1966-11-14

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with my undertaking of Wednesday last I wish to table herewith copies of certain exchanges of correspondence with the Studebaker Company of Canada Limited and the Volkswagen Company Limited concerning the importation of certain cars. I point out that there is one letter I have not yet obtained from the Department of Industry. I ask the permission of the house to file this with the clerk of the house as soon as it has been obtained.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave to table the documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on October 13, I indicated that it was my intention to present to the house a measure dealing with disability pensions and war veterans allowances. Supplementary estimates will be introduced later in this session to provide the funds required for an interim increase in disability pensions and increases in war veterans allowances.
Hon. members will of course have an opportunity, upon introduction of these estimates, to fully examine the increases proposed. For two important reasons, however, I felt I should announce the details of these increases to the house now; first to reassure those in receipt of pensions and allowances that the government recognizes their need for additional income at this time; and second, with the anticipation that parliament will see fit to approve these adjustments, to permit departmental officials to begin the administrative work of calculation and adjustment in sufficient time to make
the additional amounts available by Christmas. As I indicated earlier, it is proposed to make the date of these increases effective September 1, 1966.
[DOT] (2.40 D.m.)
It is proposed to increase the basic rate of disability pensions by 15 per cent.
It is proposed to raise the war veterans allowance single rate from $94 to $105 a month and the permissible income ceiling from $133 to $145 a month. The married rate will be raised from $161 to $175 a month and the permissible income ceiling from $222 to $245 a month. Identical increases in rates and ceilings will apply to recipients of allowances under Part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
Hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister concurred some time ago with the recommendation that these rates be reviewed every two years and as a consequence a study on how best this might be done has been initiated.
Until the results of this study are available it is obvious that an appropriate level of pension rates is difficult to determine, but in the meantime the government feels it is only fair, in view of the current circumstances of pension recipients, that an interim increase should be made at this time.
The amounts required to give effect to these increases on an annual basis are of the order of $20,500,000 for disability pensions and $16 million for war veterans and civilian allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. G. L. Chaiterlon (Esquimall-Saanich):: We have been waiting for a long time, as a matter of fact since September, 1964, for the announcement the minister has made today, and considering the length of time which has elapsed since the hon. gentleman first promised to bring down legislation on the subject of disability pensions-it was to have been before Christmas, 1964-1 say that the announced increase of 15 per cent is totally inadequate and will be rejected by the veterans of this country.
The veterans objected when an increase of only 10 per cent was granted in 1964. The soaring and uncontrolled rise in cost of living

November 14, 1966
Increase In Pensions
since that time would in itself justify the 15 per cent increase which the government has now announced. I maintain that the contention by the veterans organizations, that the basic rate for disability pensions should be the rate which applies to unskilled labour in the civil service, is a reasonable one. In my view, that should be the minimum basic rate for disability pensions.
Considering the fact that the cost of living is still increasing I am surprised that the minister has not produced a plan for an automatic increase related to the cost of living or even a plan for a cyclical review such as civil servants are now getting.
With regard to war veterans allowances, there was reasonable satisfaction recently with regard to the increase to $105 and I believe the amount of the increase is not out of line. Nevertheless, in my opinion the increase announced in the maximum permissible income ceiling is not sufficient; it just about makes up for the increase in the amount of the allowance itself. Some provision should be made along the lines of the action we took in 1963 whereby the older veterans, in any event, were told that increases in old age security payments would not be counted as income for the purpose of calculating war veterans allowances.
We look forward to legislation with regard to the Pension Act at an early date, as the minister has promised. I realize he is waiting for the Woods report but, as I say, there is grave dissatisfaction among veterans as to the manner in which the Pension Act is being administered. I conclude by saying that the increase proposed in the disability pensions will be completely unacceptable to the veterans and people of Canada.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I am
very glad that the minister has relieved the feelings of a large number of veterans and their dependants in Canada by making this announcement today. I may say there are about four million people in Canada, veterans and their dependants, who are interested in the field of veterans legislation.
The minister has introduced this measure as an interim increase, and even the amount he proposes will no doubt be welcomed by those who are entitled to these pensions and allowances.
As the previous speaker said, however, I am quite certain that they will not satisfy the requests made by the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations in the country at this time.

I also notice that there has been a slight increase in the permissive income. This will be welcome to that extent, but at the same time it means that many veterans drawing their war veterans allowance will still be denied the opportunity to receive a substantial portion of their old age pensions, particularly those who are married. As I said before, this was introduced as an interim increase and, I trust as a result of the study of the administration of veterans pensions made in France and in Great Britain by the standing committee on veterans affairs regarding their procedures and their review of pension legislation, we will adopt just rates and procedures.
I hope that in the very near future the minister will rise in his place and introduce legislation which will take this question of disability pensions and war veterans allowances out of partisan politics.
[DOT] (2.50 p.m.)
It is our hope that these pensions and allowances will be reviewed periodically, as they are in France and Great Britain. In the knowledge that this is enly an interim increase, we shall look forward to hearing the minister speak soon on the result of the study of pensions and war veterans allowances so that those who are directly concerned will be fairly treated. At the same time we urge the minister to give consideration to the representations of the veterans organizations with respect to these two very important questions, when the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs hears their representations.


Mr. C. A. Gaulhier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, just a few words of congratulations for the minister who has just announced an increase in the pension to veterans, which will allow them to receive a basic salary of $105 per month.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this increase is better than nothing, because a veteran who has made sacrifices for his country deserves at least to receive $105 per month to compensate a little for the suffering he went through on the battlefield.
I will not say as much for the allowances granted to old people, because I expected the minister to announce also what the government had been promising for almost four or five years. Each year we hear the same promise and we are still waiting.
The small token offered to disabled people will not satisfy at all the people of Canada. We are still expecting the minister to fulfil
November 14, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
once and lor all his promise to increase allowances to old people to $105 per month. That day I think that all the old people of Canada will thank the minister because, since the last elections especially, that has been promised them in all the ridings and they are waiting anxiously for the promise to be fulfilled.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to join in the expressions of appreciation to the minister for bringing this announcement before the house at the present time. It will do much to reassure those who have been wondering just what if anything is being done in regard to the increasing of disability pensions and war veterans allowances. Even though we agree that they are far from adequate, we appreciate the announcement that has been made at the present time. We look upon it as an interim proposition, and trust that when the final legislation is introduced and decisions are made it will go much further in meeting the needs of those who are so desperately in need at the present time.
There is one matter I should like to reemphasize, and that is the matter of permissive income. I expect all hon. members have received letters from pensioners. I know I have received a number. They ask why it is that when the wife becomes eligible for the old age pension that amount is to be deducted from the veteran's pension. They do not understand why they should be in a position where they have to pay for their wives' old age pensions. This is something which I think should be considered very carefully. We look upon the old age pension as something that is universal in its application. These people should not be placed in the position where they are forced to pay their spouses' counterpension out of their veterans allowances and pensions.



THE LATE MRS. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the house will permit me to express on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I am sure on behalf of all members of the house, the deep sympathy we have for Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and the members of his family over the passing of a beloved wife and mother. Madame St. Laurent was a woman of great charm, with a deep sense of kindness and with a recognition that while political parties are separated friendship is not circumscribed.
The Late Mrs. Louis S. St. Laurent
Personally I had a very deep affection for Madame St. Laurent. I met her first more than 30 years ago when her husband was president of the Canadian Bar Association. Through the intervening years that friendship continued unabated. The uncertainties of political warfare within the House of Commons never interfered with her personal friendship. I speak with considerable emotion when I say I am personally deeply saddened that she has passed on to her reward.
To her husband and the members of her family I would ask you, sir, to convey the heartfelt condolences not only of the members of the house as a whole but particularly of those who knew her during the years her husband was in public life, and before.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house appreciate very greatly what the right hon. gentleman has said. I am sure Mr. St. Laurent and members of the family will be deeply moved by his words and the expression of sympathy on his part and on the part I think of all members of the house in the loss of Mrs. St. Laurent. She was a gracious and very warm-hearted lady. Those who knew her were very fond of her indeed. She was a lady whose life perhaps centred more in her family and in her home than in public affairs; but perhaps she was none the worse for that.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the grief which is felt by Mr. St. Laurent and the members of the family at this sad time will be alleviated by the expression of sympathy my right hon. friend has so eloquently expressed on behalf of all members of the house.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party would like to associate ourselves with the appropriate words expressed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. Prime Minister. We too should like to express our sympathy to the former prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and the members of his family, at the sad passing of Mrs. St. Laurent. Those of us who were privileged to know her found her to be a gracious and charming lady. We know how deeply devoted she and Mr. St. Laurent were to each other, and what a sad blow this will be to him. It is our hope that it will be of some comfort to him and the members of his family to know that his friends in the House of Commons are thinking of them at this time, and that they have our deepest sympathy in their time of grief.

November 14, 1966
Questions


Mr.  A. B. Pallerson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure you and the members of the house that we share in the expression of sympathy to Mr. St. Laurent and the members of his family in the severe loss they have suffered. Our prayers and best wishes go out to them.


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the previous speakers to offer my heart-felt sympathy to Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent following the death of his wife. She was born a Renault, in the county of Beauce and she is a sister of the former minister of trade and industry and member of the legislature for Beauce. With all those who did so before me, I offer my sympathy to Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and his family.


Mr. Gerard Duquei (Quebec Easl):: Mr. Speaker, as representative for the riding of Quebec East, which Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent represented with such great dignity in the house for 15 years and as a voter in Quebec East, I had the pleasure and the great honour of knowing Mr. and Mrs. St. Laurent very well. The affability and great spirit of charity which characterized Mrs. St. Laurent were well known in Quebec East.
I would like, on behalf of the voters of Quebec East, who, I am sure, are deeply grieved by the passing of this distinguished lady, and on my own behalf, to join with the hon. members of this house who have offered their sympathy to Mr. St. Laurent and his family.



BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS CONCURRENCE IN TENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Jean Berger (for Mr. Stanbury) moved: that the tenth report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, presented to the house on Thursday, November 10, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-244, to amend the Civil Service Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, prior to 1961 the payment of civil servants salaries was an act of grace on the part of the crown. The new Civil Service Act of that year for the first time gave to all public servants the statutory rights to receive pay determined in accordance with the act.
[DOT] (3.00 p.m.)
This bill is designed to make genuinely effective this statutory right to pay, and to relieve public servants of dependence upon the solution of parliamentary crises. The bill was placed on the order paper prior to the Prime Minister's feat of fiscal legerdemain, a feat which emphasizes the need to protect public servants from political or parliamentary manoeuvre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Reid: Has the government cancelled the High Altitude Research Project and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were the reasons for this decision?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: The answer to the first part of this question is covered in the reply to Question No. 1,960.
With reference to the second part of the question, the reasons for discontinuing financial support after June 30, 1967, are (1) financial support was initiated in 1964 under the Defence Export Development Vote in the hope that it would lead to substantial exports of equipment manufactured by Canadian industry to U.S. Defence Agencies. When it became apparent that this expectation would not be realized, it was necessary to terminate support in accordance with the limitations of our financial authority; (2) extension of support until June 30, 1967, provides transitional assistance for the scientific team of the McGill Space Research Institute while the university works toward placing the Institute on a self sustaining basis.


PARTNERS IN HIGH ALTITUDE RESEARCH PROJECT
Mr. Reid: 1.	Who were the government's partners in the High Altitude Research Project?
2.	When were they notified of the government's intention to withdraw?
November 14, 19G6

3.	Have these other agencies signified their intent to continue with the project?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	The McGill University High Altitude Research Program is one which was initiated in 1962 after an interchange between the United States department of the army and McGill University to meet scientific objectives set by the U.S. department of the army. Because there was a possibility that the project could result in the expansion of markets for Canadian defence industry, the Crown has been providing financial support since 1964 in conjunction with the U.S. department of the army.
2.	The U.S. department of the army has been aware that continuing financial assistance by the Crown was contingent on the result of an annual review. U.S. army participation is subject to similar qualifications. The U.S. army was given formal notification of the Crown's decision to discontinue financial support as of June 30, 1967, on June 28, 1966.
3.	Yes, subject to further review.


AIMS OF HIGH ALTITUDE RESEARCH PROJECT
Mr. Reid: 1.	What were the aims of the High Altitude Research Project?
2.	How long had the project been going on?
3.	What were the results of this research?
4.	What was the cost of this research?
5.	Does the government have plans to continue this research and, if so. what are they?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	The primary aim of the High Altitude Research Project was to develop the gun launch technique as an alternative to the rocket system for probing the upper atmosphere. The Crown's aim in providing financial assistance is set out in answer to Question No. 1,960.
2.	Work was initiated by McGill University and the U.S. department of the army in 1962.
3.	Research is being conducted in three general areas: upper atmospheric soundings; vehicle development; and ancillaries development. Upper atmospheric soundings are being made regularly in the Caribbean area and data is being collected. Work on vehicle development is aimed at improving flight capabilities of projectiles, with the result that it now appears possible to develop multistage guided vehicles for gun launching. Ancillaries development is back-up work aimed at supplying components and payloads
Questions
which can operate in the high 'g' environment of gun launchings. Certain items have been used in flight, and others are still under development.
4.	The Crown will have provided a total of $4.3 millions as of June 30, 1967. Work placed by Defence Production on behalf of the U.S. department of the army will have totalled $3.5 millions (U.S.) as of June 30, 1967. In addition, U.S. department of the army has carried on related development in its own laboratories.
5.	The answer to this question is provided in reply to Question No. 1,960.


WAGE INCREASES IN CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How much in cash will the proposed increase in wages to the employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cost for (a) the first year (b) the second year (c) the third year?
2.	What active steps did the government take in bringing about a settlement in the wage dispute between the C.B.C. management and its employees?
3.	As the C.B.C. is responsible to parliament, will the settlement be submitted to parliament for its approval?


Mr. J. B. Slewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. Over the 30-month NABET contract from January 1, 1966, to June 30, 1968, the cost of the wage settlement is estimated at: (a) $1,125,000 for January 1 to December 31, 1966; (b) $2,518,000 for January 1 to December 31, 1967; and (c) $1,510,000 for January 1 to June 30, 1968.
2.	Mr. Bernard Wilson, then director of the industrial relations branch of the Department of Labour, was asked by the government on behalf of the C.B.C. to meet with both parties in the dispute and to report on the issues rising out of the mediation board report.
3.	No.


GRAIN HARVESTING AND SALES
Mr. Dionne: 1.	What quantity of wheat, oats and barley was harvested in Canada in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2.	What quantities were sold to flour mills in Canada during these years and at what prices?
3.	What quantities were sold to foreign countries during these years and at what prices?
4.	What was the amount paid by each purchasing country during these years?
5.	Of the countries that have purchased wheat or other grains, which ones have not made payments to date, and what is the amount owed by each?
Questions

November 14, 1966

Hon. Robert	Winters	(Minister	of Trade
and Commerce)	: 1.		
Production in Canada			
	'000 bu.		
Crop Year	Wheat	Oats	Barley1959-60	445,077	344,209	215,6441960-61	518,379	398,505	193,4731961-62	283,394	283,965	112,6401962-63	565,554	493,610	165,8881963-64	723,442	453,102	220,6641964-65	600,424	357,178	166,8161965-66	648,917	414,957	214,5552. The quantities and prices of wheat, oats	
and barley sold to flour mills in Canada are not available. However, the quantities milled are as follows:
Quantity Milled bushels
Year Wheat
1960	92,076,693
1961	86,770,580
1962	83,484,883
1963	91,907,091
1964	102,761,078
1965	93,275,961
Oats Barley 4,929,442	201,107
5,254,687	167,723
5,114,417	151,442
5,651,981	143,765
5,816,898	131,041
5,815,864	139,939
3.	The quantity and prices of wheat, oats and barley sold to foreign countries are not available, but the quantities exported and the values of exports by country of consignment may be found in the December issues for the years 1960-65 in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics publication, Trade of Canada, Exports by Commodities.
4 and 5. With the exception of sales to some countries in the Sino-Soviet Block and aid shipments, all purchases by foreign countries were on a cash basis and full payment was made at the time of shipment. The Canadian government pays cash at the time of shipment for grain supplied under aid programs. Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia purchased grain from Canada in the period 1960-65 inclusive on terms of 10 per cent cash and the balance (with interest) in three equal payments- 24, 30 and 36 months after shipment. The maximum terms extended by the Canadian Wheat Board to Mainland China and East Germany in this period were 25 per cent cash and the balance (with interest) in 18 months. The outstanding balances owing on September 30th were as follows: Bulgaria, $26 million; Czechoslovakia, $75 million; Hungary, $7 million; Poland, $83 million; Yugoslavia, $8 million; Mainland China, $188 million; East Germany, $18 million.


COST OF HIGH ALTITUDE RESEARCH PROJECT
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Is the High Altitude Research Project (HARP) involving the firing of projectiles from high altitude guns, still being supported by grants from the government of Canada and, if so, through what departments or agencies?
2.	What is the budgetary provision for this project in the fiscal year 1966-67?
3.	What has been the cost to the government of Canada of this project to March 31, 1967?
4.	What proportion of the total cost of the project does this represent and is this proportion to continue, increase or decrease and to what level?
5.	What other persons, corporations of any kind, university foundations, etc., in Canada or elsewhere contribute funds for this project and to what extent?
6.	If the contribution of the government of Canada towards this project is to decline or cease, what are the reasons for any such change?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Yes, through the Department of Industry vote to sustain technological capability in Canadian defence industry.
2.	The Department of Industry has been authorized to expend $1,500,000. In addition, the U.S. department of the army will provide $1,100,000 (U.S.) for McGill University project work.
3.	$4.3 millions (estimated).
4.	From the inception of the project by McGill University in 1962 to March 31, 1967, estimated total project expenditures by McGill University will be $7.49 millions. Of this, the cost to the government of Canada is estimated at $4.3 millions which is 57 per cent of total McGill University costs. By June 30, 1967, total expenditure on the project by the Crown will amount to $4.3 millions. There are no plans to provide further Crown support for the present program beyond June 30, 1967.
5.	The government is not aware of any other source of funds excepting the U.S. department of the army.
6.	Contribution of the government of Canada toward the project is to cease on June 30, 1967. Government of Canada financial support was initiated in 1964 in the hope that substantial exports to U.S. defence agencies of equipment manufactured by Canadian industry would result. When it became apparent that this expectation would not be realized, it was necessary to terminate support in accordance with the limitations of our financial authority. Extension of support until June 30, 1967, provides transitional assistance for the scientific team of the McGill
November 14, 1966

Space Research Institute while the university works toward placing the Institute on a selfsustaining basis.


REVIEWS OF VETERANS ALLOWANCE AND PENSION RATES
Mr. Mather: 1.	Was a ministerial committee established in 1964 to study a proposal for cyclical reviews of war veterans' allowance and pension rates?
2.	If so, has a report been made by that committee, and when may a report be expected?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1. Yes.
2. It is not customary for the progress or conclusions of such a ministerial committee to be revealed.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many persons are at present on the payroll of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, of this number, how many are police officers?
2.	How many new police officers of the R.C.M.P, were recruited during the years 1964 and 1965?
3.	How many police officers left the R.C.M.P. in 1964 and 1965 because of (a) choice (b) indiscipline (c) retirement?
4.	How many police officers of the R.C.M.P. speak (a) English (b) French (c) French and English?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.	9,822 persons on payroll; 7,582 police officers.
2.	557 in 1964; 683 in 1965.
3.	1964: (a) 165; (b) 27; (c) 104. 1965: (a) 220; (b) 22; (c) 174.
4.	(a) 7,582; (b) 849; (c) 849.
Period
Hungary
3 years from June 11, 1964
East Germany
3 years from August 1, 1964
Mainland China
3 years from August 1, 1966 Poland
3 years from Nov. 5, 1966
Questions


CREDIT IN GRAIN PURCHASES
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	Since January 1, 1964, how many countries have requested credit from the Canadian government and/or the Canadian Wheat Board in the purchase of (a) wheat (b) other grains?
2.	What are the countries, giving number of bushels requested, where transactions were successfully completed on a credit basis?
3.	What are the countries with bushel requirements that were refused because credit was not granted?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1 and 3. It is not the policy of the government or the Canadian Wheat Board to make information public regarding requests from foreign countries for Canadian wheat and other grains on credit terms unless a sale is consummated, as such information might be prejudicial to marketing operations. Requests for grain on special terms or conditions are made on a confidential basis and the disclosure of this information would have an adverse influence on customer relationships.
2. Since January 1, 1964 long term agreements involving the sale of grain on credit have been completed with Hungary, East Germany, Mainland China and Poland. The period covered by these agreements and the quantities involved are as follows:
Quantities
A total of 9.2 million bushels of wheat or wheat equivalent of flour or a minimum of 4.6 million bushels of wheat or wheat equivalent of flour and a maximum of 5.7 million bushels of feed barley for cash. In each of the first two years of the agreement, not less than 1.1 million bushels of wheat or wheat equivalent of flour will be shipped.
A total of 27.6 million bushels of wheat for shipment in equal amounts of 9.2 million bushels in each of the three years of the agreement.
A minimum of 168 million and a maximum of 280 million bushels of wheat.
A total of 33.1 million bushels of wheat and an option of an additional 11 million bushels. In the first year of the agreement 11 million bushels will be shipped and in each of the remaining two years, between 7.3 and 14.7 million bushels. An additional 3.7 million bushels may be purchased under the option in each year of the agreement.

November 14, 1966
Questions
In the period since January 1, 1964, individual sales contracts under these and earlier long term agreements have been concluded with the following countries for the shipment of the following quantities of grain on credit terms: Bulgaria, 11.2 million bushels of wheat; Czechoslovakia, 30.9 million bushels of wheat; Hungary, 3.7 million bushels of wheat; Poland, 47.7 million bushels of wheat; Mainland China, 209.0 million bushels of wheat; East Germany, 18.4 million bushels of wheat.
In addition, sales contracts outside long term agreements were concluded in this period for the shipment of 2.6 million bushels of wheat on credit to Czechoslovakia and 16.3 million bushels of barley on credit to Mainland China.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-MAINTENANCE OF OPEN CHANNEL
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): 1.	Has an estimate been made for the cost of maintaining an open channel along the St. Lawrence river during the winter by means of ice-breakers, between the mouth of the river and the port of Montreal?
2.	If so, what is the amount of this estimate?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. No. Some cost benefit studies are under way.
2. Not applicable.


