1966-11-02

PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker:: I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that I have received, according to the rules, notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) and one from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The notice from the hon. member for Grey-Bruce was served only last evening. These two questions appear to be related to the same matter and I feel that in the circumstances, since notice was served first by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, he should be given the opportunity to refer to the matter first.



MR. WINKLER-ALLEGED DENIAL TO THE HOUSE OF INFORMATION APPEARING IN PRESS RESPECTING OLD AGE SECURITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Having given due notice, I rise on a question of privilege which, I believe, affects all members of the house in circumstances which will, once again, indicate the method the government is using to communicate policy to the public.
Yesterday during the question period I asked a question in connection with old age security pension legislation. My question was termed impertinent by the Acting Prime Minister, and there were other remarks made, as has been the case since I began this effort on behalf of the senior citizens of Canada.
In fact, the policy of the government appeared in detail on the front page of the Toronto Star, on November 1,	1966, as
proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare who suggested that the legislation would be before the house this month. Allow me to outline, now, the question of privilege which arises in relation to what has taken place as far as members of this house are concerned.
First of all, I raised the question of the possibility of an increase in old age pensions from the federal old age pension fund, on January 19. Since that time the fund has I believe swollen to the sum of $320 million, further proving my point in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member would wish to indicate to the Chair and to the house what the question of privilege is.


Eric Alfred Winkler: My question of privilege relates to the method by which the government has given details of its legislation to the public before making a statement on the matter in the House of Commons, particularly in the light of what took place during the question period yesterday, e (2:40 p.m.)
I also raised this matter on April 6 of this year as reported at page 3959 of Hansard, as well as on many occasions since that date. Indeed a notice of motion on this subject, which I moved, was discussed at length and talked out by government members. Then we come to the question period on October 21-and I know government members will not like this because it shows the method by which they like to carry on their administration and, so far as that is concerned, deceive the country. On October 21, in relation to a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) with respect to the sums of money that would be spent on foreign aid in ensuing years, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when legislation would be introduced to increase old age pensions, and the answer he gave on that occasion, as recorded at page 8952 of Hansard, was:
I hope that legislation will be before the house very shortly on that matter.
With reference to the article which appeared in yesterday's Toronto Daily Star I must explain to the house that obviously there is communication between the minister's office and that newspaper, otherwise the story would have appeared in other press media. I believe the minister's executive assistant has a certain nostalgic association with that newspaper, which would give rise
November 2, 1966

Alleged Denial of Press Release to the article which appeared on its front page yesterday. The articles says, without any denying, that the government is now-
-tying the ribbons on its new package, which it hopes to introduce in the Commons this month for delivery to the pensioners starting January 1.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that, my having raised this question first on January 19, 1966, to have this information given to the people of the country in this way is certainly a breach of privilege of the house and of all hon. members. The heading on the article is, "Help for Thousands in Pension Changes Coming Up in the Commons." I do not disagree with such help. I think my efforts on behalf of the senior citizens of Canada are well known, and I think my request to the government at such an early date this year indicates my concern. But since that time we have had nothing but an increase in the cost of living, and these elderly citizens have been denied that small amount of money which would help to serve their needs in present day conditions.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote the article which contains the breach of privilege of which I complain, so that the house will be apprised of the information that has been released without the House of Commons being informed. The article is written by one Perry Anglin, a staff reporter for the Toronto Star, and it reads as follows:
Ottawa-Under a proposed refinement-
It does not refer to any great piece of new legislation.
-in the federal guaranteed income plan for the old age pensioner, a person who now receives a total income of $125 a month, including his $75 old age pension, will receive an extra $5 from the government.
Thousands of Canada's 1,100,000 old age pensioners with an income up to $135 a month are now expected to benefit from the revision.
The original plan has been expected to guarantee pensioners a minimum income of $105 a month- including their basic $75 pension.
Under it, a pensioner whose only income was the basic $75 would get a full $30 extra from the government; any private income he had in addition to the $75 would be deducted from the $30.
But under the refinements proposed by Health Minister MacEachen a sliding scale of reduced benefits will be available to pensioners with a total income up to $135 a month.
For those pensioners, the maximum benefit of $30 under the new plan would be reduced by half the amount of their total income over the basic $75.
If a pensioner's total monthly income is $125, here's how he would receive the extra $5:
Half the amount of the $50 he receives over the basic $75 is $25 and this is subtracted from the $30 maximum benefit to give him $5.

