed later in the day by item 101 on the order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-241 to amend the National Housing Act, to be followed in turn by item 93, the resolution dealing with the Export Credits Insurance Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When do we get back to
medicare?


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39 (A) deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 1966, as can be seen on page 8443 of Hansard, I put the following question to the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh):
Can the minister tell the house whether a contract authorizing the construction of a motel on the new C.B.C. site in Montreal has been signed and with whom?
More than a month ago, the people of Montreal and of the province of Quebec took alarm at the news that a motel comprising a few hundred rooms would be built on the C.B.C. site in Montreal. We have not been able until now to have exact information on such a project and I would appreciate it if the hon. minister or her parliamentary secretary would make a substantial statement tonight on that matter.
Among other things, we would like to know whether the decision was taken by the C.B.C., the federal government or the municipal authorities of Montreal, or whether it was sanctioned by the three authorities, or two of them?
The people of Montreal thought that the C.B.C. site would serve the entire purposes of that organization and provide for future extensions concerning radio and television.
November 1, 1966
9428	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
How is it that some authorities have accepted to hand over to business operation, irrelevant to the basic purposes of C.B.C., an important part of its site?
I would like the hon. minister or her parliamentary secretary to convince us that this hotel project will promote the purposes of the C.B.C.
As a second aspect of my question, I would like to know to whom the building contract and business operation has been granted? Many rumours are going about to the effect that a group of French Canadian financiers were interested in that project and were financially able to carry it out. However, it seems that their offer has not been taken into serious consideration and that a great opportunity was thrown away of encouraging French Canadians to promote an important project in the province of Quebec.
We understand that in business matters, the financial and administrative point of view is of prime importance, but financial resources and efficiency being equal, I cannot see how, in that great French city of Montreal, government authorities could show discrimination in favour of political friends or contributors.
That is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, I was expecting from the minister or her parliamentary secretary a clear answer on all aspects of the question.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), since he was kind enough to forward to the office of the Secretary of State this very afternoon, the text of the speech he just delivered.
The question raised more than a month ago, or about a month ago, by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Mr. Speaker, fully shows the serious consequences of venturing into a question before scrutinizing all the facts, and also the serious result of causing public confusion, especially among the people of Montreal, who have been expecting for a long time the completion of this magnificent plan that is just taking shape, namely the Place des Ondes of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke asked the following question:
Can the minister tell the house whether a contract authorizing the construction of a motel on the new C.B.C. site in Montreal has been signed and with whom?


The answer to that, Mr. Speaker must be that no contract to build a motel has been granted to anybody by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the site of the Place des Ondes in Montreal.
The truth about the whole matter is that the corporation-namely the C.B.C. and not the government, the two being entirely different entities-did not lease the Place des Ondes site, in Montreal, but part of the site to the Nami Investment Corporation for a motel construction project, which lease will in no way interfere with the Place des Ondes building project, in Montreal.
It is simply a lease granted to the Nami Investment Corporation by the C.B.C. for the eastern section, which is that part of the site eventually to be taken up as a parking area for the Place des Ondes or the C.B.C. in Montreal.
The Harvey Cagna & Halton Development Corporation granted its support to the promoters of the project, and the lease in question, since we must eliminate all doubts on the matter, is not for an indefinite length of time, but for a period of twelve months and one half, beginning December 1, 1966 and ending December 15, 1967. These are the facts concerning transactions between the C.B.C. and the Nami Investment Corporation with a view to providing shelter for people who will visit Expo, while Expo '67 is under way. Everyone knows that there is a shortage of accommodation, and visitors to Expo must be provided with shelter during that part of the year 1967, and I repeat that this in no way affects construction which has already begun at Place des Ondes; excavating operations, as the house undoubtedly knows, have been under way for some time.
Why was that contract refused to a group of French Canadian financiers in Montreal? Here again, the record should be put straight; that contract was not refused to a group of French Canadian financiers.
What happened is that a second proposal was made to the C.B.C. which, as I said, is not the Canadian government, and that proposal came after the first, after the Nami Investment Corporation had started negotiations with the C.B.C.
The terms were made by the C.B.C. and the officials of the Nami Investment Corporation were told: If you agree to those
November 1, 1966
terms, we are ready to negotiate with you. The second group, that is the French-Cana-dian group which came after, was told: We are ready to make the same arrangements with you, if the other group does not agree to the terms offered.
That, Mr. Speaker-to put the record straight here and to give the facts as they are-is what happened between the C.B.C. and the Nami Investment Corporation. And that project will not delay the construction of the Place des Ondes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his time has expired.