PRAIRIE RAIL NETWORK
Mr. Douglas: Did the Minister of Transport consult with any organizations or groups on the plan for a prairie rail network guaranteed to January 1, 1975, prior to his statement on September 12, 1966 and, if so, what are the names of the organizations or groups consulted and when did such consultations take place?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: While officials of the Department of Transport did consult with officials of the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta wheat pools and various other interested groups and organizations prior to publication of the prairie rail network guaranteed to January 1st, 1975, the decisions were made by the government entirely on its own responsibility.


PURCHASE OF SELF-RIGHTING LIFEBOAT
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What was the purchase price of the 44-foot self-righting lifeboat described in the Department of Transport press release of October 24, 1966?

2.	When is delivery expected?
3.	What guarantee or protection do we have after the six-month test period?
4.	Was any attempt made to have this item made in Canada, and, if so, what firm or firms were approached?
5.	Should this craft be an asset, how many does the department intend to purchase and will Canadian firms be asked to tender?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: 1. $115,000 U.S.
2.	Delivery was effected August 9, 1966.
3.	Following the test period the 44-foot lifeboat will in any event be kept, and additional lifeboats will be procured.
4.	No attempt was made to have the boat built in Canada. By obtaining one from the existing U.S. coastguard production line it was possible to have one for operational trials many months sooner than would have been the case if a boat had been specially designed and built.
5.	The number of additional lifeboats to be built will depend in large measure on the performance and capability of the boat under trial. It is probable that five additional craft will be required. These will be built in Canada.


STUDEBAKER CORPORATION-ACCUMULATION OF IMPORT CREDITS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the value of the import credits accumulated by the Studebaker Corporation in Canada before it ceased operations?
2.	Did Studebaker Corporation bring into Canada any Volkswagen cars for re-sale to Volkswagen Corporation in Canada and, if so, how many?
3.	What is the value of the import credits remaining today to the credit of the Studebaker Corporation which could be used to arrange to import further cars?
4.	What autos or auto parts have been imported by Studebaker Corporation (a) from the United States (b) from the United Kingdom (c) from Western Europe (d) from elsewhere?
5.	What is the value of automobiles imported by each of the auto companies from companies which they do not control?


Edgar John Benson: 1, 4 and 5: The answers to Parts 1, 4 and 5 involve the confidential affairs of individual importers or taxpayers.
2. Yes, 10,918. The answer to Part 2, although involving confidential information, has already been disclosed by the parties concerned.
November 14, 1966

3. Nil. To import automobiles duty free under the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965, the importer must be a qualified manufacturer of automobiles within the terms of the order.


SMALL CRAFT HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Albert):
Have any moneys been spent under the capital assistance program for small craft harbour development since introduction and, if so, where and what amounts?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): Yes. To date $350 has been paid towards a dredging contract at Wheatley, Ontario. Contracts have also been awarded at Summerside, P.E.I., $28,000; Trois-Rivieres, Que., $24,624; Sturgeon Lake, Ont., $3,200 and South Pender, B.C., $9,990. Tenders are being reviewed for projects at Baie D'Urfe, Sillery and Trois-Rivieres in the province of Quebec and at Dunrobin and Rideau Lakes in the province of Ontario.


SPRINGHILL. N.S.-YOUNG OFFENDERS PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coales: 1.	What is the name of the architectural firm that has the responsibility for the Young Offender's Penal Institution under construction at Springhill, Nova Scotia?
2.	How much has this firm received in fees to date for services rendered and what is the estimated final cost for their services?
3.	What is the name of the engineering consulting firm involved in the construction of the Young Offender's Penal Institution at Springhill, Nova Scotia?
4.	What is the amount they have received to date for services rendered and what is the final estimated cost for their services?
5.	What is the estimated total cost of constructing this penal institution and what is the present estimated completion date for the institution?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1. C. D. Davison & Co., Halifax, N.S.
2.	(a) $334,620.32; (b) $424,120.
3.	Civil, J. Philip Vaughan, Halifax, N.S.; Mechanical, Wiggs, Walford, Frost & Lindsay, Halifax, N.S.; Electrical, F. C. O'Neill & Associates, Halifax, N.S.
4.	Unknown by the department as this is the responsibility of the consulting architects.
5.	(a) $11,502,000; (b) July 1967.
Inquiries of the Ministry


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Orange: 1.	What are the total number of positions approved by Treasury Board effective April 1, 1966, for the northern administration branch in the administration district of the Mackenzie and the administrative district of the Arctic?
2.	How many of these positions are in the Northwest Territories?
3.	How many are located in Ottawa?
4.	How many of these positions were vacant as of October 1, 1966?
5.	Excluding prevailing rate positions, what is the classification and location of these vacancies?
Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance but in his absence I will ask it of the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the intention of the minister to give to the house later today a full explanation of the recent financial transactions, in order to allay suspicion that there has been a gross infringement of the rights of parliament with regard to the voting of supply?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure everyone that there is no reason for any suspicion and everything that was done was done after obtaining legal opinion from the Department of Justice. I would be pleased to give such an explanation on interim supply.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister this: When was it that in the practice of these shenanigans, to use the words of the Minister of National Defence-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -the government became aware of the fact that they had tens of millions of dollars lying around that they did not know anything about and could transfer for civil servants' salaries?

November 14, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: As I have stated, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement concerning this matter on interim supply. I can assure my right hon. friend that the amount was determined on Thursday last.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the government will table any orders in council, treasury board minutes or exchanges of correspondence dealing with any transfers of moneys that were made?


Edgar John Benson: I am not sure, personally, of the propriety of tabling such documents. However, I should indicate to the house that these documents have been made available to the Auditor General, and the transfers that were made were from vote 15 contingencies. I should point out to the house that not only did we have the opinion of the law officers of the crown in this regard, but as a matter of fact we had an application from the Auditor General for a transfer of $53,000 to meet his mid-month payrolls from this particular account.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. If the transfers were made by orders in council or by treasury board minutes-


Some hon. Members:: 


Stanley Howard Knowles: -is the government not required either to table those documents or to exempt them from publication?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is hypothetical and argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may rise on a question of privilege, this is a matter that affects the privileges of parliament. All last week we were browbeaten and bamboozled by a government that pretended that the civil servants were going to be without money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This government tried to use the civil servant as an instrument to force parliament to bend to its will.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is exactly what you did.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a very serious digression from parliamentary rights and is certainly not something that can be brushed aside as being argumentative or hypothetical.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to bring to the attention of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that it was not brushed aside. The opinion given by the Chair was that the question as asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was hypothetical and argumentative. Certainly there was no suggestion by the Chair that the matter should be brushed aside.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Regardless of the legal niceties or the merits, all of which can be argued later, in view of this further example of the erosion of parliamentary control over the executive does not the Prime Minister honestly feel that this whole matter of parliament vis-a-vis the executive should be the subject now of an earnest and anxious inquiry either by this house or a committee of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that when my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue makes his statement on interim supply very shortly, the hon. gentleman's fears in this regard will be removed.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Did the Minister of National Revenue not advise him last Wednesday that he had found sufficient funds to make the mid-month payment to civil servants?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. These questions which are being raised as a matter of argument can be asked on interim supply, which in a few minutes will be debated for the eleventh day.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. Did he not advise the Prime Minister last Wednesday that sufficient funds had been found to make this payment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: He did on Wednesday, and he knows it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Bow River.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue which may clear the matter up. When he received this advice from
November 14, 1966

the legal officers of the Department of Justice, why could he not do what many have suggested he should do?


Edgar John Benson: I received the advice on Thursday morning last.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask a supplementary question following that answer. When was the Department of Justice contacted to give their decision about this transaction?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us have the truth.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: A supplementary question. If the minister received the advice on Thursday morning, why did he not send out the civil service cheques on Thursday?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the meeting of treasury board which was necessary to authorize these transfers took place on Thursday afternoon.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he knew on Wednesday money was available to pay the civil servants' midmonth salaries, why did he not give orders that these payments should be made on Thursday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that statement is entirely unfounded.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he and the cabinet have received a brief from the Co-operative Union of Canada asking, among other things, for co-operative legislation, which I believe the government has had under study for some three years. What action does the government contemplate taking in light of these representations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received that brief. I had the pleasure with some of my colleagues of discussing it with representatives of the co-operative movement in Canada. A committee has been working for some time now on the question of federal legislation as requested by the brief, and it is expected that we will receive the report of that committee within the next day or two.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the committee is working on a draft of a bill to general study? If so, how soon can we expect be put before the house, or is this merely a a bill?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, it is far from a general study. The committee is discussing possible legislation. I hope to have the report with the detail I have indicated concerning legislation very shortly.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister arising out of his reference to cooperative legislation. If that is the case, is it the government's intention to set up a federal department of co-operatives?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that does not follow from anything I said in reply to an earlier question.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of health. As he is quoted in the Globe and Mail of this morning as stating that it is his intention to introduce legislation to provide a guaranteed annual income to all recipients of old age pensions of $105 per month, could the minister inform the house whether this is the figure that will appear in the legislation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the figure that is proposed was announced to the house last July, I believe, and no change has been made.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We had the assurance of the Prime Minister Thursday evening that this legislation would be available this week. Would the minister say whether we will immediately proceed to debate this legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I myself would prefer to get the medicare bill through before I tackle the pension bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

November 14, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric Alfred Winkler: The old age pensioners suffer again.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the official opposition and the government succeed in delaying this measure until the spring, will the legislation be retroactive to at least January 1?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is hypothetical.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is supplementary to one which was asked some time ago. I realize of course how fierce is the competition to catch your eye today, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Having in mind the reluctance with which the hon. gentleman went along with the idea of the Minister of Finance to postpone medicare for a year, would he not reconsider the priorities and place the old age pension problem ahead of medicare.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We on this side of the house are anxious to get ahead with the income provisions for the recipients of old age security benefits and we hope, as the Prime Minister said on Thursday, that the resolution will be on the order paper this week. We hope to get on to the actual passing of the legislation as quickly as possible, though I would express the wish that the house might conclude the debate on medicare before we deal with the pension bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question? What date has the minister in mind for making the new pension payments effective?


George James McIlraith: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the question asked now by the hon. gentleman is in order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not asking the question frivolously. If the date is to be, say, January 1, we shall know what time we have at our disposal. We should like the minister to tell us when these payments are likely to become effective. This would guide the House of Commons in assessing the order of priorities it should follow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I realize this is an important question but, as the hon. gentleman must know, we cannot very well establish our order of priorities or estimate when we are likely to reach a particular item of legislation when we have no idea when we will be granted supply, which is the first item on the time-table.
There are the amendments to the National Housing Act. That is an important piece of legislation. We are dealing, now, with medicare; the bill is in committee stage and we would like to get the committee stage completed, with any amendments which might be required at that stage, before going on to consider the pension plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I agree with the Prime Minister's suggestion that it is important to get on with medicare. But it would help the house if we knew the date on which the old age pension legislation was likely to become effective. Is January 1 likely to be the date upon which it will be effective and payable to the old people?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We want it to become effective at as early a date as possible, and if interim supply gets through reasonably quickly, and the National Housing Act amendments get through quickly, and the amendments, if any, to the medicare legislation get through, we shall be able to start on the pension bill, perhaps next week. That is all I can say.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are payments likely to be retroactive to September 1?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question. The resolution will be on the order paper within a day or two. I made that commitment, and it will be carried out.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister-and I appreciate the amount of information he is giving us. He knows I appreciate the fact that he is committed to going forward with this legislation. Inasmuch as the medicare legislation has been placed back to the extent it has in the order of business before the house, would not the right hon. gentleman commit himself to introducing the old age pension legislation, so that we could go forward with this measure immediately? This I suggest would have a bearing on the current debate and enable an answer to be given to the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam regarding the effective date.
November 14, 1966



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Labour. Would he comment on the C.N.T.U. decision to withdraw from all federal organizations?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member can be allowed to put his question in this manner, that is, ask the minister to comment on a decision which has been taken. I submit that the question could be formulated differently.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I will put my question differently. Is the Minister of Labour considering action which could bring the C.N.T.U. to reconsider its decision to withdraw from all federal organizations?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in the house on Thursday last, if such decision were taken- and I understand that it was taken on Friday-it would be a matter that I would regret very much. I most certainly will be discussing this development with officials of the C.N.T.U.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
Can the minister inform the house if a decision may be expected shortly from the ministerial committee appointed to examine C.N.T.U. representation within the C.L.R.B.?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I can give no such assurance. I did refer the matter, as I said I would do, to the chairman of the committee after the question was raised in the house last week.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of reports of an imminent strike by employees of Air Canada this afternoon, can the Minister of Labour tell the house whether there is any possibility of averting this strike?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the probability is that the strike cannot be averted. I must say that there has been in this case an unusual turn of events. Private mediation in the dispute war arranged by the parties, not by the Department of Labour. This mediation began on Wednesday of last week and continued until late yesterday afternoon. Actually my department had no official word on the subject at all until this morning.
I did receive some informal information late last night, as a result of which I dispatched telegrams to the president of Air Canada and to the vice president of the union concerned suggesting a possible delay. However, wires recently received from the two sides indicate that the strike will proceed this afternoon.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. In view of this grave situation would the minister consider calling the parties together to negotiate a settlement, so that this strike will not be one of those prolonged strikes with which we in this country have been plagued during the past year?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that there have not been that many prolonged strikes that have been the responsibility of the federal government. However, I do want to say this. I have asked for-though I am not yet certain whether I am entitled to receive it-a copy of any report made by mediators who were privately appointed and paid. As soon as I have a copy of this report available I will study it, along with officials of my department, and will no doubt be discussing it with some of my colleagues. But until I get a copy of this report it is difficult to say what action may be taken or be necessary.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question. Is the minister saying that he is going to sit by and wait until the report reaches him, or is he going to go out and get a copy?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have already asked for a copy of the report.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question. In view of the national crisis that exists, I think the minister should also agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ontario, call the parties to the capital and settle the issue. We recall the situation created by the rail strike, and this step would assist in averting the crisis. Would the minister not do that?

November 14, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the privately appointed mediator has also been chairman of the conciliation board which failed to settle the dispute, and in view of the fact that the likelihood of his succeeding now is not very great, would the Minister of Labour inform the house whether he is now prepared, without necessarily asking the parties to appoint a mediator, to start negotiations again, whether or not the strike begins this afternoon?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to study the report of the three members of the mediation group before making any statement.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question but I am wondering whether it should be addressed to the Minister of Transport. A few days ago in answer to a question of mine about alternate air service for the province of Saskatchewan, and particularly for the city of Saskatoon, the minister said the time was not yet ripe for an alternate service by Canadian Pacific Airlines. Can the minister tell me when the time will be, since we are not going to have any connecting service in my province?


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: And Alberta.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would think that it would be a very inappropriate time to attempt to settle a question of that magnitude.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that all other employees of Air Canada who are not on strike have received letters to the effect that they will get no more salary after midnight, tonight? Is the minister prepared to do anything about this, since this is not common practice in other air lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not yet been informed by Air Canada of what the hon. gentleman says, but he is very probably correct. I shall look into the matter at once.
{Later;]


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport arising out of a question asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon. I should like to ask the minister whether, if the

Air Canada strike comes to pass, permission will be granted to Canadian Pacific Airlines to lay on extra services in order to meet extra travel demands?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it would be appropriate for me to anticipate any request which Canadian Pacific Airlines might wish to make to the Air Transport Board, which has a certain jurisdiction in this matter. I think, perhaps, we ought to allow the due processes of law to operate.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Will the minister make available the good offices of his department to assist Conservative delegates to return home from the conference, should the air strike continue?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In welcoming the hon. gentleman back from Moscow and in expressing the hope that he, like my hon. friend the leader of the house, appreciated, while in Moscow, the great superiority of our parliamentary system-when it works well-I can assure him that if he will contribute his bit to getting on with the business of parliament I will do my best to get the Tories out of town as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Karkness (Calgary North):: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. Have instructions been issued to or by certain military establishments that officers, both naval and air force, serving at those establishments shall be addressed by their equivalent army ranks. If so, that, of course, is contrary to the National Defence Act.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to correct my hon. friend. There is no restriction in the National Defence Act in that regard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the minister's interpretation of the act is correct, but I would ask him to check into what I have previously asked, because my information is that this practice is being carried on at certain establishments.
November 14, 1966


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should be very pleased to check, but I should like to underline the fact that there is no restriction in the National Defence Act, as it presently stands, respecting what my hon. friend says.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: My question is directed to the government house leader. I would ask him whether it is his intention to hold over the house, like a club, his motion for continuous sittings night and day, in an attempt to intimidate the members of parliament.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. The government house leader never had any such intention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: But the government house leader did feel, when he returned last week, that such conduct was going on in relation to the right of the government to have the matter of supply considered and decided that it was only prudent, under those circumstances, to put on the order paper a motion that would give all hon. members opposite an opportunity to debate the subject matter, that apparently was very much in their minds, for as long as they wished to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman mentioned his return. That was the return from Moscow, was it not?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My supplementary question to the government house leader is this: Is this a result of his visit to Moscow, and does he prefer their type of government to the parliamentary system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is entirely out of order.


George James McIlraith: On a question of privilege


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George James McIlraith: Answering the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order in the House of Commons, please?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I believe that I have a right under our practice, to make an answer to such inferences and charges as were contained in the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I asked you your preference.


George James McIlraith: I can do that best by telling them that I was appalled at the lack of regard for parliamentary rights that I found on my return on Thursday, and that I am prepared to debate that subject with both of them, together, at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the question of privilege brought up by the Minister of Public Works, I want to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In order that parliament may function properly without any resentment, and without holding a club over the heads of members of parliament, would not the Prime Minister consider asking for unanimous consent to withdrawing the motion in question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is not a club; this is an opportunity. I point out to my hon. friend that under our rules 30 days are available for debate on all forms of supply. Six, or at the most, seven days are now available, because of all the time that has been taken up on interim supply. So if we are to continue with interim supply, and deal also with the other appropriations in six days, we may have to sit beyond the regular hours so that members of parliament will be given a chance to speak.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does not the Prime Minister consider that it would be more favourable to have unanimous agreement to sit longer hours than to have a motion of this kind hanging over the heads of all hon. members?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but when we asked last Thursday night for unanimous consent to sit until midnight, that was turned down by my hon. friends opposite.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not want in any way-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -to ask any questions which would be embarrassing. When the government house leader was in Moscow he

November 14, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry learned how to deal with oppositions, did he not?


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the government house leader, but I shall now direct it to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister not aware that the house leader, in explaining the motion to the public, said that it was put on the order paper prior to the finding of the money. If so, why did not the house leader withdraw the motion on Thursday when the money was found?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could answer that question. My statement I think should be put on the record. I have the precise text of it here, and it is this:


An hon. Member:: What date?


George James McIlraith: It is this.
The notice of motion for continuous sittings of the House of Commons, appearing on the notice paper, was given on Thursday, before it was known that funds could be made available to meet this public service pay period. It was given in an effort to do everything possible to obtain the money required to issue pay cheques.
Now that sufficient money is available for this purpose, it will not be necessary to proceed on Monday with the motion for continuous sittings.
I hope that it will not be necessary to proceed with the motion at any time. Certainly it will not be proceeded with until after Wednesday at the earliest, and then only if the official opposition is continuing to use the interim supply debate for purposes other than those intended and in a way that interferes with the rights of parliament.
If the motion to extend hours is proceeded with, it will be to protect the rights of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton South on a supplementary question, but I suggest that after this we might go to another subject.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon Soulh):: My
supplementary question is to the Minister of National Revenue. I would ask him how he can justify asking for a decision from the legal department in respect of paying civil service salaries on Thursday morning unless the money had actually been found on Wednesday.


Edgar John Benson: I think my hon. friend is under a complete misapprehension about what goes on.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the minister, but I thought he was going to say he would explain his position on this matter later, when interim supply is being discussed, which I hope will be in a very few minutes.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. lady, the Secretary of State, and is in reference to the C.B.C. intention to black out the play-offs of certain football games. In particular, now that the Saskatchewan Roughriders have displayed such great superiority over Winnipeg, would the minister not see to it that these games are broadcast in the west?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: Last week, when this matter was raised, I took it up with the C.B.C. and they arranged that their affiliated station in Saskatoon might carry the programs, provided C.T.V. would give them the right to do so. I have not yet been informed whether the private broadcasting network has agreed that the games should be shown. If so, the C.B.C. affiliate has been given permission to leave the national network long enough to carry these games.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I was asked a question by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale about the television coverage of the western football playoffs in Saskatoon and the area. I am sorry the hon. member has left the house, but perhaps one of his colleagues will advise him that I now have received information that although the C.B.C. has made the necessary arrangements with its affiliate and sponsors, the C.T.V. and its Saskatchewan affiliate in Moose Jaw have refused to supply the feed to the corporation. There is nothing the C.B.C. or the government can do, but it may be that those persons interested in the Saskatoon area may, by their own persuasion, change the mind of the C.T.V. network and the Moose Jaw originator.


Mr. Reg Canlelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. lady whether under the circumstances, since this points out very clearly the poor coverage which exists in
November 14, 1966

this area and in the province of Saskatchewan, she would now press the C.B.C. to start its station in Saskatoon. It has been under consideration for many years.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the C.B.C. cannot start any station without a licence from the B.B.G. The hearing in respect of that particular application has been set for January or February.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister would find out whether the C.B.C. and its affiliate attempted to get this program free? Is the difficulty between the C.T.V., the C.B.C. and its affiliate one of finances?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not know. The C.B.C. advertiser which normally has that spot has given the C.B.C. and its affiliate permission to release the time in order that the C.T.V. emanation might be covered. I do not know whether the roadblock itself has been a result of some other financial consideration.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. lady a supplementary question. In view of the fact that this action on the part of the C.T.V. concerns not only this incident but also is a precedent for similar action in other matters, would she consider referring this refusal of the C.T.V. to the Board of Broadcast Governors for consideration and action?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No. I am informed that normally the broadcast of these games is arranged on a split basis, and that some of the games were to be carried by the C.B.C. and some by C.T.V. in the area. It appears this year that Saskatoon has shown a remarkable resurgence and there is a particular interest in this area which may not always exist. It is not possible for both networks to carry all playoff games.



MANITOBA-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL COVERAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State. It is a question of prime importance in this field. Could she inform the house of what progress is being made to provide television service in northern Manitoba, where thre is none whatsoever?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Last week I had an exchange of correspondence with the premier of Manitoba regarding this service. This week I should have the information before me, which may form the basis for announcing a definite date for service in northern Manitoba.