The government is now tying the ribbons on its new package, which it hopes to introduce in the Commons this month for delivery to the pensioners starting January 1.
That, Mr. Speaker, I submit constitutes the breach of privilege which I bring before the house. This game of cat and mouse with the old age pensioners and with parliament must cease. I further suggest that it finally puts the tag on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and the cabinet, that what is involved is no longer a needs test but is in fact a means test.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The Chair finds itself in a bit of an awkward situation. A moment ago I referred to the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had submitted an identical question of privilege. Of course we cannot have two questions of privilege before the house at the same time. Even before the hon. minister has an occasion to deal with the matter raised, in order to allow the Chair to reach a decision as to whether there is a question of privilege, I would be inclined to allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to make his own privileged comments.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order. I would suggest to Your Honour that surely it should be competent for someone from this side of the house to be heard on the question of whether there is any privilege, before the time of the house is taken up by several members of the opposition in exposing their views.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point is well taken, to some extent. I have mentioned to the minister and to members of the house that there is an unusual situation inasmuch as there have been two notices filed with the Chair. Because of this I suggest the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might be allowed to say a few words. Then the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) should be allowed to explain the position of the government, after which I will be able to rule on whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege of which I gave Your Honour notice under the rules is related to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), but actually it does raise a different point.
November 2, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member now is proposing to raise a different question of privilege, we will deal only with the one, and in this case I will recognize the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, aside from the numerous debating points which have been made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, which are totally irrelevant to any question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -it seems to me the only point raised by the hon. member which can be remotely considered as relating to a question of privilege is his suggestion that I as Minister of National Health and Welfare released information to the press which I have not released to the house. I deny categorically, and on my responsibility in this house, that no information beyond the information presented to the house in a statement of policy this summer has been released by me to any person-


Mr. Starr:: How about your office?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -outside or inside the house, and I have authorized no such release.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is very difficult for me to understand the minister. There are interruptions which make it difficult-


An hon. Member:: Who does understand him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest there should be order in the house. I was given the opportunity to hear the hon. member for Grey-Bruce and I suggest I should be given the opportunity to hear the minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it now is a
characteristic habit of the opposition at every opportunity by interruptions of all sorts to prevent spokesmen of the government being heard. There has been no release of information.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Who leaked the information?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member for Grey-Bruce regards the information he has read as accurate, then he can take the responsibility.
23033-597J

Alleged Denial of Press Release


Eric Alfred Winkler: Do you deny the content of that article?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce knows the rules and he knows that the minister who has the floor should be allowed to make his statement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for
Grey-Bruce has taken a speculative newspaper story and has based a question of privilege on it. He now is requesting a minister either to affirm or deny what is in a speculative newspaper story. It has always been a rule in this house that it is improper, even during the orders of the day, to ask a minister to deny or confirm a speculative newspaper story. This is purely a speculative newspaper story and the reason the hon. member for Grey-Bruce raised this question of privilege today is for the same purpose of selfadvertising he has followed in the past several weeks in respect of old age pensioners. I suggest it will be impossible for us to expedite the business of this house if on every occasion there is a speculative newspaper story a question of privilege can be based upon it. That has not been the practice in this house and it ought to be stopped.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one brief comment. Let me assure every member of this house that I raised this question of privilege today because of my concern, which is well known. I ask once again whether the minister will deny the contents of that article, because I know how this government operates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether hon. members wish to continue the debate on this question of privilege. In my view a question has been raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce and an explanation has been given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I think it should be recognized by members that the statement of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce was not accompanied by a motion, so perhaps the best thing for the Chair to do is to make no ruling on the question raised by the hon. member.