TRANSPORT-TERMS OF REFERENCE OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES STUDY
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the excitement of the day will disappear quickly when the house learns I intend to do nothing more than read a famous letter which was written more than 40 years ago by a great Canadian prime minister. Since my time will be short. I hope the Minister of Transport will be given any extra time which I do not use.


An hon. Member:: No.


Robert Jardine McCleave: As most members of the house know, Atlantic transportation problems are at present under special study and at some future time we can expect legislation pertaining to the recommendations. In 1926 the Duncan Royal Commission was set up to look into grievances of the maritime provinces and the letter I refer to was written by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, dated Ottawa, April 17, 1926, and directed to the chairman and the members of that royal commission, I am glad to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in the chamber because he might be able to advise us whether other prime ministers in their time also wrote letters of advice to royal commissions. In this particular case the letter read:
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Gentlemen,-The government of Canada is asking you to undertake a task of national importance in inquiring into maritime province grievances. The scope of the inquiry is indicated by the Order in Council constituting the commission. My colleagues and I desire to emphasize our conviction that the commission should not interpret its instructions
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion or its duties in any narrow or technical sense, but should take every opportunity for the fullest and frankest discussion of the economic difficulties facing this part of the dominion, the endeavours which have been made to overcome them, the causes of any shortcoming in these endeavours, and the most effective and practicable remedies.
The question is not a new one. What is necessary now is to focus the discussion into a practicable program, to take stock of what has been done, of what has been left undone, and of what still may be done.
In carrying on your inquiries, I have no doubt that you will obtain much pertinent and helpful information from individuals and public bodies in the maritime provinces, and that you can count upon the full co-operation of the provincial governments. The federal government will have pleasure in placing at the commission's disposal the resources of its departments. The activities of the Departments of Agriculture, Marine and Fisheries, Railways and Canals, Public Works, Mines, Immigration, Labour, and Trade and Commerce, the Soldiers' Settlement Board, the Natural Resources Intelligence Service, as well as the Departments of Finance, Customs, and National Defence, have involved much consideration of maritime problems, and this information will be readily available. Perhaps particular use might be made of the staff and facilities of the Bureau of Statistics, which has available a wide range of data bearing upon practically all phases of maritime development and maritime relations.
I am sure that I am speaking for the people of Canada as a whole when I say that it is our earnest desire that the impartial and thorough inquiry which we anticipate will be made will result in clearing away any misunderstanding or lack of appreciation of one another's problems, and will assist in working out constructive policies for the continued development of the maritime provinces and the welfare of all parts of our common country.
With all good wishes,
I am yours, sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King
When I found this letter the other day, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a heartwarming document, and because of the great interest in the maritime transportation study I thought it should be placed on Hansard of this particular parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think we are indebted to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) for reading this very interesting letter. I have in my hands the Order in Council setting up the Duncan commission, in light of the question which the hon. gentleman asked me the other day which was:
Are the terms of reference for the special Atlantic provinces transportation study as generous and specific as those given by the late Mr. King in the mid-20's to the Duncan Royal Commission?