SOCIAL INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
replica of flag on certificates
On the orders of the day:
['I do not have any detailed information about that point, but since the incident took place on the Jordanian border and since the Canadians are in and around the C-aza strip, I should think it highly unlikely.']
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether it is a fact that on the social insurance number certificates the coat of arms of Canada has been, or is being, replaced by a replica of the new flag and, if so, whether this is a part of the government's program for the gradual removal of the traditional symbols of Canada's history and connections?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The new design for the social security or social insurance number certificates was decided on, as I recollect, some long months ago. There has been no change in that decision, a decision which was explained to the house at the time, when there was no apparent reaction from any source.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. We took the strongest possible objection to the removal of the coat of arms.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then why is this being raised as a matter or urgency, now?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister should recall those things which he so continually forgets with regard to those symbols of our past, and our traditions, which this government is removing.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question to address to the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. gentleman in a position to make a statement to the house concerning the present fighting between Israel and Jordan? Can he tell us whether any Canadian troops have been involved in the fighting and, if so, whether there have been any casualties?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I am in a position to make a short

November 14, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry statement on this matter. According to the latest reports available, an Israeli force including tanks and armoured vehicles crossed the Jordanian border on Sunday morning and carried out an attack on a village south of Jerusalem. This attack was apparently carried out after three Israelis were killed and several injured as a result of the mining of a patrol vehicle near the Jordan border. According to the information so far in hand it would appear that the Israeli reprisal action was the largest we have seen in some years and resulted in loss of life and considerable damage to property. I understand that the United Nations observers in the area succeeded in negotiating a cease fire and investigations are now under way which will lead to a report to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
The Canadian government is seriously concerned over the acts of violence which have taken place in the area during recent months, and regrets that this violence is now taking on a more serious form. It is our sincere hope -a hope which I am sure is shared by all hon. members-that both sides will use due restraint in the situation which has arisen and that the cease fire negotiated by the United Nations observers in the area will be maintained.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the Prime Minister in a position to let us know whether there have been any casualties in the Canadian forces serving with the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not have any detailed information about that point, but since the incident took place on the Jordanian border and since the Canadians are in and around the C-aza strip, I should think it highly unlikely.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but in the tumult he left the house. I will therefore address it to. his parliamentary secretary or to the acting minister. In view of the minister's statement at the opening of the sitting today that there would be amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, would the minister state whether there will be an amendment regarding the withdrawal of the 365-day clause which applies to the war veterans?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairsl: Mr. Speaker, may I take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs which I hope can be taken as notice in a similar manner. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the use of replicas of awards for gallantry, including the Victoria Cross, as an advertising device or premium in breakfast cereal packages? Is this not contrary to regulations regarding the issue or reproduction of gallantry awards, and does the minister contemplate any action?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer this question to the Minister of National Defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure my hon. friend that as soon as this question was brought to my attention I wrote to the president of the company concerned to ask for his co-operation in this regard, because I believed he would feel, as does my hon. friend, that we should not in any way diminish the importance of the great honours which have been won by our gallant men at arms.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board in the continued and unexplained absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). Will the Minister of National Revenue adjust the resolution presently before us on interim supply asking in round figures for $372 million, to correspond to the real amount of money that is now required in view of the finding of a lost $54 million?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please; I think this question can be put during the debate on interim supply.

November 14, 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Are we not being obliged at present to debate a resolution which is entirely false, because it is asking for an excessive amount of money?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should answer this question. It is customary in interim supply to grant one twelfth of supply each month. It might not be possible for departments to spend exactly one twelfth of the supply provided for that month; but I should also like to point out to my hon. friend that if his party does not discontinue the filibuster it is presently carrying on, the entire supply will have to be passed in six days.


Mr. Speaker:: The answer given by the minister confirms my view that this is a matter which should be discussed when the subject comes before the committee of supply.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the delightfully humorous Minister of Transport. Are officials of his department investigating the frightening invasion of the civil rights and liberties of a good Canadian union at Vancouver by the installation of listening devices in the Ritz Hotel for the purpose of hearing their executive and other meetings?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot accept the preamble of the hon. gentleman's question. This is his own affair. However, the sole question that is of concern to the Department of Transport is whether or not unlicensed radio transmitting and receiving was taking place, and that is being investigated. The department is quite properly only discharging the responsibilities given to the department by parliament.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport relating to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I should like to ask the minister whether he would investigate the situation in which President McLaughlin of the seaway union, along with the trustees, authorized a substantial payment of money in order that the vice president of 23033-623
Inquiries of the Ministry that union could withdraw without bringing further publicity to the union on another assault charge similar to the Hal Banks affair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if this matter were to be investigated by me it would go far beyong the powers given by parliament to the Minister of Transport.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board. Could the minister report to the house on what progress he and his departmental officials are making in dealing with the threatened strike of the postal workers of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that Hon. Mr. Justice Montpetit has been working here since last Thursday morning, although it has been erroneously reported in the press that he started his work on Friday. Continuous meetings have taken place since that day. My officials and I met with Mr. Justice Montpetit this morning and joint meetings of my officials and the postal workers will take place this afternoon and will continue in the evening. I can assure the hon. member that the government is making every possible effort to try to resolve this very difficult matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have plenty of money now.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will put it to the Prime Minister. On October 20 I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) what action he intended to take in regard to the suggested increase in the price of farm machinery, but I got no reply. On November 1 all the big farm machinery companies announced an increase in the price of farm implements, which will mean an increase to a farmer of $500 on a $10,000 tractor. What action will the government take

November 14, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry to protect the tanners from this unjustified increase in the price of farm machinery?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this matter with the Minister of Agriculture as soon as he returns late tonight or tomorrow morning.
With reference to the unexplained absence of another minister, may I say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is now in Washington discussing financial matters with the United States Secretary of the Treasury.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister further to a question which I asked in this regard last week. Has he had an opportunity yet of reviewing with his colleagues the government's decision respecting 3 per cent perpetual bonds? I ask this question in view of the increasing distress and dismay of which members of parliament are made aware as a result of letters from people from all over Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of discussing the matter again with the Minister of Finance. I will do so when he returns.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the attention of the Prime Minister been called to a recent judgment of the tax appeal board to the effect that the expenses of $300,000 of a single corporation incurred for solicited contributions made to both political parties to obtain contracts was a deductible expense for tax purposes, and does the Prime Minister consider that this rather remarkable judgment underlines the urgency of early action on the recommendations of the committee on election expenditures?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been called to that particular judgment; but it is now, by my hon. friend's question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Could he give the house and the people of Halifax some assurances that the announced intention to equalize grants in lieu of taxes with our tax structure in the city will in no way be impaired by the passage or the failure of the immediate passage of the new transport legislation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this question seems to me rather argumentative and perhaps not very urgent, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that if the legislation is passed by December 31 the government will take the action which I indicated would be taken at the time when the railways were given the opportunity to earn the money to pay the tax.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the Minister of Transport suggesting that in order to legalize the decision of the government this legislation has to be passed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. If the first question was in order, I have serious doubts about the second one.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On his trip to Vancouver for the air transport convention did he discuss with the B.C. government facilities leading out of or to gain access to Vancouver international airport, either by means of a tunnel or a bridge, which had been talked about in the past?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the question asked by the hon. member should not be placed on the order paper.


Robert William Prittie: With respect, I suggest that this question has been asked many times previously and is not as frivolous as many questions which have been asked here today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Robert William Prittie: I have a supplementary question. Was any progress made in respect of concluding an agreement concerning the financing of this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rather hope so.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a serious question of the Prime Minister? When does the minibudget fit into the priority scheme established for the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is one of the things which is on the priority list. I take it that my hon. friend is referring to the forthcoming baby budget. Before that is brought in it will be necessary to have the pensions legislation disposed of by the house, because it will have a bearing on the budget.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr.	Speaker, my supplementary
question also pertains to the minibudget. Would the Prime Minister advise the Minister of Finance to take into account the money which has been found in various crevices in government departments?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Co-mox-Alberni.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
POLITICAL ASYLUM FOR YUGOSLAV SEAMEN On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether the minister is in a position to comment on a letter sent to him on November 9 on behalf of a Toronto Croatian Society concerning the regulation dealing with Yugoslav seamen, and may I ask whether the minister is in a position to reconsider the policy in dealing with these seamen who are asking for political asylum, or status of refugees?


Mr. Speaker:: The question perhaps is one which should be placed on the order paper, but as hon. members recognize I have tried to be lenient this afternoon. In view of this the 23033-6232
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. member for Parkdale may be allowed to have his question answered.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the people who are representing these seamen are seeing the minister this week.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of his reference just a moment ago to the relationship between the old age pension increase and the baby budget can he arrange with the Minister of Finance to answer by Wednesday starred question 2,069 which has been on the order paper since October 20? This has to do with the amount of taxes the government has collected for old age pensions, and the amount of money paid out, in the last three and a half years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss that with the minister tomorrow.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State which arises out of the fact that I hold in my hand an invitation to attend the ceremony for the inauguration of the Confederation Train at Point Ellis in British Columbia January next. I should like to ask the minister whether one can read from this invitation the implication that the order in council of 1871 which authorized the construction of the railway from eastern Canada to Esquimau-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question is one which the Chair might be allowed to rule out of order, on the ground of urgency.
[DOT] (4.00 D.m.)

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved. That a sum not exceeding $371,999,867.43. being the aggregate ot-
(a)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
[Stage Direction]
November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
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.
['Agreed.\nNovember 14. 1966', 'Interim Supply\n[DOT] (8.00 p.m.)', 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.']
Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, the very few minutes that were left at my disposal on Thursday evening did not really permit me to get started on the most remarkable-and I underline the word "remarkable"-speech of the Prime Minister. I say it was remarkable. First of all, it disclosed a most extraordinary performance by this government in respect of supply and the traditional right of parliament to control supply.
This is something that my colleagues will take up after we have heard from the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board. I trust he will give us a

complete, detailed explanation of just what happened in this regard.
Having regard to the other part of the Prime Minister's statement, which I find remarkable, the facts I have received do not bear out the propositions he put forward about discussions on the question of integration and unification. I refer particularly to the discussion of unification by the committee on national defence. A lot of the information given created a completely false picture in so far as the activities and the opportunities of that committee are concerned, having in mind the feeling of the Minister of National Defence in this regard.
We have also noted the smokescreen created by the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of National Defence, who have suggested that our present attitude was carefully adopted because we were holding an annual meeting. There is no more truth in that suggestion than there would be in the suggestion that all the propaganda with regard to medicare was staged for the benefit of those Liberal cohorts who were here in large numbers three or four weeks ago. As a matter of fact, as far as I am concerned, the opposition to the government's stand on this matter was as valid this past week as it would have been two months ago and as it would be two months from now. This whole question involves a matter of principle. The Prime Minister cannot deny that opposition to this move, starting some eight or nine days ago, was actually voiced some time before the minister tabled the bill. The minister told us last June that no decision had been reached with regard to this whole proposal.
Let me develop the sequence of events to show what a completely false picture was presented to us the other night when the Prime Minister said, as recorded at page 9824 of Hansard for November 10:
The fact is that the evidence shows that in 1964-65-and this has already been put on record in Hansard-the defence committee met 36 times after the white paper had been made public and called 41 witnesses. In 1966 it met 15 times and called 34 witnesses including serving officers, retired officers and civilians. The minister and the associate minister appeared before the committee to discuss the white paper and to be interrogated on the question of integration leading to unification 63 times. There were 2,300 pages of testimony taken.
At that time, the ranks of docile cattle broke in to applaud. In 1964 and 1965 there were 36 meetings. Four of these meetings dealt with Bill No. C-90 to amend the National Defence Act, which involved the question of providing one defence chief.
November 14, 1966


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As well as integration and unification.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, not unification. Because one minor phrase appeared in the white paper, hon. members opposite are now trying to justify the suggestion that unification was a subject of that bill. Of those meetings that were held, two had regard to emergency planning with the Minister of Defence Production; two meetings had regard to regular officer training plans. The minister was not present at those meetings. There were four meetings during which the committee discussed the status of the reserve forces and examined the authors of the Suttie, Draper and Hendy reports. There were two subsequent meetings with the associate minister and two with the minister regarding these reports.
There were three meetings held in camera, at which the minister was not present, and three meetings with the Minister of Defence Production at which time we examined the operations of his department. There was one meeting following those meetings with the air industry of Canada to examine their brief, and two meetings having regard to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. There was one meeting after that related to recruiting. Those are the meetings the Prime Minister had in mind when he said the committee had an opportunity to discuss unification. That is just not the fact as one can readily see, and this is a matter of record. The minister was not present at a great majority of these meetings which were held in 1964 and 1965. The committee's deliberations finished in the month of March, 1965. There were no meetings of the defence committee during the balance of 1965.
As a matter of fact, as late June 7, 1965 the minister himself said, as recorded at page 2041 of Hansard for that date:
I think it might be agreeable if, as soon as the committee on defence is constituted, the defence staff provide a formal briefing to the committee and answer any questions on the command structure-
Apparently we were to deal with mobile command, but the house adjourned on June 30 without the defence committee having sat. The Prime Minister knows what he did with the balance of that year.
In 1966 the committee was constituted and held its organizational meeting on March 1, but it did not hold any other meetings because staffs were not available and there was no initiative on the part of the government to hold meetings. On May 5, the first meeting
Interim Supply
was held having regard to security and intelligence. The committee received a briefing on intelligence at that time.
On May 12, there were six Liberal members substituted on the committee. They were reappointed as members on May 26 because there was a delicate situation at the Halifax dockyards slated for discussion at the meetings of May 26 and 31. On June 2, there was a further intelligence briefing. On June 16 the committee visited the air transport command and met with training command people here in Ottawa on June 17. On June 21 we went to the mobile command. The minister and the Prime Minister I am sure well remember what happened on June 23 when we received a briefing in camera from the commander of the maritime command.
Let me remind the Prime Minister that integration and unification were discussed this year, but not in previous years. I will agree there was some discussion in this regard after May of this year, but the minister fobbed it off. We know as a matter of fact that no decision had been taken in this regard at that time, and we know as a result of evidence given by members of the defence forces that the minister had indicated it would take from three to five years for integration and unification to become fully effective. Notwithstanding everything that has been said, particularly by the Prime Minister and others, on November 7 I asked about the circumstances under which certain senior officers had retired. There was an indication by the minister at that time that this house would not hear about that. There is an interjection on the record which clearly suggests that we were not going to hear about the circumstances surrounding the retirement of those senior officers. Well, this is a most interesting prospect. Again the minister tells us that he does not want a discussion. He is afraid to come up with clean hands to indicate just what has happened in this regard. This was what provided the background, the thin, puny background of justification for the Prime Minister's speech on Thursday.
[DOT] (4.10 p.m.)
The government has found the money. We wonder whether this procedure is going to be repeated the next time the government is faced with the legitimate withholding of supply. After all, that is the fundamental purpose of this house. I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not necessarily the passage of legislation that is the prime purpose of this house. It is the granting of supply to the government. This restraint of interim supply, which has.

November 14, 1986
Interim Supply
been so flagrantly abused by the government on this occasion, is something that has to be clearly examined and must never provide a precedent tor the future.
This matter could have been handled so simply. I was disappointed with the Prime Minister on Thursday when he reiterated to me his refusal to my colleague from Peace River to have the report of the defence committee referred back to that committee for re-opening of the first item. After all, all the members of the opposition had dissociated themselves from this Committee Report. It was a shameful report, because a Liberal majority, on a quick motion, moved to report the estimates of this most important department back to the house without any comment.
Why was this done? The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who missed seven of the 16 sessions of this committee, came in at the last moment and said that we then had not received the transcript, and when we did get the transcript this evidence would be cold porridge; it would serve no useful purpose. The hon. member was more concerned about arranging some trips for the committee this fall; this is what he thought was important. It is all a matter of record, and the hon. member can look it up in the proceedings of the committee.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra did not know what had transpired during the sessions of the committee. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I have a complete record of his attendance. For four of the most important meetings, including that at which Rear Admiral Landymore appeared, the hon. member who proposed this motion was not even present; so it was going to be cold porridge for him. This is the type of thing that I suppose the Prime Minister felt was normal to expect from the committee. But surely our request was the most logical and proper way of dealing with this matter. It would not have affected the status of Bill No. C-243. We could have looked at many of these matters. I do not know why this was not done. Was it because the government had gone so far out on a limb that it could not back away from the present situation?
In so far as the bill itself is concerned, there is no doubt that its subject matter could have been referred to the committee. The Prime Minister discussed this question the other night. In respect to the transport bill of 1965, Bill No. C-120, its subject matter was referred to the committee. It is no fault of the opposition that the bill had to be completely rewrit-

ten because it went on a false premise. The new Transport bill would not have been presented to us the other day if it had not been for the railway strike, because it still required some work to be done on it.
In so far as the 1964 example of the Northwest Territories bill is concerned, there again on the initiative of my colleagues from Peace River and Yukon the contents of the bill were referred to the committee. The result, of course, was that the testimony was so adverse to the bill that the whole thing was dropped. It resulted in the Carrothers commission being appointed. We now have the Carrothers' report, and its recommendations are diametrically opposite, in many instances, to the contents of the original bill. Is this the reason the government fears to send the subject matter of the defence bill to the committee, because it is afraid of what the nature of the testimony might be and what the recommendations of the committee might be? It is interesting to speculate on that point.
The Prime Minister made much of a citation from May's Parliamentary Practice with regard to regular procedure in dealing with the bill. He also made a reference to the United States procedure. I do not quite share the Prime Minister's admiration for the United States procedure, but I would suggest to him that there is a fundamental philosophy at work in the desire of the house, and certainly of opposition members, to bring the provisions of this bill before the committee. I think that if he would examine the structure of European legislatures in this regard, he would find that legislation of this kind goes to the standing committees.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before second reading?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Before second reading; and they have the right of amending. This is the purpose of those legislative committees.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Are you talking about the U.K. parliament?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No. I said European-west European.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Which ones?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Holland, Belgium, Germany and France. Not all proceed in the same way, but the same principle applies.
In these countries, it is part of the feeling of the legislators that they want more say in the proposal of legislation. This is a feeling we saw among some of the Liberal backbenchers who were on the procedure committee. On
November 14, 1966

many occasions this was their point, namely, that there should be greater paricipation by the ordinary member in the consideration and formulation of the legislative process. I am not being partisan when I bring this forward for the consideration of the committee. I can tell the Prime Minister that this feeling will continue in ever increasing tempo, because the house wants to be informed before it is committed in principle to a particular form of legislation. The Prime Minister knows that many of the private members on the government side of the house have expressed this point of view, as have members on the opposition side.There is no difference in the sincerity of members in this respect. This is one of the reasons, I believe it is a valid principle that I am putting forward.
We have had two examples of this course and I am trying to make a third. I am being very sincere when I say that for something as fundamental as the unification of our forces we should receive all the information that is available. The minister has been as silent as a mummy about disclosing any particulars that are in his mind. Even those in the services have not any idea of what is intended. We are simply told that this is going to be done, and the house must accept it on principle. We have to consider this question on the basis of past performance and the minister's use of Rand formula language, something called "Hellyerlee", whereby we get the same phraseology. All across the country editorial writers and news commentators have asked the minister to explain what he is trying to do.
[DOT] (4.20 p.m.)
This is something that the minister has not been able to do, because in many instances he himself does not know what he is after.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I plan to explain this on second reading.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We cannot rely on the efficacy of that because the minister's explanations in the past have been so deficient.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You will not even listen to them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We have to listen to this Rand formula language which means nothing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How can you rely on the committee then?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Because the committee can get what we cannot get in this house the
Interim Supply
testimony of people who are recently out of the service. We would not have to rely on the three very venerable gentlemen the minister's special assistant trotted out the other day in support of unification, men who had been out of the forces for over 25 years.


Mr. Mafheson:: Would the hon. member accept a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask the hon. member,
who has always been vice chairman and therefore a member of the steering committee, whether there was ever a witness he asked to be called who was not in fact called?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no question here of a withholding of witnesses, and no allegation has ever made in this regard. I do not know the relevancy of the hon. member's question.


John Ross Matheson: Did the vice chairman ever object to the agenda of any of our defence committee meetings?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, because I participated in arranging it. I am not the one who is objecting to any of the agendas we had. It is the Prime Minister who said that we failed to discuss unification.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Is it not a fact that the proceedings of the defence committee were terminated after the calling of what I might refer to as official witnesses by the minister and before any other critics could be called?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is very much so. Had the defence committee wanted to call any outside witnesses on this year's estimates, and this matter had been considered informally, it would not have been possible to do so because the government majority, acting on that very quick motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, saw to it that the committee sent the estimates back to the house without comment.
So far as the transcript of the proceedings at the June 23 meeting is concerned, which was the occasion when the commander of maritime command appeared before the committee, so six weeks expired, if not more, before hon. members received the report. As a matter of fact, I know that the clerk did not have it back for between five to six weeks. It

November 14. 1966
Interim Supply
was in the hands of those in the minister's office for at least three weeks.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not correct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was checking daily with the clerk. I know it took about two weeks to type it up and get it over to the minister, and then there was the question of the security checks. But it was in the minister's office for three weeks while he was in Europe.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I had it for only two days.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister may have had it for only two days, but it was in the hands of the members of his office for three weeks. That is completely indefensible.
Another matter is this. It is only the minister or his assistant who is allowed to check the blues of the testimony given. None of the members can see what they have said or whether or not it makes sense. But apparently the minister or his executive assistant can do all the doctoring up they like, the fine polishing, of the testimony given before this committee.
With regard to the testimony given on June 23, it is very difficult to assert that the remarks of any given member or any questions he may have asked have all been included because there is no way of checking. It is very difficult some weeks later when you see the report to say that this is exactly what you have said or that something has not been changed. This is what I object to.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should not cast any aspersions here. He knows that there is a tape recording in existence and the whole thing is there. He should not give the impression that there is any possibility of doctoring or changing what was said because the tape recording can be produced to a committee of this house at any time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then I ask the minister whether it is available. The minister does not know whether it is available and is kept.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know but I assume it is, and I am sure it will be available for the purpose of-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is an assumption made by the minister. He assumes it is kept for verification purposes. In saying that, the minister must know that he should spell out the procedure whereby a member of the house can have the tape played back in order

to verify the transcript of his evidence. This is something I would point out. Particularly when a transcript of evidence has been vetted for security reasons, the question arises: How has the transcript been examined?
My colleagues are going to deal with the constitutionality of the actions of the government. This being the second time I have spoken in this debate, I must say I should like to hear the chairman of the committee reply to the questions I put to him the other night as to when he actually heard, directly or indirectly, about the change in the testimony of Admiral Landymore. This matter is highly important to his relationship with the committee, because until the committee report was presented to the house about one week after June 29 there would still have been an opportunity for the committee to meet, if there had been an intimation that the testimony had been changed, and to do something about it. I think the government is taking a woefully wrong course in this regard.
With regard to unification, basically I do not like it but I will say this. I would be a lot more satisfied, and so would the members of the opposition, if we could hear from various service officers, both serving and past officers, and also from outside witnesses as to how this unification is going to affect Canada's forces. The present situation cannot continue. Hundreds of men of experience are leaving every month, and are being replaced by recruits. This is not good enough for the professional force that we have to have.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated on orders of the day, I should like to say a few words about interim supply. The first thing I should like to say is that it is a wonderful thing a Conservative convention is going on because I have not seen so many members of the official opposition in their seats since I became a member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I have always admired the sense of humour of the Minister of National Revenue, who is now engaging in a form of comedy. But he knows he should have said he is sorry so many Conservatives are absent this afternoon because there is a convention in progress. The people who are here are holding the fort for their colleagues. The minister knows better than that, so let us have the truth. We have not had it so far today, but let us have the truth now.
November 14, 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister accept a question?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I really spoke in jest. I was simply trying to compliment hon. members opposite on having so many members of their party in their seats on a Monday afternoon.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A fine compliment that was.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister not accept my question?
[DOT] (4.30 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: May I continue with what I was saying?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We showed the arrogance of the Liberal government today.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, for the past nine days-we are now in the tenth day-we have seen a violent abuse of the use of interim supply. I should like to take us back a little, to look at the purpose of interim supply. Interim supply is to allow the government to carry on for a single month, or for two or three months, and pay bills while the full supply of the house is debated before committees. This year the house, in its wisdom, decided that the time for supply should be limited to 30 days. We have referred many departments to committees.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Would the hon. minister permit a question? Is not interim supply also an opportunity for the opposition to raise points which cannot be raised under any other item before the house?