MR. KNOWLES-ALLEGED CONFUSING AND CONFLICTING INFORMATION FROM MINISTERS RESPECTING OLD AGE SECURITY LEGISLATION

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment ago, my question of privilege although
9436	COMMONS
Conflicting Information of Old Age Pension related is a different one. I was quite happy to yield to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order that he could deal with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.
My question of privilege relates to the fact that different ministers of the government have been giving us different information with respect to the proposed old age pension legislation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare on July 14 indicated the broad outlines of the plan for an increase that was to be brought in. This was confirmed several times by the Prime Minister. Likewise on October 13, as recorded in Hansard for that evening, the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that there was to be no reconsideration of the decision to attach a test to the proposed old age pension increase.
However,-and this is why my question of privilege has to be raised today,-yesterday when the Leader of the Official Opposition and two or three others on this side of the house asked the Acting Prime Minister whether there was to be a means test attached to the old age pension increase, the Acting Prime Minister said "no". I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the house has been given conflicting information and that the ministers-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I submit to you with confidence that what we are now hearing is not an argument in support of the question of privilege but an argument on the merits of the question.


Mr. Douglas:: Why not listen to it and find out?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend suggests I should listen to it and find out. There is a time and place for that, and unless the procedures of this house are carefully followed we will not be able adequately and expeditiously to deal with the public's business. We want to get on with this measure of providing for increased assistance to the aged of our country, and these devices are designed to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that the house might want to give an opportunity to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to complete his argument.

DEBATES	November 2, 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have given at least some of my references, although there are more recorded in Hansard, to indicate that there is confusion in the house and in the country as to what is going to happen because of the conflicting statements made by different ministers of the crown.
My question of privilege is that we in parliament, and the people of Canada, have the right to have this confusion cleared up.


Mr. Howard:: Change the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The confusion has been compounded by the article in yesterday's Toronto Star that has now been placed on Hansard. I need not refer to it further. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have asked repeatedly that this matter be cleared up by the government's filing notice of its intended legislation. I submit that because the government has created this confusion by making conflicting statements, the members of this House of Commons have the right to have this matter cleared up. That is the basis of my question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the privilege?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by a minister, who is in his seat: What is the privilege?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Why
don't you stand up?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The privilege is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister say one thing, that there will be a means test applied to the increase in the pension, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs says there will not be a means test.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a question of privilege, and the hon. gentleman knows it. There is no privilege there at all, and the hon. gentleman is an authority on the rules and knows it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South is itching to say, if the Minister of Transport wants to speak, let him stand up and be recognized.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: And stop his squirming.
November 2, 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: As Your Honour has already ruled on the question of privilege with regard to the article that appeared in yesterday's Toronto Star, I make no further reference to it. But I submit that because of this confusion we have the right to have the matter cleared up. Therefore if Your Honour agrees that I have a question of privilege, and if you so rule, my motion would be:
That in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to filing immediately the notice of its proposed legislation respecting old age pensions.
That action will let us see the legislation, and whether it is satisfactory or not, at least we would know what is in it.


An hon. Member:: The government hasn't got it ready.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised a question of privilege on the ground that he is confused.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If privilege can be established on the basis of an hon. member's confusion, then the house would be in a perpetual state of seeking to raise questions of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is precisely the basis upon which the incredible argument has been made; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says: I am confused.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All of us are.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Therefore, he says, the privileges of the house have been violated. That is his argument.