9430	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I thought I might read first that excerpt from the Order in Council which deals with transportation. Just to have the continuity I think I should read from the beginning up to the end of that part of it:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated sixth April, 1926, from Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister, submitting that representations have from time to time been made on behalf of the people of the Maritime Provinces by resolution passed by the Legislature of Nova Scotia, by Boards of Trade and other public bodies and by their representatives in Parliament and the various legislatures, that the interests of the Maritime Provinces have suffered as a result of certain legislative and administrative measures adopted from time to time by the successive parliaments and governments of Canada. Such representations relate more particularly to the alleged failure to use Canadian ports for Canadian trade to the extent to which they might be utilized, and to the handicaps said to result from the operation of the schedules of rates chargeable for the carriage of goods on the railways uniting the maritime provinces with the other provinces of Canada and to the manner of administering that part of the Canadian National Railways system which was formerly known as the Intercolonial Railway by methods and conditions alleged to be inconsistent with the pledges given at the time of confederation in regard thereto and with the practice followed from the time of the construction of the railway until December, 1918.
I have read that because in answer to the original question which the hon. gentleman asked I want to point out that the Atlantic study on transportation-the word "Atlantic" rather than "maritime" is used because of the union of Newfoundland in 1949-is much broader that the Duncan study. That dealt with the use of the ports, and what was really meant was the use of the ports of Halifax and Saint John, and the rates charged on the railways.
Today we all recognize, important as the railways still are to the maritime provinces, that good road transportation, good air transportation, improved connections by sea between the various provinces, the causeway to Prince Edward Island, and the immense development that will be required in the huge hinterland of the Atlantic provinces and Labrador all call for a much broader study than anything contemplated in 1926.
It is true that one of the aspects of the study is a review of the Maritime Freight Rates Act which resulted from the Duncan commission. It is in no way contemplated that anything will be done to reduce the volume of support given to the region as a result of this legislation. What the study has

DEBATES	November 1, 1966
been asked to do is to see where that money has to be used in the most effective way in order to get the most effective results. But that is only one phase of this whole study which is the most comprehensive ever undertaken with regard to this matter. It is being supervised jointly by my department and the Atlantic Development Board. We hope to have the report of the study early in the year, perhaps by the end of March. Then it is hoped that it can be studied throughout the year 1967 with a view to having legislation in 1968. That is just a rough timetable.


LOTTERIES-POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT ACTION TO MEET INFRACTIONS
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I drew the attention of the Solicitor General of Canada to the fact that a poor little bunny girl and four stock traders had been charged in Toronto with operating a hockey and football lottery. The details available to us in Toronto simply are that they were printing tickets, one for each second of the hockey game, and selling these for $1 each. The person who had the proper second at which the winning goal was scored in the professional hockey game played in Toronto would come in for a small prize. I use the word "small" because of the comparison with the vast amount of money that would be secured by the sale of the tickets.
Evidently the government is enforcing the present pristine pure laws which we have against lotteries and sweepstakes in this country. It is interesting to know that they have even come down to the level of the poor bunny girls in taverns. I only hope that when they served the summonses on the four stock traders on the Toronto stock exchange those men were not selling Windfall stock at the time, because it would be a laugh to them to be served with a summons for selling lottery tickets when they might have been selling Windfall stock.
Having sympathy for the poor little bunny girl, I asked the Solicitor General if any action is being taken against the bank presidents of this country who are selling the premium savings bonds, series B, put out by the British government. I buy these right here in Canada, usually in Toronto, and have no trouble whatsoever. I hold in my hand a prospectus for these savings bonds. The British government calls them premium savings bonds, and I suppose the Canadian government recognizes them as premium savings bonds, but everybody else in this world knows them as the British lottery bonds.
November 1, 1966