Edgar John Benson: In a moment or two I shall comment on that. This year the house chose to refer the estimates of a good many departments to committees, where they could have more intensive investigation by members of the house, in order to cut down the time the house spent on particular supply items. This, we hoped, would work relatively well. I believe the committees have done a good job. But, what do we find? In the midst of this the official opposition chooses to use interim supply, for a period which is the longest since confederation, to discuss an item which is on the order paper. This is not an unusual item, such as is ordinarily brought up during interim supply, but rather an item which is on the order paper and on which there will be ample opportunity for debate.


An hon. Member:: Who started it.
Interim Supply


Edgar John Benson: There will be ample opportunity to debate both the merits and the details of the legislation involved.
I believe that we have seen a violent abuse of the procedure on interim supply. I should like to point out the times spent on interim supply in recent years. Interim supply is usually passed after items, such as mentioned by my hon. friend opposite which are not on the order paper and which cannot be brought up in the ordinary manner in the house, are debated. In 1950, there were four interim supply bills in four days. In 1956 there were four interim supply bills in four days. In 1957 there were three bills in three days. In 195758 there were three bills in three days. In 1958 there were three bills in three days. In 1959 there were two bills in two days. In 1960 there were three bills in two days. In 1960-61 there were four bills in three days. In 1962 we had two bills in two days, and in 1962-63, before dissolution, we took ten days to consider three bills. In 1963, after the new session, we took nine days to debate four bills. In 1964-65, 22 days were spent on five interim supply bills. This means that the time of the house is being used more and more on interim supply rather than in discussing those supply items which properly come before the house.


Murdo William Martin: Would the hon. minister permit another question? Is the minister aware that members on the government side have taken over 30 per cent of the debating time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes; explain that.


Edgar John Benson: I would question this, Mr. Chairman. I should like to see the hon. member's figures.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Are you questioning the veracity of the hon. member? Are you questioning his honesty?


Edgar John Benson: Not at all; I asked him to supply me with figures.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is we who ought to have figures.


Edgar John Benson: I submit that the past nine days-and this is the tenth day-have been the longest period spent on interim supply in Canada's history. Hon. members opposite, in the official opposition, have been trying to break the back of the government by starving suppliers and those persons entitled to pay from the Government of Canada. I think this is very unfair treatment of people who deal in

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
good faith with the Government of Canada. There are six supply motions in the house-


An hon. Member:: There are four this year.


Edgar John Benson: I beg your pardon; by agreement it has been reduced to four. After the supply motions, hon. members opposite may stand up and vote lack of confidence in the government and defeat the government. Instead of doing that, they are using interim supply to try to starve out the government; and in starving the government, they are starving the people with whom the government must deal.
A few weeks ago I can remember hon. members opposite saying that we had a relatively limited amount of time left to deal with supply; let all the parties get together and decide how much time ought to be spent on each department. The government thought this was a very good idea. But what do we find a few weeks later? The official opposition is using ten days-this is the tenth day-to debate something that is not really a supply item at all but a piece of business already on the order paper. That piece of business can be discussed fully by the opposition when it is brought forward by the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When was it put on the order paper?


Edgar John Benson: I should like to indicate what happened with respect to interim supply, and the availability of government funds which would enable the government to determine whether the midmonth payrolls could be met, and whether suppliers' invoices could be met.
I wish to assure the hon. gentleman for Winnipeg South Centre that there was no juggling of accounts, and that no money was used out of any vote for any purpose other than as indicated in that particular vote.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How can you say that? You are asking us to accept your word. How will the minister produce the evidence with respect to this?


Edgar John Benson: In a few minutes I shall table Treasury Board minutes indicating the proceedings taken, proceedings taken through contingency vote 15, which is the vote providing for special circumstances such as these.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister allow a question?


Edgar John Benson: I should like to finish this statement, then I shall be pleased to answer any question.

For the first week in October no special action was taken on this particular situation, as it related to interim supply and the mid-November payroll. No action was considered necessary, because on many occasions in the past two years interim supply has not been granted until the eighth, the ninth, or even the tenth day of the month. I do not mean after ten days of debate, but on the eighth, ninth or tenth day of the month. This has not created any particular difficulty.
On Tuesday, November 8, it was brought to my attention that the fact of November 11 being a holiday meant that the first midmonth payroll would fall on November 10. I still, at that point, hoped the opposition would act responsibly and pass one miserable month's interim supply, which is what the government was asking. I then realized that early action would be necessary if we were to avoid difficulties in meeting our mid-November payrolls on schedule.
Accordingly, I reviewed the situation on Tuesday evening, November 8, with the staff of the Treasury Board. The first fact that became apparent related to the ten departments for which full supply had already been granted by parliament. It seemed clear that no obstacle presented itself to the payment of civil servants of those departments, and, accordingly, on November 8 I gave instructions that for these ten departments mid-November payrolls should be met in the normal way.
I also gave instructions that a detailed examination should be made of the position of each vote in the remaining departments which were operating on the basis of interim supply. These are the departments for which full supply had not been granted by parliament.
The following day, November 9, it was related to me that in a substantial number of cases votes of these departments had sufficient funds left over from earlier grants of interim supply to meet their mid-November payrolls, but that in a number of other cases, the votes had balances remaining that were insufficient for this purpose. At this point the question arose as to whether authority should be given to pay mid-November payrolls in the case of those votes which had sufficient balances remaining.
I was concerned about the inequities which would arise if some of the civil servants in these departments were to be paid for mid-November and others were not to be paid, merely because of the circumstance that some votes retained sufficient balance to make this possible and others did not.
November 14, 1966



[DOT] (4.40 p.m.)
I inquired as to the amount of money which it would be necessary to transfer from the finance contingencies vote No. 15 to make possible a meeting of all mid-November payrolls. Perhaps at this point it would be useful for me to read into the record the wording of vote No. 15 under finance contingencies.
Contingencies-to supplement other votes and to provide for miscellaneous minor and unforseen expenses not otherwise provided for including awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act, subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, and authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations.
I was advised later in the day that the amount in question was $3.4 million, a figure which was revised the following day to $2,160 million. I was further concerned about the legal position if the contingencies vote were used for the purposes which I have described in the circumstances which existed at the time, and gave instructions that a legal opinion be obtained from the deputy minister of justice covering this aspect of the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that a written opinion?


Edgar John Benson: There was a verbal opinion obtained; this is being supported by a written opinion to follow. The opinion of the deputy minister was obtained on the following morning. It confirmed that the wording of the finance vote No. 15 (contingencies) clearly contained authority for making transfers from that vote to supplement other votes, either for payment of salaries or for other purposes. At that time it was also confirmed that the amount of money to be transferred was of the order of $2.16 million, over half of which was required for a single vote-the Royal Canadian Mounted Police vote-arising out of the pay increase awarded to the R.C.M.P. in September of this year.
When I received this information-this was on Thursday-I gave instructions that the necessary Treasury Board minutes should be prepared for a regular meeting of Treasury Board on Thursday afternoon. It was at this meeting on Thusday afternoon, November 10, that the minutes were passed conferring authority for the transfer out of vote No. 15 of the funds required to meet the mid-November payrolls.
I should like to assure hon. members that these were the only transfers made. The transfers were made out of vote No. 15 (contingencies) to supplement those few votes in government which did not have sufficient
Interim Supply
funds already voted by parliament to meet their payrolls.
I do not think there is anything further I can add as to the chronology. At this point, with the permission of the committee, I should like to table extracts from the minutes of the meeting of the Treasury Board held in Ottawa on November 10, 1966, transferring amounts from vote No. 15 to a number of other votes. I should like to indicate the votes which were transferred and the total amounts: to the Auditor General, $53,000; to the Department of Finance, $120,000; to the Department of Fisheries, $15,000; to the Department of National Health and Welfare, $349,500; to the Department of Public Works, $315,000; to the Department of the Secretary of State, $105,000; to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $1,120,000; to the Department of Trade and Commerce, $37,000, and to the Board of Transport Commissioners, $45,000.
There were no other transfers, and the only transfers made were from the financial contingencies vote in order to meet the payrolls, and, later, by approval, to pay the suppliers accounts which had accumulated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? In view of the wording of the item which he has read into the record, does the hon. gentleman not recognize that there is a difference between using money to supplement a vote and using money to replace a vote? Isn't that what was done in this case, to provide money to take the place of money which had not been provided by parliament up to this point?


Edgar John Benson: I must, of course, rely on the advice of the law officers of the crown in this regard. I have relied on this advice, and I believe my position has been further reinforced inasmuch as the Auditor General, who is the watch dog of parliament and who is particularly concerned about what is done by the government in matters involving finance, was one who applied for an allocation from this vote to make up enough money to meet his own payroll.


The Chairman:: I am wondering whether the minister wishes to have these documents printed in Hansard. There is the question of tabling documents in committee-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to suggest that that be done. They are relevant to the argument, and they can only be tabled in the house. I suggest that the committee give consent to having them printed.

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give consent to having these documents printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: See Appendix for the documents in question.]


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister graciouslysaid he would answer questions at the end of his statement. I would ask him this. If, on the basis of his argument this afternoon, he feels legally justified in taking the action he did, why did he not take that step at the beginning of this debate and say to the opposition-


An hon. Member:: What?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the minister is so concerned about time being taken-and it is all controlled under the new rules, anyway-why did he not make that transfer of funds immediately? Why did he wait so long to find out his rights in that regard?


Edgar John Benson: I presumed when this debate began that the opposition would act, as in previous debates, in a normal and reasonable manner in dealing with interim supply. I did not anticipate that the official opposition would stretch out this debate to ten days. As soon as it became obvious to the government that the opposition did not intend to act in a normal manner, as has been the case ever since confederation in Canada, I deemed it necessary to take the steps I did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister one further question? When he receives the opinion of the deputy minister of justice on this matter in written form, will he table it?


Edgar John Benson: At this point I should like simply to say that I will consider the matter. A question has been raised previously in connection with tabling of legal opinions provided by law officers of the crown for ministers of the crown. I should like to take this question into consideration before a decision is made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While the minister is taking this into consideration will he read the arguments advanced by Liberal members of the house in the session of 1962-63 when the government of that day was asked to table an opinion with regard to a certain order in council?


Edgar John Benson: I will certainly undertake to read the arguments put forward by the Liberal opposition of that day, as well as arguments made in reply by the Conservative government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether he will give some thought to the fact that while, normally, a legal opinion given to a minister is confidential, and understandably so, this is a matter which affects the rights of parliament and its control of the purse strings. So parliament, as well as the minister, is entitled to know the terms of this opinion.


Edgar John Benson: I can assure hon. gentlemen opposite that I shall give all matters with respect to the legal opinion careful thought. I can assure them that such a legal opinion was obtained from the Department of Justice.


An hon. Member:: Based on what?


Edgar John Benson: It is based on interpretation of this particular section as applied to the particular situation which existed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Timmins.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would have the floor in ordinary circumstances, unless the hon. member wishes to ask a question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I understood the hon. member wished to ask a question.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: No; I wanted to take part in the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not intend to speak at great length on this subject at the moment, but I thought there should be a suitable reply to some of the statements which the minister has made.
Before going on to the substance of what I have to say, may I ask the minister a question? Is the hon. gentleman informing us now that the total amount of money which he required in order to meet the salaries of civil servants and others was $2,16 million and that no other moneys were transferred or used or taken from the contingencies fund except that amount of money?
[DOT] (4.50 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, what I said was that in looking at all the accounts we found we had enough money for ten departments. If my hon. friend will read my statement, he will see I was very careful in what I said. We found we had full supply in ten departments,
November 14, 1966

so no money was necessary for them. We had the complete authority of the House of Commons to meet the payrolls in those departments, and make all payments for the balance of the year. In regard to other departments, we found that some votes had sufficient funds left in them to cover their payrolls as of the middle of November.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister referring to money that had been voted for payrolls?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, money that had been voted by parliament for the specific purpose of the vote. The only amount which it was necessary to transfer from the contingency to other votes so as to bring them up to the required amount was $2,160 million. No money was spent that was not voted by parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then all the stories in the press with regard to computers operating for three days in a row, and a tremendous search among all departments to see where the money was to be found, is just a tissue of lies? Was it a lie that $54 million plus $2 million from the contingency fund was required, making a total of $56 million in order to meet the commitments of the minister at the present time?


Edgar John Benson: I should not like to accuse anyone of fabricating a tissue of lies, as my hon. friend seems to be doing so easily. I suggest to him that he read my statement carefully and he will then understand the situation completely, even though it may be difficult for him to pick up figures in a hurry.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not difficult for me to pick up figures in a hurry but it is difficult to get to the root of the matter with an evasive minister. I was just drawing attention to stories that have appeared in the newspapers, and to statements made by the minister over T.V. and radio, which did not indicate to the general public that all he was doing was withdrawing $2.16 million from the contingency fund under the Department of Finance and using that to pay the salaries in other departments.
The minister has not denied these stories so we are left at sea, despite the fact we have heard the minister speak on this subject. Now, we are instructed by him to read his statement two or three times, which of course we will do. He tells us that all he has done has been to transfer money from the contingency fund of the Department of Finance to meet the salaries of people in the various departments.
Interim Supply


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I should explain to the hon. member that the real problem was not in the transfer of $2,160,000 but going through the various votes and supplementary accounts in the departments in order to determine how much to transfer and whether or not it was necessary.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps before this debate comes to a conclusion we will have a little more information from the minister, and an exact statement from him as to how much money was moved from one place to another. I also hope we will have the legal opinion of his advisers on whether or not this is the correct procedure.
It is our hope that we will hear from the Auditor General. The minister referred to the Auditor General in his statement giving us the impression that the Auditor General rushed over to the minister and said: "Look, I need $36,000 in order to pay my staff. Please supply it from the contingency fund."
It may well be that the Auditor General has only heard of this from the minister's statement.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege. The treasury board does not issue funds without having a requisition from a department. When I said there was a requisition from the Auditor General for this particular amount of money I would ask the hon. member to take me at my word and look at the treasury board minute.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is only now that we are informed that the requisition was from the department of the Auditor General. The minister left us with the impression that it was the Auditor General himself who asked for this money, and this is what I objected to.


Edgar John Benson: No, it was his department.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are watching the minister very closely. He left us with the impression that this was approved by the Auditor General. Whether or not he intended to leave that impression is not for me to say, but the fact that he mentioned the Auditor General during orders of the day and immediately afterward in the first statement that he made created the public impression that the Auditor General had approved of this action. This is what we do not know yet.
Mr. Chairman, I think a complete investigation should be carried out over and above the minister's statement. We like to accept the minister's statements on all occasions but we are entitled to get all the facts.

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
I would like to put on the record some of the reasons why we think this matter should be carefully investigated. The announcement by the Prime Minister made on Thursday evening, and the statements by the minister of national revenue on T.V. and to the press, indicated that many millions of dollars were available to the government for the payment of the November mid-month accounts without authorization being required by parliament.
According to the opinion that one would form, from listening to these statements or from reading them in the press, if the government has discovered cash reserves which were not hitherto known there must be a serious weakness in their accounting procedure which would require an immediate investigation. We were astonished at the tremendous computer exercise which was carried out by the minister, and then his gleeful note of success when he announced that he had found all this money. According to the press, it amounted to $54 million. Now, the minister tells us it was only a little over $2 million and it come from a fund about which everyone knew.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege; I should like to say that to my knpwledge I never mentioned the figure of $54 million, either publicly or privately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member of Winnipeg South Centre let me interject a question to see if we can clarify the situation? Can the minister tell us what was the total amount required for the departments for which estimates have not been finalized for the year for the payment of mid-November salaries, combining the $2,160,000 and the other money that he found in the various votes?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I have already asked my officials to accumulate these figures for the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean you still do not know?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I have a good idea but I have learned not to quote figures that may be inaccurate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is why we insist on getting the full information. Now, thanks to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, a little additional information was given us. The minister has left the impression that to meet the salary commitments he just needed $2,160,000 from the contingency fund, but of course he had to use money from other

sources in order to make the mid-month salary payments. Why did he not tell us that immediately?
I expected him to stand up here and say he required so much money for the mid-November salary payments, and of that amount the department had such sums available and that he had to draw from the contingency fund to make up the total. However, he did not say that.
I will continue with the thoughts which had occurred to me last night, so that they will be on the record. If funds appropriated for one purpose are now being used for another, the government may be contravening the Financial Administration Act and may be acting without authority. This is the question which arises in the minds of members of parliament and of the public, because I think four people asked me this question yesterday evening.
Another question occurs to me. If the government is acting legally, then the Minister of Finance is misleading the house in asking for funds in excess of those required for the purposes set out in his resolution, and he should have made that clear when he brought the resolution before the house.


Edgar John Benson: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he wish me to deal with the questions as he puts them one by one or deal with them at some future time?
[DOT] (5.00 o.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. These are not questions I would put to the Minister of National Revenue. I would want the Minister of Finance here to answer these questions, so that we would be certain of the information we were getting. As I said, these are questions which arose in my mind and in the minds of members of the general public. What is going on? Is there anything being hidden? This is what I want to know. I have simply phrased these questions as they were indicated to me by other interested people.
Unless some immediate action is taken, parliament will not know until some time in 1968 whether or not the government has been acting legally in the present situation because the Auditor General will not report on the present financial transactions until he has concluded his survey of the year 1967. The Auditor General reviews past accounts, and generally is 12 months behind in his survey. This is the normal procedure. Almost every report which the Auditor General submits to parliament indicates there have been errors made by the administration in the operation
November 14, 1966

of the various departments and in the operation of government. So, we have reason to wonder whether the Auditor General, in this instance, might not find that something had been done which was contrary to normal practice or possibly contrary to the statutes.
The approval of supply by parliament, following the precedent now set by the government, will be clouded with suspicion in the future unless there is a complete disclosure to parliament by the Auditor General of the nature and the scope of the present financial transactions. I think this is what has to be done in order that the whole matter may be cleared up. It is all very well for the minister to get up and tell us what he has done and encourage us to read his speech half a dozen times so that we may understand it. I have already pointed out, however, that he did not include in his remarks some of the information we want. I have shown now that from the standpoint of the Auditor General, we may not get this full information for at least a year or more likely some time in the year 1968. By that time the government will hope everything will have been forgotten. My hope is that in the interval the government will have been defeated and dismissed. We will not have the facts before us until far into the future. We should have all this information now.
I will leave it to others to develop some of these points in greater detail, but I should like to answer some of the things the minister said in the early part of his remarks. He was his usual political self.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member changes his direction, would he permit me to address another question to the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister tell us how much of the money we are voting in this interim supply is surplus or is a cushion against the possibility of having to use it in a future month?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, when we vote amounts to departments, usually for each month's supply voted there is one-twelfth of the complete vote granted to each department. Whether or not it is expended at the same rate is very difficult to tell, because usually in the early part of the year the spending is not as fast as it is in the latter part of the year. Where it is apparent that the spending is going to be over the number of twelfths which has been voted, it has been the practice to ask parliament especially for this additional
Interim Supply
amount. Normally, however, parliament is asked only for one-twelfth, three-twelfths, and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So, there may be another cushion in what we are now voting.


Edgar John Benson: There may be, and there has been in the past; this is not something new this year. When three months' supply is granted in a particular vote, it is not always the case that these payments are spent in that time. A certain amount of the money is voted for the government, and this is available for it to spend.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have voted by way of interim supply to the end of October seven-twelfths of the money available for the fiscal year, in addition to passing the total estimates of ten departments, so there may be a cushion somewhere. This is what I should like the Auditor General to find out for us. Of course, this points out the faulty administration of this government. Here we are in November asking for interim supply for the month of November. Unless the estimates are passed this month they will come to parliament and ask for interim supply for the month of December.
Last spring I pointed out to the government house leader that if, concerning in April, he would bring forward the main estimates on Thursday and Friday of every week, we could complete the main estimates by the middle of July by adding in one or two extra days here and there. Under the rules which the government forced on this house there is a limitation of 30 days to deal with estimates, including the main estimates and interim supply. The chairman, one of the members who has been here a long time, will recall that in the past the practice was to deal with estimates on Thursday and Friday of every week. Then, sometime before the end of the session, we would add Wednesday and perhaps an odd Saturday. By working on estimates on Thursday and Friday they could have been completed in 15 weeks which is only four months. All the main estimates would have been completed and the government would not have had to ask for interim supply. I pointed that out to the government house leader last spring. I said, "Let us get back to the old system". The number of supply motions was reduced to four rather than six on the third supply interim motion, on the suggestion of the opposition, he called all the departments except one which left him free to move and have a little flexibility.

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
The estimates of whatever departments were selected could be called week after week. Well, mismanagement is the hallmark of this government. That procedure was not followed by the government house leader and he is compelled now to ask for interim supply for the eighth month of the year, when he should have had the estimates completed by the middle of July. It is uncertain whether he might have to ask for interim supply for the month of December.