An hon. Member:: This is a smart alec answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Undoubtedly the hon. gentleman feels uncomfortable, because of his reputation in the field of procedure, in making this argument. He does it for the same reason that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce does it, namely in order to exploit the situation of the old age pensioners for political purposes.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Don't give me that stuff.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. gentleman stated that the Prime Minister and I-
Conflicting Information of Old Age Pension


Frank Howard: This is spurious reasoning.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -agreed and put forward that there would be a means test in connection with this program. That statement has never been made. We have never stated that there would be a means test. The Prime Minister and I agree fully with what the Acting Prime Minister said yesterday, that there will be no means test in connection with this particular program.


An hon. Member:: Then what are you going to call it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the program will be revealed to the house-


Eric Alfred Winkler: When?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -it will be seen to be fully in accord with the type of test advocated and put forward by the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party. The real point to be made in connection with this question of privilege is that we are having a debate, we are having a dispute; and it is obvious that you cannot raise, under questions of privilege, matters of dispute and debate, and which will continue to be matters of dispute and debate in the house. But I will repeat for myself and for the Prime Minister that there will be no means test in connection with this legislation in the terms in which we have a means test in other programs.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless the hon. member has something additional to contribute to the debate, may I bring to his attention that he has already spoken on the question.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I make one additional comment for your consideration, namely that the very argument which has taken place between us as to what is a means test demonstrates that there is a confusion and that the house has the right to ask for clarification.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my view that the debate which has taken place between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicates that what we are now considering is a difference of opinion between the hon. members, and I doubt very much whether this is a question of privilege. Generally speaking, as the hon. member for



November 2, 1966
Questions
Winnipeg North Centre knows, it is not in order to base a question of privilege on the answer given by the minister to questions in the house.
On this basis and because of the fact that 1 do not recognize there is a question of privilege in what has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I would be inclined to say there is no prima facie case. The way I am looking at the situation is that the subject under debate is a matter which has already been discussed and which I suspect will be discussed for some time to come, but I would say that the proper time to continue this discussion between the two sides of this house is not on a question of privilege.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Godin: Is the amount of receipts for valid charitable donations accompanying a personal income tax return ever reduced by the government and, if so, for what reasons?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue	and	President	of	the	Treasury
Board): If the receipts are for valid charitable donations, the amount claimed would be reduced only if it was in excess of 10 per cent of the taxpayer's income.


QUEBEC HYDRO-APPLICATION OF SALES TAX
Mr. Godin: Are building materials used by Quebec Hydro subject to the 11 per cent federal sales tax?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue	and	President	of	the	Treasury
Board): Building materials used by Quebec Hydro are subject to sales tax except those building materials provided for in Section 29 <2b) of the Excise Tax Act. Goods referred to in this section are taxable only with respect to the raw material content.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Orange: 1.	How many persons were employed for the 1966 shipping season by the Northern Transportation Company on a seasonal or part-time basis (a) in operation (b) in construction?

2.	Of these employees (a) how many were hired in the Northwest Territories and at what locations were they hired (b) how many were recruited from outside the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I am
informed by the Northern Transportation Company as follows: 1. (a) 489; (b) None.
2. (a) Fort Smith, N.W.T., 9; Hay River, N.W.T., 38; Providence, N.W.T., 3; Simpson, N.W.T., 1; Norman, N.W.T., 8; Norman Wells, N.W.T., 2; Franklin, N.W.T., 5; Good Hope, N.W.T., 2; McPherson, N.W.T., 2; Inuvik, N.W.T., 3; Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., 22; total, 95. (b) 310.
The above figures do not include casual labour hired on a day to day basis. During the 1966 shipping season, such labour amounted to approximately 10,200 man hours and involved 198 men, all of whom were hired in the Northwest Territories.


PICTOU, N.S.,-TRANSFER COMPANIES LIST
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Is there an established list of transfer companies for the constituency of Pictou regarding the movement of furniture for R.C.M.P. personnel?
2.	If so, what are the names of the companies listed?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.
No.
2. Answered by No. 1.


TUKTOYAKTUK, N.W.T.,-HOVERCRAFT TRIALS
Mr. Orange: 1.	Has the government received a report on the effectiveness of the Hovercraft trials at Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., conducted in the spring of 1966?
2.	If so, what are the recommendations relating to feasibility of use in the North?
3.	If not, when is it expected, and will it be made public?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	The report will be submitted to the government by the end of October and will be made public.