These bonds were first discussed in 1956. You can read all the details in the British Hansard in the parliamentary library. The suggestion first was made by Lady Tweeds-muir, a member of the British House of Commons. She was the wife of the son of a former governor general of Canada. It is a terrible thing to think that the fact that her husband lived in Canada for four or five years and was exposed to the purifying atmosphere of our lottery laws had no influence on her introducing such a heinous thing as lottery bonds. But worse than that, Lady Tweedsmuir was supported in the introduction of these lottery bonds in the 1950's by the prime minister of Great Britain, Harold Macmillan, who spent five years in Canada. I regret that we had no influence on the lives of those people who had resided here. If people like Lady Tweedsmuir and Harold Macmillan can spend years in Canada and return to Great Britain still wanting to buy sweepstake tickets or, indeed, start a sweepstakes, I think we can realize why Canadian citizens who live in this country are interested in buying whatever sweepstake tickets are available.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
This British lottery bond institution is an amazing one. Every month it has a draw for prizes and you can get a prospectus from any Canadian bank. I have underlined on this prospectus a score of places referring to draws, prizes, drawings, monthly draws, monthly prizes, and the word "drawing" would indicate to anyone but the Canadian cabinet that these are lottery bonds.
Is the cabinet going to take any action against these bank presidents? I do not like to see the police instructed to confine their attention to tavern bunny girls and stock traders who are dealing in stocks that make lottery tickets look like a wisk of wind in a hurricane compared to what they are selling on the floor. I wish the police would spend some time in respect of these men who are dealing in lottery bonds.
Anyone can go to the banks and get a prospectus which sets out exactly what you must do. Of course the bank itself does not actually sell you the bond. The clerk tells you to go over to the foreign exchange counter where you buy a British pound note for every bond you want and you then mail the pound notes to Great Britain. This whole thing is conducted by the British government through the post office and there are two
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion addresses given: General Post Office, London,
E.C.l and Premium Savings Bond Office, Lytham St. Annes, Lancashire.
Is the Canadian government stopping all the mail going to the General Post Office, London, E.C.l and to the Premium Savings Bond Office, Lytham St. Annes, Lancashire, as it does in connection with Irish sweepstake mail? You cannot use the mail to sell Irish sweepstake tickets. This prospectus points out that the British government will inform the winners of monthly draws by post. Has the Canadian post office no instruction through the Solicitor General to examine mail coming into Canada by post from the British government?
It says in rule 10 on this prospectus that the winners will be notified by post. If the post office is going to stop the mail going to the Irish hospital sweepstakes because this transgresses the postal regulations of Canada, why does it not stop mail going to these addresses in Britain, because this also breaks the laws of this nation?
Far be it from me to ever suggest that the Canadian cabinet should adopt such a sensible idea as a lottery bond so that the people of this nation might have the opportunity of paying off the national debt in a manner that would appeal to many of them. As Mr. Harold Macmillan said in support of Lady Tweedsmuir: If the people are willing to forgo the certainty of interest in order to have a chance of winning a prize each month that is nobody's business but the buyer of the bond.
I cannot see any reason why Canadians should not be given the opportunity of buying Canadian lottery bonds put out by the Canadian government in the same way the British government puts them out, but until the cabinet wakes up and smartens up considerably and introduces such a sweepstake in Canada in order to reduce the Canadian national debt, I simply want to know whether they are going to enforce the law of the land only by chasing bunny girls through taverns and prosecuting stock traders while they flimflam the public on Bay street. Certainly the cabinet ought to prosecute these banks which are issuing the premium savings bonds prospectus, series B, and selling foreign exchange so you can send it to England and get your bonds back by post. Why should we just chase the little bunny girls and leave the bank presidents alone?
November 1, 1966
9432	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member for York Humber has raised an interesting and novel matter. Unfortunately I have no personal knowledge of these premium savings bonds but I shall have a look into the matter. However, I would point out that the enforcement of the Criminal Code is, generally speaking, a matter exclusively within the

jurisdiction of the provincial authorities. This applies in particular to sections in the Criminal Code relating to gaming and lotteries. I am sure the hon. member will be as pleased as I am to learn that the Department of Justice is completing a study of the sections relating to gaming and lotteries.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, November 2, 1966