Edgar John Benson: If the procedure you have suggested had been followed and the estimates had been cleared in 15 weeks, what would have happened in respect of the referral of estimates to the committees? The estimates were supposed to receive in the committees the kind of examination they had never received previously. Does the hon. member think that the committees could have had all the estimates studied and reported back to the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was no intention to refer all the estimates to the committees, and there is no need to do that. This is a committee; it is the committee of the whole house. The committee of the whole house is just as competent to deal with estimates as is some small committee which cannot find a quorum. I pointed this out to the house leader. Let the committee of the whole house deal with a certain number of estimates, and let some of the smaller committees deal with others.
That is the way in which it could have been in 15 weeks, but the Minister of National Revenue, who does not understand the operation of the House of Commons, thinks every detail should go to a small committee or to a standing committee.
[DOT] (5.10 p.m.)
He does not understand that when the estimates are considered by a special or standing committee they must still come back to the committee of the whole house. My suggestion to the government house leader was sensible and based on experience. The estimates are not necessarily examined in greater detail by a small committee than by the committee of the whole house. I have argued this point many times in the past, and I will argue it again in the future if I get the opportunity. I would far rather have the estimates considered right here in this committee in public, with the responsible ministers in attendance to answer our questions, than have them considered in some office in the West Block or the basement of this building with the public

not necessarily knowing where and the press not necessarily caring. These estimates should be considered right here in the open forum of the committee of the whole house, with the ministers answering questions and indicating whether they have any knowledge of the working of their own departments. That is why I am glad the Minister of National Revenue is here, and why I regret that the Minister of Finance is absent. He has been away for days, yet he is the minister responsible for financial matters so far as the House of Commons is concerned.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to correct my hon. friend. Under the new arrangements now in existence the President of the Treasury Board should normally be responsible for this type of motion and that is why I am here.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of Finance has so little confidence in the Minister of National Revenue he did not let him put his name to the resolution, which now stands in the name of the Minister of Finance. Let me remind the Minister of National Revenue that there are some very powerful figures in the cabinet, but he is not one of them. I refer to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the minister who recently has been acting as the de facto prime minister, the Minister of National Defence. He established his supremacy over the Liberal caucus last Wednesday, and humiliated the Prime Minister on Thursday. He is now the great central figure of the Liberal party and it is to him that the Minister of National Revenue should apply if he wants to have his name associated with a motion placed on the order paper.
Having regard to interim supply, I should like to correct a misapprehension in the mind of the minister and correct the information he conveyed to the public. We have had a fairly lengthy debate on interim supply for very definite reasons, including the one I pointed out earlier. The government house leader has not managed the business of the house properly. We have used the time of this debate to great advantage in dealing with the bill proposed by the Minister of National Defence. It is important to realize that we are using our own time.


An hon. Member:: To filibuster.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You may call it a filibuster, but we know perfectly well that for every day we spend on interim supply we lose a day for the consideration of the main estimates. We
November 14, 1966

have used this time with the full knowledge of what is happening. This is far from a filibuster, because we are using the time of the house to which we are entitled. The minister has again conveyed a wrong impression to this House of Commons and the public of this country. We are entitled to 30 days for consideration of the main estimates including interim supply. If we choose to use that time on interim supply rather than on the estimates of some other department, that is our business.
It is my hope that those who are interested in the situation will now understand my correction of the minister's misleading statement regarding what we have been doing by discussing these subject matters on interim supply. I could go on, but I wish to give other members an opportunity to delve into this very fascinating subject of money hidden away but suddenly discovered by this special private eye, the Minister of National Revenue. He is away ahead of James Bond in this regard. Apparently he got his computers working and, to the great delight of the government, discovered all sorts of money- millions-hidden away which would save the hide of the Prime Minister who is being pressed by the Minister of National Defence to support his resistance to the reasonable request of the opposition to have this nefarious unification bill transferred to the committee on national defence before it is agreed to in principle on second reading.
The Minister of National Revenue has saved the Prime Minister. I hope in the course of saving him he has not sacrificed himself. I hope we can get a report from the Auditor General as to whether or not the guillotine should be rolled out to deal with this minister.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, before the next member speaks I should like to direct a question to the previous speaker. Would you answer one question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would be glad to answer a question, coming from you.


David James Walker: Thank you very much. I am wondering whether you agree with the principle behind the bill introduced to the house today by your colleague, the hon. member for Carleton, whereby the right of a civil servant to his pay cheque would become statutory rather than subject to the whim of this house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that is a very good suggestion which deserves the serious consideration of this house. I do not like to see salaries and wages of individuals interfered
Interim Supply
with because of a controversy in the House of Commons. Actually, I suggested certain phraseology which the hon. member for Carleton readily accepted. He differs from other hon. members opposite in that he accepts suggestions readily. I hope his bill receives careful consideration.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I did not object in any way to yielding the floor for that question any more than we in this party have objected to yielding the floor since Tuesday of last week. We have adopted that attitude for a very special reason. We absolutely refuse to become involved in a disgraceful episode such as that witnessed last Wednesday and Thursday in this house when a ferocious battle took place between the government and the official opposition during which they stood toe to toe and eye to eye to pound each other. The weapons they had in their hands were the pay cheques of civil servants.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Certainly.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the hon. member ascertain for himself that according to the ratio of members in this house, his party has used up a larger percentage of the time than members of this party?


Murdo William Martin: I will be glad to check those figures for the hon. member. This is my second speech during this debate, but the hon. member I believe has made three or four speeches. No member of this party spoke on Wednesday or Thursday of last week.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has suggested that I have made three or four speeches during the debate on interim supply. I have made two speeches, not three or four. Let me remind him that there are a number of members of this party who have not spoken during this debate, yet he is speaking for the second time.


Murdo William Martin: I do not wish to become involved in a frivolous discussion with the hon. member. The fact remains that no member of this party made a speech on either Wednesday or Thursday of last week. It was my hope that following the letdown on Thursday night, as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement, and the foolish

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
position in which he placed several newspapers in this country, we would return today to something I feel is of more importance than the subject under discussion during the last two days of last week. I refer to the building of the Trans-Canada pipe line through the United States.
[DOT] (5.20 p.m.)
I suggest this is an important subject for four particular reasons.
First, it is of vital importance to the future of northern Canada; second, is is of equal importance to southern Canada; third, it is of particular importance to the future of this country; and fourth, and I think this is perhaps the most important reason, this is the only opportunity we will have to discuss this particular subject. We have no bill and there is no other way we can discuss this matter at any time in this house. As a matter of fact, if the Federal Power Commission should decide today to approve the application, it will be a fait accompli as far as this House of Commons and the Canadian people are concerned.
As far as the defence problem and the plight of admirals and generals are concerned, we will have many opportunities to discuss these matters. We can discuss then at the various stages of the bill; we can discuss them in committee. There will be many, many opportunities to deal with that particular problem; but, as I say, this is the only opportunity we will have to discuss the question of this pipe line.
I should like to point out that today in this country pipe lines hold the same place as railways did 100 years ago. Pipe lines are the coming means of transportation in this great country of ours. Not only will oil and gas be transported by pipe line in the years ahead, and in the very few years ahead, but we will see many other things transported by pipe line throughout this country. Finished products, dry goods, canned goods and many other commodities will be transported from the west by pipe line rather than rail, highway or water. Today in Canada pipe lines stand at the corssroads, as did the railways 100 years ago.
This is why we have raised this matter and will continue to raise it as long as we have the opportunity to do so. It is obvious that the Liberal government does not care about this question. It is equally obvious that the official opposition does not care about it either. Perhaps more tragic than either of those things, because in the last 100 years we have seen many cases of the irresponsibility of
[Mr. Martin (Timmins) .1
these two parties as far as this country is concerned, is the fact that even the newspapers of this country do not care about the problem. How else could they have been sucked in by the phoney fight that we saw last week? How else could they be drawn in and made fools of in the way the Prime Minister made fools of them last Thursday night at two minutes to ten o'clock? They built up this tremendous issue, and all of a sudden it collapsed like a house of cards. They have been drawn into this thing right up to their eyeballs, completely ignoring the fact that there will be many opportunities to debate the problem of defence.
It is bad enough that we have to take up the time of this house to debate this matter. We may be accused, and justifiably, of holding up old age pensions, medicare, and the Canada Assistance Act. We could be accused, as we were accused last week and justifiably so, of holding out the threat of an election in this country. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, as far as northern Canada is concerned, and particularly northern Ontario, we would welcome an election on this issue. There would not be many government members coming back from northern Ontario if this were the issue in the election. But we do not use these weapons.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, this holy person.


Murdo William Martin: If these are the weapons we have to use in a fight, we will back down in that fight.


Mr. Bigg:: It must be nice to be holy.


Murdo William Martin: I am very amused at accusations of my being holy. I think anybody who knows me knows a little better than that. While we have this opportunity, I would like some answers to a few of the questions that have been raised in the house. I have raised some of these matters already and have yet to receive any answer in respect of them. Not too long ago, a delegation came from northern Ontario to meet with members of the cabinet. I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is in the chamber. Many questions were raised at that meeting. The minister promised at the time to seek out the answers to those questions and relay them to the delegates.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Chairman, to save time may I tell the hon. member that a full reply, I think it comprises 10 pages, has gone out today to everybody who was at that meeting.


Murdo William Martin: I am very pleased to hear that, because the people of the north
November 14, 1966

were very concerned about this matter. One of the things that caused concern was a letter which members of the delegation received from the Prime Minister's office which stated, among other things, that the government's decision of October 4 was dictated by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. I am quoting the letter when I say this.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What letter is that?


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: This is a letter from the office of the Prime Minister dated October 18, 1966, addressed to Mr. McMillan, president of the Fort William-Port Arthur and District Labour Council, 125 Finlayson street, Fort William. The letter was signed by Robert H. Belanger, secretary to the Prime Minister. Perhaps I should put the whole of the letter on the record, in view of the fact that I have referred to it:
Dear Mr. McMillan:
The Prime Minister has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 12th, concerning the Great Lakes project of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
The government's decision of October 4th was dictated by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, providing certain undertakings which had not been included in their original application and which would have enabled the government to arrive at a different conclusion had this information been available initially.
The first two lines of that paragraph are very clear, but I do not know what the rest of it means. The letter goes on:
The government's position is still that the main line for the supply of western Canadian gas to eastern Canada should be in Canada and that whatever steps may be necessary to maintain that situation will be taken.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member, who is making a great point of not using up the time of the house, should have been able to understand that there must have been a mistake in that letter. The word, "dictated" was wrongly dictated.


Murdo William Martin: I am very pleased that the minister agrees with me. We maintain that this has been a mistake right from the start, and it is still a mistake. Let us hope the government will correct this mistake before it is too late. Another question to which we should like to receive an answer is one that I raised, I believe a week ago last Friday, concerning an application made by Great Lakes Pipe Lines Limited-I believe that is their title-which is a subsidiary of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and is, in fact, 50 per cent owned by that company. They made
Interim Supply
an application to the Federal Power Commission in the United States which is dealt with in a news story appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of November 3. The headline of this news story is, "Trans-Canada makes bid for quick approval of $200 million pipe Line". The article reads:
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has made a bid here for quick approval, without further hearings, of its plan to build a $200 million pipe line through the northern United States.
I will not read the whole article but only the significant parts of it. The significant part is in quotation marks and reads:
Great Lakes-the U.S. sponsor of the thousand-mile pipe line, argues that the agreement and other documents-
That is the agreement signed by the government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
-"in no way alter the original proposal which the F.P.C. has had under consideration since last April."
This is in direct contrast to what the minister and the Prime Minister have been telling us in this house. They have stated that the reason they changed their minds between August 25 and October 4 was that Trans-Canada came along with a brand new deal; this is why they did an about flip on this matter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not right.


Mr, Martin (Timmins):: However, Mr. Chairman, the subsidiary company, acting on behalf of Trans-Canada, made application to the United States Federal Power Commission and asked for quick approval before any further hearings were held. The company said that the present proposal would in no way alter the original proposal which the F.P.C. had had before it since last April.
[DOT] (5.30 pjn.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. member like an answer to this question now?


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: I should like an answer to this question at any time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The explanation is very simple. The presentation made by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to the United States covers only the first five years. As a matter of fact, there is no change in the first five years and the company is right in saying so before the Federal Power Commission. The first five years are exactly the same, and the presentation is identical to the one first introduced before the Federal Power Commission and the National Energy

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
Board. It is not until 1970 that the company will begin the looping of the northern Ontario pipe line, and it is not until 1976, that the company has the obligation of carrying 60 per cent of the load from western Canada to eastern Canada. Then only changes will take place.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure but perhaps the minister has clarified things too much. Certainly, as far as northern Ontario is concerned, he has made things a little worse than they were before.
There was a reference to another article in the Monetary Times, though I am sorry I have not the quotation before me. If I can recall it from memory, it referred to the fact that the government had changed its mind between August 25 and October 4 under great pressure. I have had on the order paper for some months now a motion for production of papers so that we can understand how great was this pressure and from where it came. Unfortunately, to date we have not been able to scrutinize these various documents and representations, which leads me to believe that if we do not get them shortly the opportunity for discussing them will have passed, and there will be no chance of dealing with these matters.
The hon. member for Port Arthur has stated his position on the matter in this house, though I grant you he did not state it as clearly, succinctly and as strongly as he stated it before members of the cabinet when they met with the delegation from the north. We have also heard the remarks in this house of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who appeared to me to agree with what the government had done but gave them hell for doing it. We have yet to hear from the hon. member for Cochrane, whose constituents are vitally interested in this matter. We have yet to hear one word from the hon. member for Fort William whose people initiated the battle to try to stop this deal before it was too late. We have also yet to hear from the honourable and genial member for Nipissing, a member for whom I have very high regard. Let me assure him that some of his constituents have been in touch with me, wondering why he has not spoken up in this house about where he stands on this issue. The same comments, as usual, apply to the very likeable hon. member for Algoma West, who unfortunately we rarely hear from in this house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is not very nice.


Murdo William Martin: I agree. Part of our problem in the north country is that, while over the years we have seen our birthrights stolen from us, we have at the same time been represented in this house by some very nice members of the Liberal party who just sit here and say nothing. They are very nice people but they just sit. I am very fond of most of them.
I do not know how much time I have left at my disposal, but I should like to put on the record some of the statements made by people from the north country. May I now refer to a letter which was addressed to the Prime Minister, a copy of which I have received. It was sent by a mining engineer from my home town of Timmins, and I should like to read what he says about this particular deal. I may say that I have a very high regard for the experience and intelligence of this particular gentleman. He says, in part, that the outcome of this particular deal will result in more profit for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines as opposed to competitive Canadian industry. He goes on:
No one is going to argue that it is not going to be more profitable for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to build a new pipe line through the States.
No one can argue about that proposition, Mr. Chairman, but he goes on to say that building this pipe line through the United States will violate Canada's national interest. He says:
It will supply more natural gas cheaper and help the relatively larger U.S. industries in their competition with Canadian industry, in Canadian, U.S. and world markets.
Then he asks, very appropriately:
How silly can we get?
He then points out another factor:
The important thing is that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines will pay for the pipe line out of profits regardless of line location and the extra energy from an all-Canadian line would be available in northern and middle Ontario for subsequent industrial development. This is vital if Canada is ever to be a really great country, instead of a 50 mile strip development along the U.S. border.
I should like to make one or two points to back up this argument. At the present time, as a result of the Trans-Canada pipe line coming through the north, three particular industries were established within 80 miles of my hometown. Had it not been for this pipe line they would not be there today. I refer to the big iron ore development plant at Kirkland Lake, to the big plywood mills in Cochrane and north of Timmins, and at New Liskeard south of Kirkland Lake.
November 14, 1966

These industries were established for one particular reason. Not only was there gas there, but there was a gas surplus. I know the minister said in reply to a question that he had been in touch with a distributor in the north who had told him that at no time had he turned down a request for firm gas. This may be quite correct because firm gas is gas which is supplied to householders under contract for a full year. This firm gas is high-priced. However, because the line went through, and because the company was seeking customers at the time, what is called interruptible gas was made available. It is supplied at a much cheaper rate. Because this cheap gas was available, these industries were able to open up in this area which had been starved of industry previously. In addition, it offset the cost of transportation from the larger industrial centres.
The minister pointed out that the National Energy Board had been telling the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company for some years now-I think the minister said three or four years-that there was a greater need for gas. It has now become obvious what Trans-Canada has been doing. They have been deliberately starving these industries of the north and compelling them to go on to the firm gas price, so the company can cut off this interruptible gas which built up these industries in the north.
I know the Minister of Industry has been very concerned about the north country. In fact, some two years ago Timmins was on the list of designated areas. Although the government seems to be prepared to put towns in northern Ontario on the designated area list, it is not prepared to ensure that gas going to Canadian customers goes through a Canadian pipe line. If this were done these towns could help themselves instead of going to the federal government, cap in hand, looking for some kind of handout. What I fail to understand about this government is where and how it has gone wrong.
[DOT] (5.40 p.m.)
Why are they allowing this situation to arise now? Why will they hamstring industrial development across the north, where industries will be at the mercy of, and subject to the laws and regulations of a foreign country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask a question?


Murdo William Martin: When the gas main goes through a foreign country, you have put
Interim Supply
your throat willingly into the hands of your competitors.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask a question? I thinir the hon. member is making four or five arguments in the same sentence. If you have another pipe line to carry gas from western to eastern Canada, does it not stand to reason that there will be more room in the existing pipe line for gas going to northern Ontario?


David Lewis: But the line does not have to go through the United States for that to happen.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am trying to take the arguments one by one, to get them straight.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: I wonder what pressure was brought to bear on this government-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Do not change the subject; stick to the point.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: -to change the clear, forthright and reasonable arguments put forward on August 25.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is no argument.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: What made them put this pipe line through a foreign country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I could ask the hon. member what pressure was brought to bear on him to make the case he is making now. We are all subject to arguments. People introduce arguments to you, and people bring other arguments to us; that is normal. I think the hon. member is casting-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member is not arguing with himself. The government is trying to argue against itself and its statement of August 25.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: You know, two or three years ago the minister made speeches across this country. Finally, when he was appointed minister in this important field we thought that at last we had a minister who had Canada's interests really at heart. I wonder what happens to people who join this Liberal party? What is it about this Liberal party that seems to corrupt people so quickly?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Stick to the subject.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: How can that party rationalize the complete about flips of stands they took so clearly and strongly in the past.
My time is almost up. Hon. gentlemen around me point out that we have had a

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
speech from the minister, and that entitles me to another half hour. I will not take advantage of anyone.
I want to appeal once more to the government, in the interests of this country's future, to reconsider this last decision; once more to read the arguments the Prime Minister used in his statement of August 25, and to see how they apply to the situation which has not changed in any way. A subsidiary of Trans-Canada states that the situation has not been altered in any way, shape or form. I say that the August 25 position was the better one. All I can do at this stage is to make an appeal to the government. We will not continue this debate ad nauseam, pounding away at this. We make this appeal, but if we cannot make the government listen to reason, then we shall find other ways of fighting that which we feel to be detrimental to the future of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I decided to speak on interim supply, and particularly about the government finding money at the last moment. I should like to answer some arguments raised about the pipe line issue. In passing, let me say that I have always thought the House of Commons was divided more by people coming from different regions than by people belonging to different parties. I believe if the N.D.P. had members from Alberta or from Saskatchewan, or Manitoba-which they have not-they would claim to speak for the country. They would talk about this pipe line, and how it affects the economy of the west. More than that I will not say, except to remind my hon. friends once again that the National Energy Board was set up with its experts; that it has the capacity to analyse whether we can export energy from this country, and still retain enough for the foreseeable needs of our country.
I made my arguments on a previous occasion when speaking in the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have only a few moments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it not true that the gas would be still sold from the west, whether it went through Ontario or through the United States?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. friend knows what I have said, and I shall not quibble. If we put the pipe line through the north-and we already have one Trans-Canada pipe line-by the time we get through to southern Ontario

the United States companies, such as Standard Oil and all those, will have the gas in the market, and we shall be cut out. The hon. member knows that this way the cost is 15 per cent less. The last time I spoke my hon. friend called my arguments tommyrot. I told him his name was Tommy Douglas, and that ended the argument in that regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That was not very good.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not intend to get into a fight, but western Canada has a position to protect. My hon. friend, who was a former premier of a province, is not the member for the city of Regina because he had to leave that city and go to British Columbia to be elected. This was because he did not support western Canada's interests. The people out there came to that conclusion, and they dismissed him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is a fact. However, I do not intend to be sidetracked from my remarks about interim supply.
We, on this side of the house have been accused of prolonging the debate on interim supply by talking about a defence matter. We also have had the pipe line discussion. I draw to the attention of my hon. friends opposite, through you Mr. Chairman, that this afternoon an hon. member said that 30 per cent of debating time on interim supply was taken up by government speakers. I do not know how much time was taken by the N.D.P. on the pipe line, but it is safe to say that probably 50 per cent of the time of debate was taken by hon. members who are other than Conservative.
Also, as pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre I believe, the rules limit debate on interim supply and estimates to 30 days. Therefore, when we discuss matters such as defence during that period, we are not wasting the time of parliament because 30 days have been allocated for such debates. After all, the government was not in jeopardy. They found the money. They argued that we, on this side of the house were stopping the pay cheques, but they had the money after all. They found it at the last moment. Surely, they cannot have their cake and eat it.
I agree that there ought to be some provision whereby civil servants should get their pay cheques without being subjected to what has happened, and in order that issues might be debated more freely. I congratulate the
November 14. 1966

hon. member for Carleton for bringing forward his bill. I should like to see parliament exempt certain people from the situation that has confronted them, so that issues may be debated on their principles. Really, the issue is very simple. The Minister of National Revenue, who is not now in his place, talked earlier this afternoon about others who were not in their places.
[DOT] (5.50 p.m.)


David James Walker: On a question of privilege on behalf of the minister-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is attending the Conservative convention, I know.