MOTORCAR MILEAGE ALLOWANCE ON GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Mr. Enns: 1.	What is the mileage allowance to government staff who are required to ,use their cars for government business?
November 2, 1966

2.	Is this rate equal to allowances paid to personnel working for crown corporations such as the Farm Credit Corporation?
3.	If there is a difference, what is the reason for the two rates of allowance?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1. When an employee is using his car on government business the following allowances are paid. (Mileage given is for a fiscal year): (a) All provinces except Newfoundland, 10 cents per mile for first 8,000 miles; 8 cents per mile for mileage in excess of 8,000; 1 cent per mile additional, for the first 5,000 miles if an employee has a business insurance coverage of $100,000 minimum, (b) Newfoundland, 12 cents per mile for the first 8,000; 10 cents per mile for mileage in excess of 8,000; 1 cent per mile additional, for the first 5,000 miles if an employee has a business insurance coverage of $100,000 minimum, (c) Yukon and North Western Territories, 15 cents per mile for all mileage travelled.
2.	The Farm Credit Corporation pays the following allowances (mileage given is for a fiscal year): (a) All provinces except Newfoundland, (i) without business insurance coverage: 10 cents per mile for first 15,000 miles; 8 cents per mile for mileage in excess of 15,000. (ii) with business insurance coverage: 13 cents per mile for the first 8,000 miles; 10 cents per mile for the next 7,000 miles; 8 cents per mile for mileage in excess of 15,000. (b) Newfoundland, an additional allowance of 2 cents per mile is paid.
3.	The Farm Credit Corporation being a proprietary corporation, is not subject to the regulations made by Treasury Board. This situation may explain the difference in allowances paid.


FAMILY ALLOWANCE RATES
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Has the rate for family allowances been raised since 1944?
2.	If not, is consideration being given to the advisability of raising allowances for children under 16 years of age from six dollars to eight dollars a month, in order to make them proportional to the guaranteed income for elderly persons, which has been raised from $75 to a minimum of $105 per month?
3.	If the government is considering increasing family allowances, when will it do so?
Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes. Originally the rate was reduced by $1.00 for the fifth child, $2.00 for the sixth and the seventh child and $3.00 for each child after the seventh. This reduction was eliminated in 1949 and provided an increase for many families. In 1957 the $5.00 rate for children under six years of age was increased to $6.00 and the $7.00 rate for children between the ages of ten and thirteen was increased to $8.00.
2.	Any proposed changes in the family allowances program would be a matter of government policy and would be announced by the government in the usual way.
3.	See answer 2, above.


DORCHESTER, N.B.-MAXIMUM SECURITY PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coales: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to close out or to materially reduce the size of the operation of the Maximum Security Penal Institution at Dorchester, New Brunswick?
2.	When will changes in the Maximum Security Penal Institution at Dorchester be effected and what reduction in staff will this involve?
3.	On what date will changes be undertaken by the government in this regard?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. When the Young Offenders Institution at Springhill, N.S. comes into operation, the population of the Maximum Security Institution at Dorchester, N.B. will be reduced. There is no intention at the present time to close out the operation of this institution.
2.	The effect of the reduced population of the Dorchester Institution has not yet been resolved. The matter is under study.
3.	As the construction of the new institution at Springhill is not yet completed, it is not possible to give a date when the operation of the Dorchester Institution will be effected.


LIMITATION OF NUMBER OF LOBSTER TRAPS
Mr. MacEwan: Has the government decided to limit the number of lobster traps for the fishing of lobster in District No. 7-B and (a) if so, what will be the number of traps permitted per boat for the next lobster fishing season (b) if not, when is it expected that a decision will be reached in this matter?