David James Walker: No. If he were, there might be a more intelligent convention taking place. But the minister had to attend a meeting in connection with the postal-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not say there was anything wrong in the fact that he is not here. I pointed out he was not in his place. If he is there, he is invisible. I am suggesting nothing disrespectful. I had hoped he would be here, but I understand he has obligations. All of us have other obligations. The fact is, he has left an impression that it was we on this side of the house who were trying to prevent the civil servants from getting their pay cheques. If hon. gentlemen opposite had done their bookkeeping properly, the situation would never have developed. When they got that legal opinion about the transfer of funds from one vote to another, they would have known whether they had the money or not.
I believe the government knew all the time about this money. They should have announced the fact so that the civil servants would have been in no doubt about the receipt of their cheques. If the cheques were delayed, the responsibility lies with the government, not with the opposition. The minister says he referred the legal question of the transferability of these accounts to the Department of Justice for a decision. Well, the government has either been misleading us or it is guilty of poor bookkeeping. Either ministers opposite did not have sufficient command over their departments to know whether they had this money in hand, or else it is fraud. On the other hand, perhaps the Minister of Finance was misleading us when he told the House of Commons and the country that more money was needed with which to pay these bills.
As far as this side of the house is concerned, we believe that what has happened was very
Interim Supply
serious. It is time someone put on record what the functions of an opposition are. It was Arthur Meighen who said this; I think the following passage was quoted some time ago by the Leader of the Opposition.
If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty's loyal opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent over-expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks Questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and moulds public opinion by voice and vote.
Now, where does the real power of parliament, or the real power of the opposition, lie? It is this-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to see the hon. gentleman in his place. I know he will give me a fair hearing, and I know that if he were sitting where I am sitting he would be taking the attitude I am taking now. I say this because he is one of the senior members of the House of Commons and one who would, no doubt, agree with me.
The power of parliament lies in its control of the purse strings of a nation. If, during a debate of this nature, the present government or any other government can run rough shod over the opposition and find money, fraudulently or otherwise, then the supremacy of parliament ends. What becomes of the function of the opposition? Mr. Meighen set this out clearly when he said our function is to scrutinize every action of the government and watch over government expenditure.
The situation is simply this. Had the minister of defence agreed to allow the facts to be brought out before a committee so that the opposition might be armed with those facts and so that the house would be in a position to consider intelligently whether the unification of the defences of Canada was sound or not, this debate would have come to an end within a few hours.
Instead, the minister refused to let the facts come out before a committee. I have before me-


George James McIlraith: No, no.

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, he refused to let a committee get at the facts.


George James McIlraith: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. gentleman knows very well that if this bill gets second reading before going to the committee the facts which would be brought out then are not the facts which should be brought out now. Where did his own party stand on the situation in 1960, 1962 or 1963? It is surprising how some hon. members reverse their opinions when they leave the opposition benches to sit on the governement side. What was their attitude toward the setting up of a defence committee?
I quote from Hansard of February 4, 1963. This is what the leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, had to say as reported at page 3402. This brings us to the substance of the present debate, a debate which could have been ended, not in six days nor in six hours, but in one hour had the minister of defence not refused to let the House of Commons have the facts with regard to unification, had he not denied the country the opportunity to find out those facts by means of a properly constituted committee.
When this party was in trouble with the opposition in 1963 there was a big argument on this issue. The opposition asked the Conservative government in 1963 to set up a committee to inquire into defence matters.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister of defence asked for such a committee. The leader of the opposition asked for one. That was the position they took. Today, they take a different attitude. The minister of defence tells us that what we suggest is against public policy. He must have something to hide. Something is bad, and he does not want certain facts to be disclosed to the House of Commons or to the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member care to call it six o'clock?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am prepared to do that, yes.


George James McIlraith: Do I understand the interjection to be a request for an hour's adjournment of the sitting?


Stanley Howard Knowles: An hour or two.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I think the courtesy of the occasion would call for, maybe, two hours.


George James McIlraith: As long as hon. member understands that it is coming out of time available for the opposition to discuss supply,
I am quite agreeable.


An hon. Member:: A reciprocal courtesy.


George James McIlraith: I am being very agreeable at the moment. I just want hon. members to understand what the position is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A few weeks ago during another event in Ottawa we recessed for a couple of hours.


George James McIlraith: What is the request?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Adjourn from six o'clock to eight o'clock, our usual supper hour before the rules were changed in such an asinine way.


George James McIlraith: I am quite agreeable. It is just a matter of clarifying what is being asked for.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (6.00 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: There has been a request made in committee of the whole by hon. members opposite that we have a suspension of the sitting for two hours for a dinner adjournment. The government is quite agreeable to that proposition, and accordingly I ask that the sitting be suspended for two hours.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the house suspend its sitting from 6 to 8 p.m.?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the question to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight is as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), airports-report on adequacy of facilities.
Does the house agree to resume the business in committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 14. 1966

Interim Supply
[DOT] (8.00 p.m.)

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 Ma.iesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March. 1967.

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The house again in committee of supply-interim supply. The hon. member for Bow River.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, when I started to speak about two minutes before six o'clock I put on the record what the position of the opposition should be. I did that because of the minister's criticism today when he said that never since confederation had interim supply been used for such a purpose. At that time I also said that the debate was a very simple one and that we were asking for one simple thing which means so much to the House of Commons and the defence of our country. The simple fact is that we asked that this matter be referred to the committee.
Many members have spoken in the debate and many have stated the same facts I am about to state. The point which seems to have been missed, however, is that on Thursday the government laughed with glee over the fact that they had found lost dollars, were able to meet their bills, and therefore had pulled the rug out from under the Conservative party. That is the point to which I should like to refer. If in regard to an interim supply debate or any debate in reference to the estimates the government has now established a new precedent, then I say that we had better lock the doors of this House of Commons. Parliament is all through, because the first function of parliament is to collect the taxes and the second function is to make sure that those taxes are spent properly.
The procedure we now have is the closest thing to a dictatorship that we will ever have in this country. I say to the government, as I said before the dinner hour, that either the government is guilty of fraud, either the Minister of Finance has misstated the facts, or the accounting is very bad. You cannot escape being caught on one of those three hooks.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said today, under the Financial Administration Act there is some question whether the government acted properly in this regard. In a nonchalant way the minister said today, "Listen, we have a legal opinion from the law officers of the Department of Justice". He now says he will have to reconsider his position. After making the statement that he had a legal opinion to the effect that there was nothing to worry about in respect of what the opposition might say concerning the
9874

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
legality of the manner in which these funds were obtained, he now says he will have to reconsider his position.
It has been a well known policy in parliament for a long time that legal opinions given to the government are confidential, but surely when they are set out by a minister they then become a matter of public information. The minister was questioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre concerning the legality of making these payments out of certain items in the estimates by transferring money from one item to another. The minister did not satisfactorily answer that question. He now says he will have to reconsider whether or not he can file the legal opinion. As I said earlier, if the government are not prepared now to bring out the facts and make public the legal opinion they obtained, then they have something to hide. I would say that what they are hiding is the fact that either they are guilty of fraud, guilty of illegality, or the Minister of National Revenue, who is Acting Minister of Finance, has misstated the facts.
[DOT] (8.10 p.m.)
The Liberal government has established a new precedent. The revision of the rules was to be a great reform. Members of our party, members of the New Democratic Party and members of the government party met to formulate new rules under which never again could a filibuster take place in reference to the estimates. The debate on the estimates including interim supply was to be limited to 30 days. This was to be a new and different era from 1962 and 1963 when members of this same government, then in opposition, used up 18 days to debate the estimates of the Department of Labour. These are the same people who are now complaining about delays. They accused this party of indecision when it was the government. When they got into power they formed a committee to bring about new rules. Many of us here realize that at times there is delay during debate. Many of us felt that these new rules would work. They were adopted on a trial basis. After the conduct of this government I must say that I am against the new rules, not because they are not good but because this government has abused them and has now established a new precedent.
The function of the opposition is a simple one. It is to examine and control the expenditures of the government.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member permit a question? I agree with him that the role of

the opposition is to examine the expenditures of the government, but would he explain to me how a debate on the national defence bill, which has been going on for the past ten days, has anything to do with an examination of the expenditures of the government?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the minister has asked that question because that is the subject of the next part of my speech. When this debate commenced the bill in question was not on the order paper. The minister knows as well as I that the committee which would examine this bill after second reading would be in a different position following approval in principle from what it would be if it examined the facts before second reading. Before second reading it would be in a position, as a result of hearing evidence from experts, to ascertain the advantages and disadvantages of unification and the justification therefor in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Tell us why.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The answer to that question is obvious. If there is no difference, why does the minister not permit the defence committee to sit to hear the evidence of these experts, these people who have served this country well? They should be brought before the committee for examination. The M nister of National Defence refuses to allow that committee to sit.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, he does.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This debate could be ended in one hour, six hours or one day if the Minister of National Defence would agree-


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member says we are not willing to have the facts examined. Under the normal processes of parliament a bill is given second reading, approval in principle, and often then sent to a committee which hears evidence for or against that principle. Such a committee can examine the facts in full, after which appropriate decisions can be made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the minister interrupted because I am one member of parliament who believes that precedent establishes practice. Let us go back to the debates of 1963.


An hon. Member:: What a change.
November 14, 1966


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody said "what a change". I am glad the hon. member made that remark. He is one who does not make too many speeches in the house. Let me inform him that it is not without some effort that I take this position tonight, but I do so because it is my belief that the opposition must scrutinize the expenditures of the government. If that is not a right of the opposition then democracy and parliament, an institution which is 700 years old, are at an end. Hon. members may laugh or smile, but an examination of what happened in the days of Cromwell and others recorded in history will show hon. members the necessity of preserving this institution. Let me read the words of the present Prime Minister as recorded in Hansard of February 4, 1963, just before the dissolution of parliament.


George James McIlraith: Because of the failure to deliver a budget.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I heard the minister suggest that we failed to bring forward a budget at that time. I do not know what position the minister had so far as the leader of his party was concerned at that time, nor do I know what position he occupies now, but I should like him to hear what his leader said at that time as recorded at page 3402 of Hansard for February 4, 1963. At that time he was talking about the committee and he said:
Both of these were set up; but now, Mr. Speaker, these hon. gentlemen opposite, who fought so hard for that kind of inquiry in those days, have for five years resisted any attempt to find out anything about national defence policy, through a small committee before which witnesses could be heard and experts called, at a time and in a situation when there is much more confusion-
At that time there was no bill before the House of Commons but there was a problem which the present government then in opposition maintained existed because we did not disclose all the facts in reference to defence policy. Those hon. members maintained that we were not answering questions or revealing the facts in reference to nuclear warheads for Bomarcs in Canada.
On January 6 in the Scarborough constituency the leader of the Liberal party, the present Prime Minister, changed his position. He had been against nuclear weapons for Canada in any shape or form. He was at that time pressing for a decision in this regard. We took the position that a decision should be withheld until May 5, 1964, when NATO was to meet in Canada. At that time those hon. gentlemen wanted to find out the situation by 23033-624J
Interim Supply
bringing experts, in the person of officers of our armed forces, before the committee for examination. That was their position then. We are now asking that these same people be heard regarding this new proposal.
We in this party have made a simple request in respect of the unification policy. We are asking that experts be brought before the defence committee for examination. We should like to find out how they feel about this situation in view of the fact that more than 40 senior officers have either been retired early or fired. In spite of the attitude taken by the government in years past the Minister of National Defence sits in arrogance, rejecting the suggestion that this parliament and the country have a right to hear these opinions. Therein lies the great difficulty.


Edgar John Benson: These witnesses have been called before the committee and they can be called before the committee again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister now suggests that this party is taking part in a lengthy debate. I repeat, that debate can be ended in one hour if the minister will accede to our request. It is my suggestion that if civil servants and contractors working for the government do not receive remuneration on time it is the result of the arrogance of this government in refusing to go along with our simple suggestion. The government is refusing to allow the facts to come before the defence committee because it knows that unification is not acceptable to the armed forces and the general population of this country.


Edgar John Benson: Sheer nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me ask the minister whether or not he is prepared now to file the legal opinion in reference to the method used by this government to transfer moneys in order to meet civil service salaries.


Edgar John Benson: Is that a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


Edgar John Benson: As I said this afternoon, I will look at the record in respect of filing legal opinions. I will consider our position in regard to previous legal opinions filed and the position of the present official opposition in reference to those opinions when they were sitting on this side.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When this party was in power a question was raised whether we should bring in what present government

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
members then classified as austerity programs. Legal opinions were given and the Liberals said at that time that because those opinions were not filed we were hiding the facts. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister complained at that time. They debated the question at some length. The Minister of National Revenue now says he does not have any precedent. Let me suggest that he has the precedent espoused by those great leaders of his party. He now says, when asked to file a legal opinion, that he will give this request consideration. Tonight the minister says he has to consider and weigh this matter. Do you know why he has to consider and weigh it? It is because he wants to hide the facts from parliament and the people of Canada.
[DOT] (8.20 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might interrupt the hon. member to answer his question. I am sure it is a question he has asked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edgar John Benson: I have not given an answer whether we will file the legal opinion. If I wanted to do so, I could refer to what the hon. member and other members on that side of the house have said with reference to filing legal opinions given by law officers of the crown and submitted to ministers of the crown. I have not refused to file the legal opinion. I am not hiding behind anything.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I must congratulate the minister on giving us the glibbest answer possible. He says that our position was the same. We are talking tonight in 1966. We agree that we have shifted positions, but the minister is a member of the government and his government is in charge of the affairs of this country. I ask the minister tonight, through you, Mr. Chairman, to have an investigation carried out by a special committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to determine whether the Minister of National Revenue and the government acted with propriety, legally and without fraud and misrepresentation in making the payments in question.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked another question. I would simply like to answer the question raised by the hon. member by saying that all the documents involved have already been referred to the watchdog of parliament, the Auditor General, and we are

quite pleased to have him look at the documents and the actions taken by the government. As a matter of fact, this afternoon I tried to have tabled, but instead they were appended to Hansard, the particular Treasury Board minutes involved so that my hon. friend could read them tonight at his leisure and decide whether they were proper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not mind how many interruptions there are in my speech, Mr. Chairman. I know I am getting at the sensitivity of the government and am hitting at facts that are correct because I have had ten interruptions in ten minutes.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I have not once interrupted the hon. member. He has asked me questions and I have replied. I asked him whether he wanted answers to his questions and he said yes. I have answered the questions he has asked.


Malcolm MacInnis: Let us
have a ruling on the question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is no question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I am asking questions because I am searching for information. The government has refused the facts to the defence committee. If the minister is so sure he is correct and has talked to the Auditor General personally about this matter, which he later denied and left the impression that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were wrong, perhaps we should have an investigation and have the Auditor General brought before the committee to tell us what conversation did take place between himself and the minister or the department.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I did not say I had talked to the Auditor General. As a matter of fact, the only time I have talked to the Auditor General since this matter arose was tonight, when I phoned the Auditor General to find out whether I was correct in referring to his organization as a department. The first time was this evening.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, this is
another frivolous question of privilege. The minister has now, in a great state of remorse, finally telephoned the Auditor General to find out whether he was correct. This is in direct contradiction of the facts as set out this afternoon, and the minister knows it. I say to the minister in all sincerity-
November 14, 1966


An hon. Member:: That's right; say it in all
sincerity.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right. I say to the minister that if this is to be a precedent for parliament and the government they might as well lock the doors of the house now because democracy is at an end. I repeat that our function is to collect taxes and the function of the opposition as part of parliament is to scrutinize the expenditures of government. Today we have been denied the facts. Not only have we been denied the facts in the defence committee but we have been denied an investigation by a committee to ascertain whether the government has acted legally and properly in this regard.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I interrupt the hon. gentleman to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would think, Mr. Chairman, that with all the speeches the minister has made I would have plenty of time left. I should like the minister to answer the questions I have asked.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the government I should like to indicate to the hon. member that we would be pleased to allow him to continue as long as he wishes and to ask as many questions as he wants to ask, because I really have nothing to hide and the government has acted quite sincerely and properly in this regard.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member wish to continue?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mrs. Rideout:: Yes, of course he does.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I shall only be a few moments longer, Mr. Chairman.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say that the minister is the best ham actor I have seen for a long time when he opens his arms and says, "I have nothing to hide." The government will not give us a hearing before the defence committee and will not permit an investigation to ascertain whether they acted legally and properly in reference to what occurred last Thursday evening. I shall not continue speaking further. I simply say that the government
Interim Supply
has abused the new rules of parliament. Perhaps these rules will not be approved at the end of this session, but the Minister of National Revenue, the Prime Minister and the government house leader have usurped the rules. They have broken all the rules of decency between parties in this regard. Mr. Chairman, I say no more in this respect.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, the debate on interim supply has been going on for many days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I accept the applause of the Grits, for they know I am going to say things that they should be saying themselves. The purpose not only of the opposition but of the government is first of all to preserve our country. That is why I do not hesitate to take part in this debate again. I think we are discussing nothing else than the survival of the western way of life.
When our defence minister takes it upon himself as his job alone to decide for our nation what defence policy will be, without proper consultation by parliament with the facts before us, I say we should not talk for only 10 days but should perhaps talk for 100 days. We should talk until this nation becomes aware of the fact that we have in the defence department a man who is apparently carrying on some kind of private war between himself and a false enemy of Canada, namely, the brass. What is wrong with brass in the armed forces, the proper kind of brass, the kind of men who have many years of experience and have devoted their whole lives to the cause of our defence?
Does this minister think that from one half of the brass, the half we have not seen, he can draw on more experience than all the brass in the armed forces in the air, on the sea and on land? We want to know what answers the minister has to the questions we have asked, because we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. If there is one thing parliament should never do, it is buy any pig in any poke. And we are not going to do it. I thought at one time that interim supply was a wonderful chance for us to find out some of the facts, but even after ten days we are still denied the right to discuss the real principle behind integration and so-called unification. I submit, that if we accept this pig in a poke we are aceepting nothing less than the absolute denuding of any semblance of defence. I have been keeping my ears open and have been

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
reading the press and all of the white papers, but I have formed the indelible impression that at least the minister of defence, if not the whole government, intends to lead a naked Canada to face her enemies.
[DOT] (8.30 p.m.)
If we were to have no enemies this would be fine, but if hon. members think the millennium has come in 1966, I do not. A great many people in the country and on both sides of this house will agree that we live in terrible times. The enemies of democracy were never stronger. But in our defence department, the one department which should look to the emergencies which may face our country, I find an idle dreamer. If it is not an idle dream that the minister knows more about defence than the rest of the brass in Canada, and the men who served in the last two wars, then let him give us the information which assures him that we no longer need fighting men to defend the country where I was born.
Hon. members opposite talk about adopting the normal procedure. Is it normal procedure to deny the facts to this parliament? The minister of defence has admitted that when he brings members of the fighting forces before the committee they say what he wants them to say and no more. These are not idle threats, Mr. Chairman. The men who stood before the minister did say what he wanted them to say and no more. Where are these men today? Prematurely retired.
I was prematurely retired at the age of 34. Too old, they said, at 34. I am 54 now but I am still not too old to fight for my country if I am needed. I do not know why I was discharged from the army. It was certainly not because I did not know how to fight. In those days we had the navy, the army and the air force, and they fought together. We had integration; we had combined operations. While the defence minister was riding his bicycle around North America I served overseas for five and a half years. I think the best years of my life were those I spent as a volunteer soldier.
If Canada needs men to defend its shores, are we going to rely on volunteers in this unified force? What is going to be the role of this unified force? I have had my ear to the ground and have heard that we are going to rely on the American draft to defend us. We will not need Canadian volunteers any more. I hope we never do have another war, but if we do I hope the young men of Canada will be ready to defend the land of our birth whether

or not a unified force exists. I shall look back with some pride to this day in 1966 and say that I was no party to such a thing, the government cannot scare me into a hole because I do not know how to fall into a hole.
I am not asking that our forces, take part in the war in Viet Nam but if that war starts to spread south into New Zealand and Australia the people of those two countries will want to know whether we still intend to be the perfect neutral. In such a circumstance what is this wonderful unified force we know nothing about going to do? I want to know what the defence of Canada means to this government. If the government had a proper working majority they might have some right to decide what our defence policy is to be, but they do not have a majority. The people of Canada want to know in which direction we are going, but we cannot decide this question without the necessary information.
Why has the government changed its mind since 1962? The present Prime Minister, speaking on March 20, 1962, on the defence estimates, claimed that he could not get information from the then minister, the present hon. member for Calgary North. As reported at page 2003 he said:
-the minister gets very angry when we try to find out from him on what we are spending $31 million. We are asking him what kind of major equipment we are buying with this $31 million. We are asking him whether this major equipment can be made effective-
Pausing there, have I the right to ask the minister whether this unified force will be effective in defending this country? We are not spending $31 million but $1,672 million plus. What is it that is costing the taxpayers of Canada $1,672 million plus? This amount is a long way from the $31 million that the leader of the present government was talking about in 1962. Does not the defence of Canada mean the same today as it meant in 1962? Are we not talking about the same people?
The Prime Minister went on to say:
We have millions of dollars being spent on the F-104; we have millions of dollars being spent on the 101; we have millions of dollars being spent on the Bomare, and we are not being told how these weapons are to be used.
Today we are not being told how this unified force is going to be used, how big it will be, what kind of uniform its members will wear and what names will be used. When I or any other member of the opposition ask for information or for details we are told to read the white paper. I have read it from back to front but can find nothing in the white
November 14, 196$

paper except a few generalities to the effect that the question of integration will be looked into, as will the question of unification.
If we pass the bill on second reading the government will say that we voted for the principle of unification, although we have no more idea what the details are than about flying to the moon. The government will say that we voted for unification, but unification means annihilation, Mr. Chairman. It means putting Canada into the position where we can never fight again as a nation. This is a sad way for a proud nation like Canada to bow out of our affairs.
[DOT] (8.40 p.m.)
I am one of those who believe that some day we may be able to furl the battle flag in the parliament of man, but I say that that day will not come in 1966. I know and you know that before another generation has gone we shall have to stand up to be counted. If we are not counted I can only see two things, either that the free world will be weakened in its will to fight or that we shall allow the United States to do our fighting for us. If that happens we shall disappear as an independent nation because a country that will not stand up for freedom and for the integrity of its land does not deserve to have that land. The story of history is plain. Any nation which has got to the stage of refusing to fight has disappeared.
This is not anti-Americanism. I have said on more than one occasion that if necessary I would fight as a private soldier in the United States forces, if necessary. But I pray to God that it will never be necessary for a Canadian to have to walk across the border when he wants to line up on the side of freedom. If the defence policy of this country is to let the United States defend us, let us know that. If the defence policy of this country is to supply only a peace-keeping force to the United Nations, that is fine. I will not decry the wonderful contribution that Canada has made in the Congo, the Gaza strip and Cyprus. But I will stand here and say that I will not be part of anything that will make Canada's forces fit for only one purpose, to be at the disposal of the United Nations to defend any country except our own. Are we to be an effective part of NATO or are we not?
Also on page 2003 of Hansard for March 20, 1962, we find these words:


Lester Bowles Pearson: All we are told is that a decision will be made in the future, perhaps when the emergency develops.
Interim Supply
In this volume there are at least 100 occasions when the members of the then opposition, now on the treasury benches, chided us because we did not make our position plain enough for them. They wanted to know what was to happen about the Bomarc. I remember the hon. lady for Niagara Falls speaking about the Bomarc. She said on that occasion that if we accepted the Bomarc under any conditions it would be the most foolish thing that Canada had ever done by way of defence and that we would become mere tools of the Pentagon. That does not sound pro-American to me. And where is the Bomarc now? It has been accepted holus-holus by a government that has as a leader a man who ought to know better than anybody else how we lost our sovereignty when we accepted the Bomarc without dual control. In case you do not know what dual control means, it means that we would not allow atomic weapons to be fired over Canadian soil without having at least one member of our armed forces present at the time of decision.
The United States accepts the idea of dual control. They allow our air force men at SAC headquarters to have a say in the joint defence of North America. In Canada we have accepted the opposite. We allow the United States to come in and defend us, and I am afraid we are now in the position where we have to say, "We cannot defend ourselves and therefore we will not try." If that is our independent policy, then I should like the minister to tell us. There may be a modicum of truth in the assertion that we are incapable of defending ourselves. But we are not incapable of doing our share, however small that may be.
Perhaps the Minister of National Defence has made secret agreements with the United States. Perhaps they have said they do not need our help. Perhaps they have said they can fight the whole world alone and they do not need little old Canada to help them. I say that it would be cowardly for us to accept such a deal. If freedom is worth fighting for, then it is worth paying for. It is worth letting others know where we stand.
Why should we give first reading to the defence measure? Why should we accept this pig in a poke? If the government were consistent it would have brought this matter up in 1962. Let me quote again what has been said. The hon. member for Essex East has

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
used similar words also. I quote from page 2003 of Hansard, for March 20, 1962:


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister advise the committee if it is his intention to obtain conventional warheads for the Bomarc missiles?
He continued on the same page:
This is a serious question, Mr. Chairman, and the minister's refusal to answer this question is contempt of parliament.
That is a good question. If it was contempt of parliament in 1962, refusal to place the proper information before the defence committee is contempt of parliament today. With this I thoroughly agree. These are hard words but true words.
Because I read from the record does not mean that I agree with everything in it. But it is passing strange that the man who thought something was contempt of parliament in 1962 should think it is all right to withhold the information that we want now. I am not accusing him of tampering with evidence before the defence committee. I am accusing him of withholding all information, thereby making it impossible for us to obtain facts on which to decide the most important issue that this parliament has debated, the survival of Canada as a nation and what we ought to do about it.
On page 1950 of Hansard for March 19, 1962, we find these words:


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is there any agreement? Is there any commitment? When these forces are to be at the disposal of the NATO command, surely there must be some understanding or agreement, implied or otherwise, which is the basis for their being there. Would the minister explain to the committee what it is, because I think the committee Is entitled to know, when it is being asked to vote funds?
Oh, yes, the committee was entitled to know. Now the former opposition is the government and we are not entitled to know. Which is it? Is the committee of the House of Commons entitled to know the facts or is it not? Is it contempt of parliament to withhold these facts? You know the answer to that. It is utter contempt of parliament.
You want to get us tangled in a procedural hassle. You want to talk about whether it is right to talk about the subject for nine days. For how many days must we talk before the minister admits that parliament has a right to these facts.
[DOT] (8.50 p.m.)
We cannot pass the first reading of this bill. It would be improper and immoral, and for me it would be impossible to pass first reading 
until I know what the minister and the government intend to do about the defence of Canada. Without a proper approach to this subject, all other debates in the house are null and void. The spending of $1.5 billion is not the only point. We have no divine right to any of the wealth of our country. Talk about buying Canada back. How much are we selling her for? A headline in a history book? Does somebody want to be the man who first unified the armed forces? Is that why we denude our country of her armed strength? To be the first? It would not be the first time that an inexperienced N.C.O. went against the brass with disastrous results not only for his country but for the whole world.
Is it wrong to have ranks in the army? Are we to allow one man to carry his narcissistic complex to the brink of the abyss? Must we destroy all the brass in the armed forces because one man did not get in the brass? What are we here for? Let us get on with the business of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, this is the business of the country and I challenge hon. members opposite, individually and collectively-


Mr. Laniel:: My electors do not go for that type of talk.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The hon. member's electors might well go for that. He happens to represent one two hundred and sixty-fifth of the electors in this country and there are a great many people in this country who have a vote and who did not vote for denuding of Canada of all armed strength.
I am not talking about taking part in fancy wars. I am asking what we shall do about defending little old Canada. Hon. members opposite say there is plenty of time to debate this subject on second reading. I claim that by then it will be too late. They say that if this subject is sent to the committee the bill will be killed. Why? Is it because the facts would come out? The committee did not have the facts, not the facts we want.


Gérald Laniel: Were you on the committee?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No, I was not.


Gérald Laniel: I was. We got the facts.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The hon. member says he got the facts. Then let him tell me what they are. Does Canada intend to fight for Canada any more? The minister has not answered that
November 14, 1966

question and the white paper does not answer it. I have reason to believe that the principle behind this whole thing is to see that we do not fight again.


Gérald Laniel: This has nothing to do with unification and integration.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It has everything to do with it. If we are not going to have a force, integration is meaningless. What is the use of talking about unification if we are not to have a fighting force? In 1962 the opposition demanded every detail of our understanding with the United States. When we refused to give every detail they said it was contempt of parliament. Hon. gentlemen opposite knew what those details were. They knew perfectly well.
In 1962 it was impossible for Canada to have control over the nuclear weapons which we were going to be using. They were under the control of the president of the United States. If hon. gentlemen opposite did not know it, the leader of the opposition at that time, now Prime Minister, knew it, and my right hon. friend from Prince Albert knew it. The McMahon Act of the United States provides that the use of atomic weapons owned and operated by Americans rests with the president of the United States and that he may not share that responsibility with anybody. It was impossible for us to accept atomic weapons on Canadian soil without a change being made in that act. Well, the act has not been changed yet. We now have atomic weapons in Canada. The atomic warheads on the Bomarcs can be fired only on the orders of the president of the United States, and Canada is no longer boss in her own house. Would the hon. member like to ask a question or is he glued to his desk?


Gérald Laniel: Would the hon. member care to tell me which government took the decision to build the Bomarc bases for weapons on which there were to be nuclear warheads?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am glad the hon. member asked that question. The defence of a country today cannot be decided from hour to hour. If we did not plan ahead we should not be able to do anything.


Gérald Laniel: You call that planning? I don't.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I happen to be an artillery officer and I know that the Bomarc is not entirely useless without atomic warheads. The Bomarc can be an effective weapon against conventional bombers.
Interim Supply
The agreement we made with the United States had not been "firmed up" to the last details. The most important detail had still to be settled, as hon. members know. It could not be settled without agreement by the United States to bring about a change in the McMahon Act. We certainly allowed the Bomarc stations to be built. They are still there and the weapons have atomic warheads now. Should we have accepted them holus-bolus regardless of the situation? It was a great statesmanlike act.
But what has happened with regard to Canadian sovereignty? The meeting which the Leader of the Opposition was to have had on May 3 was never confirmed. The present Prime Minister did not go to see the President of the United States and demand Canadian sovereignty in this area. We allowed the United States to build bases in Canada. Hon. members opposite have accepted atomic warheads to be fired only under United States orders. We allowed them to build bases but we would not accept atomic warheads on Canadian soil without an arrangement for dual control, and if I had to make a decision today I would make exactly the same decision as was made at that time. How can we tell what might have happened if my right hon. friend who now leads the official opposition had been allowed to go to the United States and help make a decision which would have retained sovereignty for Canada?


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this point in the debate it might be useful to review what is going on across Canada and examine what the reaction has been to the minister's bill and to the stand the opposition has taken during the last eight or nine days while we have been considering the question of unification in the course of a debate on interim supply. How are the editors of daily newspapers in Canada reacting to events in the house in connection with this matter?
I wish to touch briefly on the contents of 10 or 12 editorials, perhaps more if time permits. These have been extracted from leading newspapers across Canada. Since the constituency of Halifax is one of the areas most vitally

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
concerned, let me begin with an editorial comment from that great Canadian newspaper, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. On November 11, Armistice Day, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald disagreed with the suggestion by the Minister of National Defence that it was part of his ministerial duty to cause alterations to be made in the text of Admiral Landymore's brief. The editor maintained that the time-honoured rule that the minister is responsible for the utterances of his subordinates has no relevance to the case. When Admiral Lan-dymore was called as an expert witness he should have been allowed to present his opinions unfettered. The committee could then have assessed the value of his testimony by comparison with the statements of other witnesses.
[DOT] (9.00 p.m.)
In that particular editorial of November 11 the editor called on the minister to satisfy parliament and the country that the extraordinary policy followed by his department in relation to Rear Admiral Landymore was justified. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald has published a number of editorials over the last six or seven years on this very vital matter. Their opinion has been one of concern about the method in which the present Minister of National Defence and the government have approached the whole question of unification and integration and the way in which they have approached the release of information by their representative spokesmen before the defence committee. Like the rest of us they will remain concerned until all of the information comes to light.
In our neighbouring province the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of November 7 predicted in its editorial that the question of the unification of the armed forces could play a big part in the next federal election. The editor felt that many Conservatives, along with the older members of the navy and those who become vehement over creeping republicanism in Canada, are united in trying to prevent the minister from destroying the armed services. They contend that the changes will result in a lowering of morale, that the change of uniform, the separate rank structure and the removal of the prefix "royal" from the designations of the respective services will lead to disunity.
The Montreal Gazette, in a leading editorial on November 2, took the Minister of National Defence to task for his role in the revision and deletion of certain very important aspects of

Admiral Landymore's testimony to the defence committee last June. It took issue with the point that the minister had the power to control all evidence given before the committee by his staff. If this were to be carried to its logical conclusion, no civil servant or serving officer need appear before the parliamentary committee. This has been stated before and I am bringing it up simply because it has been the subject of editorial comment by one of the nation's leading daily newspapers. In the same editorial of November 2, 1966, the editor contended that if ministers are to be allowed to delete information of the very kind that parliamentary committees should have, then parliament will be inadequately informed through its committees.
In the Montreal Gazette of November 7 the editor disputed the minister's position that unification was the logical conclusion of integration. He admitted that there had been widespread agreement and that reforms brought about in the last few years with regard to integration were welcomed, particularly where they might tend to result in greater efficiency and in some savings to the public. The editorial goes on to point out that the minister's plan, however, has met and probably will continue to meet resistance at the point where the policy moves toward unifying the three services. The editorial substantiated its argument by citing the fall-off in recruiting and strength figures over the last few years despite the repeated efforts of the department to bolster the picture by offering re-enlistment bonuses and pay boosts.
On November 9 the Gazette followed with a criticism of the minister's inflexible refusal to send the unification bill to the defence committee before second reading in the house. The editorial writer took the position that referring the subject matter of the bill to the defence committee before second reading would not in any way hurt the chances of the bill being passed. The editor felt that no one could fault the minister for being firm on the principle but it appeared that he had caused himself unnecessary hardship and trouble by displaying firmness not on the issue itself but on a secondary matter.
On November 11, in view of the impending crisis in the house along with rumours of possible dissolution, the Gazette once again devoted its lead editorial to the unification question. It maintained that the issue of unification could never be made a sufficient reason for a general election. It felt that the question was so cloudy that it could not
November 14, 1966

Interim Supply
justifiably be presented to the people for decision. Indeed, it criticized the minister's speeches for making the darkness even thicker and for his conclusion that unification logically follows from integration. The editorial concluded that the risk of plunging the country into a general election on an issue that not even the Minister of National Defence can make comprehensible would be one of the most incoherent acts of political fumbling that the country has ever known. This is a position with which many people in Canada would agree. Indeed, the minister is not certain where we are going nor in what direction we are heading.
On November 8 the Ottawa Journal pointed out in an editorial that from the inception in 1964 of the government's plan to unify the armed forces it had no fundamental objection to that intention, however vaguely it might have been spelled out in the white paper. The editorial writer goes on to suggest that perhaps a country in Canada's position should unify its defence forces not only for economy but for efficiency. However, he objects to the arrogant methods now employed by the government in refusing to send the unification bill to a committee prior to second reading in the house. He goes on to suggest that the opposition would understandably have liked to have some basic reasons why the government is set upon unification as a logical conclusion to integration. He points out that there is widespread demand for such an examination of unification. It was right to seek an expression of principle before going into detail but, that being refused, the desicion should not withhold second reading for too long. If the minister is adamant, then perhaps we should let the bill come forward for second reading if in the final analysis this is the only way in which we can obtain the necessary information.
On November 5 the Ottawa Citizen in its leading editorial saw fit to take members of parliament to task for wasting time on what the editorial writer described as emotional and irrelevant matters during the debate concerning unification of the armed forces. The editorial went on to say:
Unfortunately, most of the debate during the past few days has been limited to character assassination, the role former admirals are or are not playing in partisan politics, and similar wholly extraneous issues. The legislation now introduced offers parliament an opportunity to redeem itself, to lift the debate above the vulgar level hitherto pursued, and to discuss questions that are of genuine concern to the nation.
[DOT] (9.10 p.m.)
On November 8 the Ottawa Citizen, while supporting the minister on the constitutional principle that the examination of details can only take place after approval is given in principle on second reading, pointed out that the house was master of its own procedures and that there had been occasions in the past when the subject matter of a bill was referred to a committee after first reading. The editor felt there would be some merit in sending this particular bill to the committee on national defence in view of its complexity and because it has aroused such widespread criticism and complaint. He went on to point out that if the minister was confident of his case he should have asked the defence committee to consider immediately the subject matter of the bill.
In the Toronto Globe and Mail of November 7, 1966, an editorial writer expressed the view that the opposition parties in the House of Commons will have a vitally important part to play in consideration of the minister's bill. The editorial mentioned the willingness on the part of the Conservatives-here again they are taking a bit of a whack at our efforts-to let this debate be led down the by ways of bitterness. This has been overcome. The issues with which we are now trying to deal are primarily those of principle.
In the editorial the writer calls for a most thorough and public discussion of the implications of the minister's bill to show the valid and urgent reasons the matter should be referred to the defence committee prior to second reading. The editorial questions the curious pledge written into the legislation which allowed an officer or man to serve, except in case of emergency, in a combat environment similar to that for which he had enlisted. It says that there are indeed a number of very valid and serious questions about the merits and otherwise of this particular bill.
The Toronto Telegram of November 5, 1966, generally agreed with the government's unification policy but took exception to the proposed new designation of the armed forces which it felt should be the "Royal Canadian Armed Forces." It objected to the minister's attempt to assuage the sensibilities of some of the present service personnel by allowing them to retain their old rank designation. What the editorial writer was attempting to present to his readers was the need for a detailed examination at this particular time and not after approval in principle.
The Toronto Star of November 2, 1966, editorially regretted the political fun that was

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
aimed at Admiral Brock's brief on national defence. The writer agreed with much of what Admiral Brock had stated, namely, that Canada had no need for nuclear weapons and that the nature of our armed forces outwardly should reflect the nature of our foreign policy and the spirit and will of the Canadian people. He felt that some of Admiral Brock's points were rather dubious when he argued for a complete, balanced, independent force. The writer felt that such a course would undermine the whole principle of a co-operating alliance such as NATO. Again we have an editorial writer striving for further information and a better understanding of what is happening in connection with our three armed services.
The Winnipeg Free Press of November 5, 1966, editorially agrees with the belief that integration and future unification efforts would meet with a genuine feeling of resistance within the armed forces despite the efforts on the part of the government to create the impression that integration was being accepted without question. Certainly we know there are many people in the armed forces who are young and are prepared to accept the position that possibly the minister is right in suggesting that his course of action is one which will capture the imagination of people who will want to get on with the business at hand in the most efficient manner.
The Winnipeg Free Press, and again it is not a paper which necessarily agrees with the Conservative point of view too frequently, editorially implies that one reason for the doubts and the questioning is that the government's plans as yet are vague and undefined despite the legislation introduced by the minister. The editorial writer agreed whole heartedly with the point made by the hon. member for Greenwood that the minister should let the defence committee hear from the body of persons who happen to disagree with the plan. The writer took the position that the minister clearly was attempting to ram through the bill as swiftly as possible apparently in the hope of neutralizing in advance the testimony of expert witnesses. He concluded that legislation containing so many critical changes in the nation's defence structure should be given detailed study in committee before the house is asked to approve it in principle.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, and refer to editorials in newspapers right across the country, including the Victoria Colonist. These editorials evince doubt and concern
about the path now being followed with regard to integration and unification. Where do we go from here? Questions of principle, the primary one being the right of parliament to have an understanding of what it is approving before it approves it, cannot be treated too lightly. The events of last Thursday have been dealt with, not specifically but by inference, by two or three of the editorial writers whom I have quoted. It was not in any way a meaningful exercise in terms of the question that was before us. Sooner or later, here on the floor of the House of Commons the whole matter must be brought to light publicly. It is difficult and indeed time-consuming to draw out here from the minister the anwers to the several hundred questions which must be forthcoming before any reasoned and rational decision can be made in respect of a bill of this magnitude and principle.
[DOT] (9.20 p.m.)
Earlier I spoke of the impact of integration and unification on the maritime economy and referred to the strong feeling which has existed and continues to exist among the middle and lower rank personnel in the Royal Canadian Navy. Let me point out to hon. members that apparently unification is going into effect at this time. Messages are being received by the naval establishment couched in army parlance. I quoted one but I could quote others. The one to which I had reference relates to seniority in respect of promotion, and the term "Major" was used throughout. Perhaps the minister can explain this by saying there is an economic reason and that members of the air force and navy are simply to interpret this rank as referring to their equivalent ranks. The answer might be that simple, but I suggest it is not. There are too many of these things happening at this time.
We have had assurances from the minister that in spite of difficulties in recruiting navy personnel there is no danger to the country and no difficulty in meeting our commitments. It is of interest to note that messages have gone out in the past few days urging all members of our reserve naval forces to make arrangements with the permanent force to go back to sea for two or three weeks. Apparently our ships should be at sea but we do not have sufficient permanent members to man them.

November 14, 1966

The minister must find some way of making a series of major policy statements in connection with integration and unification, particularly so far as base consolidation is concerned. He cannot dismiss the fears and concern relating to base closing by saying they are unfounded or simply speculative. That is not enough to allay the fears of those in my area, the 21,653 individuals who are directly employed by the armed services. Something more substantial than that has to be done if those individuals in the Halifax area are to accept the word of the minister.
The municipal officers of Halifax, Dartmouth and the municipality of Halifax intend shortly to arrange a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence regarding this matter. I hope the Minister of National Defence will be prepared to allay the fears of these men who have accepted civic responsibility and who are vitally concerned about the suggested closing of H.M.C.S. Shearwater. This matter is of vital concern to that area because of the economic impact this closing will have.
Having regard to the policy in respect of the closing of various bases, the government should make some policy statement as to replacement assistance which will be forthcoming. In the Halifax area some 30 per cent of the labour force is vitally concerned with our armed forces. Let me go so far as to say that five years' warning of the closing of this establishment would be precious little time for adjustment. I hope the minister will give some information in this regard to these civic officials when they meet with him regarding the proposed or reported closing of the base at Shearwater. I hope the minister is able to allay the fears of these men who are vitally concerned about base consolidation and whether the Shearwater base will become part of the base at Greenwood or Summer-side. Surely these spokesmen from Halifax, Dartmouth and the municipality of Halifax are entitled to frank and honest answers in spite of the fact the minister refuses to give us any information in this house and continues to suggest that these rumours are purely speculative. When he is talking to them I hope he will make certain that they leave with no doubts in their minds as to the short and long-term arrangements for this base.
It is apparent as a result of other signposts that major plans are contemplated in respect of defence structure not only in my area but in New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and elsewhere in the country. These areas must be
Interim Supply
examined in relation to the unification policy before any member of this house gives approval in principle. This is true because of the magnitude of this measure and its potential economic impact. It is creating widespread editorial concern and concern among members of the services and other people in areas that may be affected, particularly those where defence spending is a major economic factor. These areas must receive consideration in respect of parallel spending replacements.
The civil servants have received their midmonth salaries. Let me relate that to the general display we observed last week on the part of the government when it-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to sit down if I thought that by doing so this debate would be terminated and we could move to some other order of business. I say this in all sincerity, not knowing precisely what the opposition has in mind. I gather from looking at the opposition whip that I might just as well carry on because there are other members of that party who intend to speak during the debate on interim supply.
We have now devoted the last 11 days to this debate. For the greater part of that time the debate has centred on the question of unification. I had hoped that members of the opposition would have taken advantage of this occasion to debate the principles of unification but unfortunately they have concentrated their remarks on personalities, whether or not the Minister of National Defence is arrogant, modest, ill-advised or intelligent. Certainly very few people in this land know anything more about unification tonight than they did 11 days ago when the opposition decided it had an opportunity to force the hand of the minister on this question.
[DOT] (9.30 p.m.)
Interim supply, of course, does provide incidental opportunities for members of the House of Commons to bring to the attention of parliament, and therefore to the Canadian people, problems that may otherwise be overlooked or neglected. For instance, I thought that this afternoon the hon. member for Timmins as a representative from northern Ontario was quite logical in bringing before the committee his views on the principle of the new pipe line that is shortly to unite western and eastern Canada.

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
I think that interim supply is only a logical extension of the custom that existed in olden days when the peasant or man on the street had an opportunity of expressing his opinion freely and concisely without fear of reprisal on the part of the government when he paid his taxes in one form or another. I do not think it was ever the intention of parliamentary procedure that interim supply should be used to blackmail the government into deviating from its normal practice. I suggest this has been the reason why the opposition has seen fit to use 11 days of debate on interim supply to discuss the question of unification.
In effect what the opposition has said is quite simple. They have said: We will cease our filibuster, we will cease the prolongation of the debate on interim supply provided that you, the government, abdicate your rights and responsibilities as a government and deviate from the normal practice in bringing bills before the House of Commons.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would differentiate between the official opposition and some of the other opposition parties on this particular issue?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: I hope so.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, through you I should like to inform the hon. member that this will be very desirable to us.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, since both hon. members are friends of mine I shall be glad to please both of them and assure them that I mean that the more irresponsible opposition party has used the interim supply debate to try to make the government deviate from the normal procedure in respect of bringing bills before this house.