November 2, 1966
Questions


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: It is not proposed to limit the number of traps in lobster fishing District No. 7-B in 1967.
(a) Not applicable; (b) It is expected that a decision will be reached in 1967 on limitation of the number of traps per boat and on measures to prevent an excess of lobster fishing boats in District No. 7-B and in other districts following registration of fishing craft in 1967 and a careful survey of conditions and opinion in the districts concerned.
LEVIS-RIVlilRE-DU-LOUP MAIL CONTRACT


Mr. Caouetie: 1.	What was the initial amount of the contract awarded to Mr. Adeodat Cliche for the transportation of mail between Levis and Riviere-du-Loup?
2.	How many miles per day does the aforesaid mail carrier cover?
3.	Has this initial contract been revised or amended and, if so (a) on what date (b) what is its present amount?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: 1. $23,988.00 per annum.
2.	488.8 miles per day.
3.	Yes, (a) From 1st April 1966; (b) $35,332.65 per annum.


IMPORT DUTIES ON MOTORCARS
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What is the duty on cars imported from (a) the United States (b) Great Britain (c) France (d) Belgium?
2.	If the duty is not the same in all cases, what is the reason for this?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Automobiles imported under the regular provisions of the Customs Tariff are subject to the following rates of duty: (a) 174 per cent ad valorem; (b) free; (c) 174 per cent ad valorem; (d) 174 per cent ad valorem.
Automobiles imported by a manufacturer entitled to use tariff item 95001-1: free of duty from the countries named.
2. (a) (c) and (d) are under the Most Favoured Nation Tariff, (b) is under the British Preferential Tariff.
Importations free under item 95001-1 can be made only by a manufacturer who qualifies under the item.


CLARK'S HARBOUR, N.S., FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Bower: Has the government plans for (a) the immediate painting of the federal building at Clark's Harbour, Shelburne county, Nova Scotia (b) landscaping in front of that building?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: (a) and (b). Yes.


WEST HEAD CAPE, N.S.-WHARF TENDERS
Mr. Bower: 1.	Has the government called for tenders on a wharf at West Head Cape Sable Island, Shelburne county, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, when is it expected that work on this structure will commence?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Yes, tenders have been advertised and are due on November 30, 1966.
2. Within a month after a tender has been accepted.


CAP-DES-ROSIERS, P.Q.-HARBOUR REPAIRS
Mr. Keays: 1.	Were there any repair works undertaken at Cap-des-Rosiers, P.Q. harbour in 1966?
2.	If so, how much was authorized for this project, and who executed it?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Yes.
2. $6,287-The contract, which is now under way, was awarded to Mr. Leo Mathieu of Riviere au Renard.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that question No. 1,828, which was put on the order paper by our lamented colleague the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), remains unanswered, I should like to ask the house for the honour of putting it in my name.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the question referred to by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Isabelle) be transferred to his name?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

MOTIONS FOR PAPERS Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 163 is acceptable to the
November 2, 1966

government subject to the usual reservations respecting confidential and interdepartmental documents.
Would Your Honour call notices of motion Nos. 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174 and 177? I would ask that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.


RECONSTRUCTION OF DOCK, DAWSON'S POINT, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 163-Mr. Peters:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, records, documents, tenders and contracts involved in the demolition and rebuilding of the dock at Dawson's Point on Lake Timis-kaming in the riding of Timiskaming between the district office of Public Works, individuals and other persons and the Department of Public Works at Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion 163 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 168-Mr. Forreslall:
That an order of the house do issue for the production of the brief together with all graphs, slides and charts prepared by Rear Admiral Wiliam Landymore, martime command, in response to his orders to prepare a brief on the state of his command for presentation to the standing committee on national defence as it was prepared on leaving his headquarters for such purposes and before briefing by the Minister of National Defence and his staff in preparation for its presentation to the standing committee on national defence on June 23, 1966.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisler of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this motion asks for material which would normally be considered privileged, and therefore it is not acceptable.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to Your Honour and ask for your direction. I am not prepared to accept the minister's rejection in the light of the fact that the substance of one of these notices of motion has already been complied with by the minister earlier this week.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish the Chair to put the motion?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt said motion?