Malcolm MacInnis: You
have twisted it around.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I apologize to the hon. member, who is of course one of the more responsible members of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This whole debate has
changed today because the official opposition have realized that the prolongation of the debate on interim supply will not embarrass the government or harm the civil service by withholding their pay. Why should this make a difference in the debate if last Tuesday,

Wednesday and Thursday it was imperative for the good of the country to force the sending of the unification bill to the standing committee before second reading? The principle is equally valid today. The difference, of course, is that they can no longer blackmail the government into doing what is morally wrong.
I suggest that parliamentary procedure in this country, which is based upon the British system, provides that it is the duty of the government to bring legislation forward and have the principle of that legislation discussed before it goes to committee for a more detailed examination of the principles and details of the bill. I think the hon. member for Carleton recognized that fact today. If the hon. member's private bill were adopted by the house, it would once and for all divorce from interim supply the question of the pay of the civil servants of Canada. I am aware of the respect the hon. member for Carleton has for tradition and parliamentary procedure-he has demonstrated it on many occasions-and I also know he would be the last one in this house to try to divorce the payroll of the civil service from interim supply if he thought that in some way it would weaken the position of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes. I saw the hon. member running down the aisle and more or less anticipated that he wanted to ask a question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I so enjoy the hon. member's remarks that I want to ask him this question. If the bill introduced by the hon. member for Carleton were accepted by the house, the government would be in no position to attempt to blackmail the opposition by the threat of not being able to pay the salaries of civil servants in the future.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, our enjoyment of each other's speeches is mutual. I enjoy the speeches of the hon. member as well. If the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre does not approve of the private bill of the hon. member for Carleton, I cannot help that, but I imagine that holding such a senior position in the house the hon. member for Carleton discussed with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre the principles of his bill. Therefore I suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has a better opportunity of explaining the motives of the hon. member for Carleton than I have.
November 14, 19G6


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have evaded the question, just like your colleagues.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I suggest that the bill of the hon. member for Carleton would once and for all take out of the House of Commons and the political arena the question of the payroll of the civil servants, who should not be put to this kind of torture as a result of the action of an irresponsible opposition who would hold back their pay another week to the embarrassment of the government because it is in the best interests, they believe, of the opposition.
The opposition could have finished its filibuster last Tuesday or Wednesday. Since that time we have heard nothing but repetition in this debate. The pay of the civil service would have been assured and the civil servant would have received the salary to which he is entitled.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member going to deal with where and how the money was found?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: None of this would have been necessary had the opposition devoted three, four or five days to the question of unification. We are now on the eleventh day of this debate and we have not even discussed the principle of unification. The opposition have considered it to be more advantageous to them, I suppose, to discuss the character and motives of the Minister of National Defence rather than the principle of unification.
Bill Wilson of the Montreal Star, who is one of the more respected members of the press gallery, wrote an excellent article which I commend to all members of the House of Commons, particularly to the former house leader on the other side of the chamber. It is entitled "Constitutional Principles; Filibuster Opens Issue," and appeared in last Saturday's issue. I think it is an objective article and does not side with one party or another. It simply points out some of the constitutional problems which have arisen because of the length of debate and the filibuster to which we have been subjected. I do not want to read it all but I will gladly do so if asked. In comparing the American system with the British parliamentary system the article says: The crucial difference between the two systems is that in the countries which have borrowed British parliamentary methods, including Canada, the government is responsible directly to the legislature and can be dismissed by it.
Interim Supply
The article continues:
Since parliamentary governments can be held accountable by the House of Commons, they have insisted upon keeping a large measure of control of the rights to initiate legislation and control the time of the house so it can secure action on the proposals for which it has to take responsibility...
Prime Minister Pearson, in a Thursday night speech, attempted to make some of the constitutional aspects of the row clear but his arguments on this were lost in his later bombshell-that the government had found enough authorized money to meet its payroll.
I should like to pause here and thank the Minister of National Revenue for having had enough initiative and working so hard to scrape together the money necessary to pay our civil servants. I am thinking of the civil servants who because of the discregard and callousness of the opposition would have been deprived of their pay. I should like to read a little further from this article, and I draw the attention of the members of the opposition to the following words: "The Prime Minister reminded the house that the government had only minority support in parliament." This simply means that if the principle of unification is not in the best interests of this country, that if after prolonged debate on second reading the majority of the House of Commons thinks it is not in the best interests of Canada to unify the armed forces, that majority has an excellent opportunity to join forces and defeat the government. This is one occasion when minority government works to the benefit of the opposition.
[DOT] (9.40 p.m.)
Another point made by the Prime Minister which I would emphasize is that even if the unification bill gets through second reading and passes committee stage to third reading, the opposition is not powerless to defeat the bill, particularly since the government is a minority government.
The hon. member for Bow River, a friend of mine, emphasized the role of the opposition very eloquently, as is his custom. He quoted quite extensively from Arthur Meighen, certainly a fine source of opinion. But one of the responsibilities the hon. member did not mention is that the opposition has a responsibility to act on behalf of the Canadian people, and the opposition was not carrying out its mandate last week and again today by spending 11 days trying to force the government to deviate from the normal parliamentary practice of giving second reading to such an important bill and then sending it to committee.

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply
The role of this government and of all governments is to introduce legislation in the House of Commons which the government in its wisdom deems to be in the best interests of the people of Canada. If the opposition members do not agree with the principle of the bill, it is their role on second reading to give valid and good reasons why the bill is not a good one. Even if they do not agree with the principle on second reading, through valid and objective criticism in committee stage a great deal can be done to improve the bill and make it more effective. That is the main role of the opposition.
For reasons best known to members of the opposition they are insisting that the government depart from the normal procedure on the question of unification. Their argument all the way through has been-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Just one, because the hon. member has had more than enough time during the last 11 days.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would hate to consider the hon. member as one who would limit free speech. My question is this: If this bill goes to committee can the members then examine the principle of the bill or can they examine only the administrative details?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not going to try to give the hon. member a lecture on parliamentary procedure, because I recognize his intelligence. I know he has been here much longer than I and that he is recognized as one of the experts on parliamentary procedure, and I say that in all humility. I suggest to him that he refer to page 529 of May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, where the question is answered to my satisfaction as I am sure it is answered to the satisfaction of the hon. member. May goes on to say that yes, you can defeat a bill even on committee stage, and you can even introduce the principle on committee stage.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would you read it?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No; I will send it over to the hon. member because I have only another 15 minutes and I intend to devote my time to more important things than educating the hon. member in parliamentary procedure.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It would make your speech sound better.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Possibly. I have never pretended to be a great orator.
Let me now turn to the Minister of National Revenue who has been castigated both during the question period and in this debate. The minister made it clear today that before he took the action he did take on behalf of the civil servants of Canada, who would have been deprived of their pay by the opposition, he obtained legal opinion to make sure that his actions were proper. Furthermore, he mentioned that the Auditor General was only too pleased to take advantage of the revenue minister's initiative and receive $53,000 which that particular department needed for its own payroll. I am quoting what the minister said in his speech earlier tonight.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Did he also not say that he did not refer the matter to the Auditor General until it had been dealt with?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not want to interpret what the minister said. It is all in Hansard and if anybody wants to know what he said he can read it tomorrow.
The hon. member for Edmonton West, one of the more distinguished members of the house, spoke today about the standing committee on defence and suggested that it did not fulfil its functions properly, that in essence it did not review thoroughly the question of unification. I point out to the house that the hon. member for Edmonton West is vice-chairman of the committee, is a former Speaker of the house and a former cabinet minister, and is also a member of the steering committee. So whose fault is it, Mr. Chairman, if the committee did not devote enough time to the question of unification?


Malcolm MacInnis: The
minister's. You have not been listening the last 11 days.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sorry, I did not hear that interjection.


Malcolm MacInnis: To enable the hon. member to hear me clearly perhaps he would put on his earphone. If he wants to know whose fault it was, it was the fault of the minister. We have been discussing for 11 days the fact that he has interfered and tampered with evidence. Whether the committee accepts the evidence of Admiral Lan-dymore or anybody else, we now have no reason to believe anything that the minister has brought before us. We certainly have no reason to believe that he did not tamper with all the evidence.
November 14, 1966


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The reason I did not have my earphone on is that I can usually hear the hon. member without it. Unfortunately I do not hear as well as most hon. members.
I have only ten minutes left but I should like to quote one or two very important people. I repeat, because I think it bears repetition, some of the evidence the minister put on the record last week pertaining to the standing committee. The number of meetings of special and standing committees on defence totalled 81. The number of pages of committee evidence amounted to 2,300, all of it devoted to the problem of defence. There were 103 witnesses heard by the committee, retired and serving officers as well as civilians. The number of appearances before the committee of either the minister or one of his representatives such as the associate minister was 63. Talk about censorship. The number of questions answered by the minister in committee, not the number of questions asked but the number answered by the minister who is accused of refusing any information, was 857. If the questions were not intelligent, that is not the minister's fault. If they were not designed to bring out the facts of unification, again that is not his fault.
Another point emphasized so many times as the reason for this prolonged filibuster on unification is that the minister has sprung the whole question of unification on the people of Canada at the last moment. On April 9, 1964 the hon. member for Edmonton West asked the minister of defence a question. It is an important one because it was asked by a very responsible member of a very responsible minister. As reported at page 1942 of Hansard the hon. member asked:
Am I to take it from the reference to unification that the minister intends there shall be one defence force, or one armed force in this country, and there will be no distinction among the present three services or any of the units thereof?
[DOT] (9.50 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I made it quite clear-and this is set out in the White Paper-that the integration of the defence staff is the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
That was April 9, 1964, which means that the defence committee has had over two years to investigate the minister's statement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not an answer.
Interim Supply


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In case there is any doubt in any hon. member's mind, what the minister intended, I will repeat his answer:


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I made it quite clear-and this is set out in the White Paper-that the integration of the defence staff is the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He did not know that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is set out in the white paper that the integration of the defence staff is the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada. More than one spokesman for the opposition, more than one editorial writer in this country, has implied, rather unfairly I think, that the only people interested in unification are the young ginger group in the armed forces, young people of 28, 30 or 35 years. It is said that they want to please the minister and endorse unification because it will mean promotion. We have heard all that. Quite properly, we have heard hon. members in the opposition reading into the record the views of those opposed to unification. We have heard about such responsible people as Landymore and Colonel Merritt. Colonel Merritt certainly has a right to express his opinion about unification because he won the Victoria Cross.
I found an article in the Star Weekly, written not last year when unification raised its head nor in 1964 when the white paper was issued but written in 1961. The article, which is six or seven pages and too long for me to read in its entirety, says in part:
With the money we are now spending, I think the forces could be reorganized so as to meet all the major aims of Canadian policy. The first thing to do is to abolish the Canadian navy, army and air force and unite them all into one single Canadian armed service, and that is the name I'd use. Their functions already overlap. The army and navy want to fly; the air force already dreads being relegated to underground burrows dusting off automatic missiles.


An hon. Member:: Who said so?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Here is a further quotation from the article:
Can we eliminate the waste and duplication and futility which taxpayers properly complain of? Can we reorganize the navy, army and air force so that they will give the Canadian people value for money and make a better contribution toward preserving peace?


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: A man who knows a little about defence said that. It was General Charles Foulkes, former chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and one of the most respected soldiers this country has produced.

November 14, 1966
Interim Supply


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What has he written recently?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If anybody says he is not a responsible authority I am prepared to sit down and listen-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What has he written this year.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This article was written in 1961.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but what about this year? What has he written this year?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This article rebuts the argument that only the young ginger group favours unification, because the author of the article is a retired soldier.
I wish to quote something written by another man. If the opposition are quoting the opponents of unification I think it is only logical for us to put on record the views of those who favour the idea. Some of those expressing such an opinion are not between 28 and 32 years of age. The document I have in front of me was written by a man who is in his seventies. I would imagine one might almost expect him to be so blinded by tradition that he cannot see the benefits of unification. This document was written by Air Vice Marshal J. A. Sully.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He retired 25 years ago.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sure this is of interest to hon. members from the west. Air Vice Marshal J. A. Sully, C.B., A.F.C., in 1934 organized and commanded 112 auxiliary squadron in Winnipeg and later was in command of an auxiliary wing in Montreal. During the war he served as commanding officer of Trenton air station and then for four years as air member for personnel at Ottawa. All recruiting, postings, personnel movements, promotions, trade training, medical services, police, chaplain services and auxiliary services came under his department. He was made a Commander of the Bath by the King and received decorations from the United States and the Polish governments. His intimate knowledge of and experience with the workings of the air force and of the defence department qualifies him to speak with conviction.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member not agree that he had to do 
no research whatsoever to find the documents he is reading from because after a long search the minister's associate, Mr. Lee, to use the term used by a Liberal not too long ago, managed to smuggle the information contained in them in to the press gallery. The hon. member is quoting from something the minister's associate dug up. Why does the hon. member not bring himself up to date?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I had hoped that the hon. member would ask me a question instead of attempting to blacken the character of the Minister of National Defence.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I do not think the hon. member is really being fair to the retired general. I have a quotation from General Foulkes-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order please.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -which says clearly that what has been read is not his view.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, I should like to make my own speech.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
question of privilege, the hon. member has indicated that I made a special effort to blacken the character of the Minister of National Defence. It takes no effort whatsoever to do that because he has done that himself.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The minister knows where that remark comes from, and that should end the argument. The Air Vice Marshal had this to say about the Minister of National Defence, in case anybody thinks there is an unholy alliance between them:
I have met Mr. Hellyer only once but I have a great regard for his courage. He is the first minister who had the guts to tackle the unification of our services though everyone must have known that something had to be done. I respect his patience in making all the intricate changes that are necessary in this difficult and complicated move.
Surely we can get down to earth and help him to get a good job done for Canada and for our defence services.
This is a certified original document signed by J. A. Sully, Air Vice Marshal, retired, R.C.A.F.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Ten o'clock.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Somebody has pointed out it is ten o'clock. I should like to sit down and I would if I thought it would be the end of interim supply. If it is not the end I should like to continue tomorrow.
November 14, 1966


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would you not like to continue sitting for a couple of hours?


Donald MacInnis: Somebody called it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what is the business for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with the interim supply motion and at the conclusion of that we shall take the housing legislation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 7, as reported at page 9604 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Transport a question concerning the airport operations analysis unit established by his department, according to a press release dated May 6, 1966. The question was deemed not to be one to be dealt with on the orders of the day so the minister and I are here tonight to discuss our mutual interest in this matter.
[DOT] (10.00 p.m.)
As the minister knows, and I made sure that he does by speaking to him personally about it, my particular interest in this airport operations analysis unit relates to a condition at the Winnipeg international airport. Incidentally, the press release about this unit told us that among other things it would study the terminal area, the runway capacities, the facilities for air passengers and visitors, and so on. My concern, as the minister knows, is with a condition at the Winnipeg international airport which creates considerable difficulty for aged passengers, for mothers with children and for passengers carrying parcels. This is something which it seems to me ought to be corrected at the earliest possible date.
Just to make it clear that I am not springing this on the minister I would remind him that the first time I raised the matter in the House of Commons was on December 21, 1963.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I do not suggest I raised this in 1919, but after a while 1963 will be a long time ago as well. And I have raised it several times since then.
We are very proud of the new airport we have in Winnipeg. We think it is an attractive building and that the facilities for the most part are very efficient. But the situation which confronts incoming passengers does seem unfortunate, if not ridiculous. When you arrive by air at the airport in Winnipeg, you get off the plane and are at ground level. But immediately you are inside the door you have to climb a flight of stairs solely for the purpose of coming down again to get your baggage and leave the airport. Such a situation does not pertain when you are departing from the airport. When you are departing there is an escalator to take you up one flight to the waiting room from which you walk downstairs to board the aircraft.
Incidentally, I had a letter today from an acquaintance of mine in Winnipeg. This gentleman is suffering from a heart condition. He went on a trip west and everything was all right when he departed. He went up the escalator, down the stairs and on to the plane. But when he returned to his home city he discovered he had to climb a flight of stairs in order to go down again and he says in this letter, which was written on November 12 and reached me today, that it took him 20 minutes to climb those stairs. He wanders when something is likely to be done about it. He says he hopes something will be done soon, or-and perhaps I should quote him-"must we wait until some passenger or passengers drop dead trying to climb these completely unjustified stairs?"
I know the reason for the situation is that when the airport was planned the idea was to have movable exits which would extend from the second floor to the level of the aircraft. But apparently the previous government ran out of money at that time, as governments have a habit of doing; unfortunately the previous government did not have a Benson to find money in a sock. So these special conveyances were not installed. But surely something else could be done. Escalators could be put in or special arrangements made for people who find it too difficult to climb these stairs.
The minister will tell me that this is a local issue and that I should not take the time of the house with it. I see he is shaking his head, indicating he does not intend to say that to me, and I am glad to know that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am from Winnipeg too.
November 14, 196S

98S2
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a matter of concern to the travelling public as well as to the people of my city. The minister, I am sure, has a nostalgic interest in Winnipeg and I would hope that one will not have to continue asking about this year after year.
As I said, the first time I asked this question was almost three years ago and every time I have asked it, whether it was of the previous minister or the present minister, the answer has always been that the matter is under study and that everything possible will be done. In the meantime the airport operations analysis unit is working on this whole matter and I hope it will come up with some solution. Incidentally, last August the minister indicated that moving sidewalks will be installed in the airport in Dorval. That is an excellent idea. The distances over which the people have to walk at Dorval are very great. From that point of view the situation in Dorval will be improved considerably, but I am sure the minister agrees with me that the situation in Winnipeg should also be corrected. I hope that he will be able to tell us, in this crowded house after ten o'clock at night, when this correction will be made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman
speaks about a crowded house. Certainly in the absence of the official opposition it can hardly be crowded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The real opposition is here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We know where the real opposition is. The hon. gentleman is most ingenious but I have to tell him that the new operations research group was not established to correct relatively minor although important situations of this character. It is a planning unit established for the purpose of planning new airports and new terminals which will be required in the future. Winnipeg has the very good fortune of having one of the best airports in the country and it does not look as though immediate planning will be needed there for the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg was mentioned in the press release.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know it was mentioned in the press release and the long-term aspects will of course be considered in due course, but there are places where there are more urgent needs for this service.
However, I want to get to the point which the hon. gentleman brought up. I myself do not have a heart condition but I am getting a little old and arthritic and as the Minister of Transport I usually am met at the airport and never have to go up those stairs unless I want to for some reason. I just go through the bowels of the building and am conducted through it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Most people do not like going through bowels.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You cannot have your cake and eat it too. I think it is very important to do something right away and I am going to suggest to the airport manager and to the air lines that they arrange for someone to be present at every landing of every plane, and to let it be known that he is available, to conduct people who are in the condition which the hon. gentleman described so that they do not have to climb those stairs. It is not necessary to do so, and it is not even very disagreeable to walk through the garage.
We intend to put in some escalators. It is our plan to instal one or two escalators in the airport and we will do so as soon as we can find the funds to do it. In the meantime, to meet the kind of situation about which the hon. gentleman spoke, a little management, consideration and care at the airport should at any rate ensure that those people who cannot or do not want to climb the stairs will not have to.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
November 14, 1966

98S3



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Honourable the Treasury Board, held at Ottawa, on November 10, 1966.

[Stage Direction]
AUDITOR GENERAL The Board approves an allotment from Finance Vote 15, "Contingencies", of the Estimates for 1966-67, to supplement the following vote in respect of salaries:
Vote	Amount
1 Salaries and Expenses of Office $ 53,000
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Honourable the Treasury Board, held at Ottawa, on November 10, 1966.

[Stage Direction]
The Board approves allotments from Finance Vote 15, "Contingencies", of the Estimates for 1966-67, to supplement the following vote in respect of salaries:
Vote	Amount
1 Departmental Administration Departmental Administration Finance	$ 58,800
Treasury Board	50,700
Bank Act-Administration	2,500
Administration of Small Loans 8,000
[Stage Direction]
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Honourable the Treasury Board, held at Ottawa, on November 10, 1966.

[Stage Direction]
The Board approves allotments from Finance Vote 15, "Contingencies", of the Estimates for 1966-67, to supplement the following vote in respect of salaries:
Vote	Amount
1 Departmental Administration
Departmental Administration $	8,000
Information and Consumer
Service	2,000
Economics Service	5,000
[Stage Direction]
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Honourable the Treasury Board, held at Ottawa, on November 10, 1966.

[Stage Direction]
The Board approves allotments from Finance Vote 15, "Contingencies", of the Estimates for 1966-67, to supplement the following votes in respect of salaries:
Vote		Amount
1	Departmental Administration Food and Drug Services	$30,000
30	Administration	
	Administration	105,000
	Administration of Narcotics Welfare Services	15,000
40	Administration	
	Income Security	163,500
	Welfare Assistance	18,000
	Special Programs	18,000
[Stage Direction]
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Honourable the Treasury Board, held at Ottawa, on November 10, 1966.

[Stage Direction]
The Board approves allotments from Finance Vote 15, "Contingencies", of the Estimates for 1966-67, to supplement the following votes in respect of salaries:
Vote	Amount
1	General Administration
General Administration	$232,000
Fire Prevention	8,000
Roads, Bridges and Other Engineering Services
35	Operation and Maintenance	75,000

[Stage Direction]
November 14, 1966
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Honourable the Treasury Board, held at Ottawa, on November 10, 1966.

[Stage Direction]
The Board approves allotments from Finance Vote 15, "Contingencies", of the Estimates for 1966-67, to supplement the following votes in respect of salaries:
Vote	Amount
1	Departmental Administration $20,000
10	Translation Bureau	45,000National Museum of Canada 15	Administration	40,000
[Stage Direction]
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Honourable the Treasury Board, held at Ottawa, on November 10, 1966.

[Stage Direction]
The Board approves allotments from Finance Vote 15, "Contingencies", of the Estimates for 1966-67, to supplement the following vote in respect of salaries:
Vote	Amount
15 National Police Services Administration
Headquarters Administration $	149,856
Land, Air and Training	937,776
Marine Services	32,368
[Stage Direction]
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Honourable the Treasury Board, held at Ottawa, on November 10, 1966.

[Stage Direction]
The Board approves allotments from Finance Vote 15, "Contingencies", of the Estimates for 1966-67, to supplement the following vote in respect of salaries:
Vote	Amount
10 Exhibitions Branch	$	20,000
Standards Branch
20 Administration	17,000
$	37,000
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Honourable the Treasury Board, held at Ottawa, on November 10, 1966.

[Stage Direction]
The Board approves allotments from Finance Vote 15, "Contingencies", of the Estimates for 1966-67, to supplement the following vote in respect of salaries:
Vote	Amount
80 Administration, Operation
and Maintenance	$	45,000
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 15, 1966