Some hon. Members:: November 2, 1966
Division
Godin	Munro
Gray	Neveu
Gregoire	Nixon
Groos	O'Keefe
Guay	Patterson
Habel	Pelletier
Harley	Pennell
Hellyer	Pickersglll
Honey	Pilon
Hopkins	Prittie
Howe (Hamilton South)	Prud'homme
Hymmen	Racine
Jamieson	Reid
Johnston	Richard
Klein	Rideout (Mrs.)
Knowles	Rlnfret
Laflamme	Rochon
Lalng	Roxburgh
Lamontagne	Ryan
Langlois (Chicoutimi)	Saltsman
Langlois (Megantic)	Sauv6
Lanlel	Scott (Danforth)
Laprlse	Sharp
Latullppe	Simard
Laverdiere	Stafford
Lefebvre	Stanbury
Legault	Stewart
Lewis	Tardif
Lind	Teillet
Macaluso	Thomas (Malsonneuve-
MacEachen	Rosemont)
Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Thompson
(Vancouver-Klngsway)	Tolmle
McNulty	Tucker
McWllliam	Wahn
Marchand	Walker
Mather	Watson (Chdteauguay-
Matheson	Huntingdon-Lapralrie)
Matte	Winters
Mongraln	Yanakis-118.
Morison


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Flemming:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Fisheries. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mrs. Wadds:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Ballard:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


BRIEF PREPARED BY MAJOR GENERAL ROTHSCHILD
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 169-Mr. Forreslall:
That an order ol the house do issue for the production of the brief together with all graphs, slides and charts prepared by Major General R. P. Rothschild, materiel command, in response to his orders to prepare a brief on the state of his command for presentation to the standing committee on national defence as it was prepared on leaving his headquarters for such purposes and before briefing by the Minister of National Defence and his staff in preparation for its presentation to the standing committee on national defence on June 9, 1966.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are in all six more of these motions. In order to have time, I wonder if the government, through the Minister of National Defence, could clearly indicate its intention with respect to the remander of these notices of motion, and in that way perhaps we could expedite our dealing with them.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, the government's intention is to reject them all on principle. But in the case of No. 169, for example, I do not think there is any such material because the brief was given at materiel command headquarters. It was not brought to our headquarters at all, but in any event on the basis of principle the motions are unacceptable to the government.
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question on the statement he has just made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we will get into difficulty if hon. members ask questions and make statements. According to the rules this motion is not debatable. I understand the minister has indicated that there are no documents such as those sought by motion No. 169, and the matter is now up to the hon. member for Halifax.	,


David Lewis: With great deference to Your Honour, I was not going to engage in any debate or pose any questions that could be interpreted in that way. May I state my question, and then Your Honour will be able to see whether I am attempting a debate. The minister says that the government wants to reject these on principle. Exactly what is meant by that? Is the principle that the documents are privileged within the department, or are they classified documents?
November 2, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is where I suggest we would get involved in debate. The *question is on motion No. 169.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest deference, on an occasion of this kind, if Your Honour would review the precedents you would see it has been clearly stated on many occasions that the government must state precisely the nature of its claim of exception. Not only was this the case under Mr. Speaker Michener, but it was also a matter insisted upon by the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: I disagree fully with the hon. member for Edmonton West, and suggest he cannot find any precedent to support the suggestion he is now making to the Chair. The minister may make a statement, but there is nothing in the rules which says he has to make a statement. He has indicated the reason he is refusing to table the documents, and then it is up to the house to vote or not to vote.


David Lewis: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, if the minister is ready to reply may I respectfully suggest that, despite my lack of experience in the house, my logic does not tell me why the minister should not reply. All I am asking is, if he desires to do so, would he please elaborate on his statement that he objects in principle, so that members of the house may understand exactly what he said. If he is willing to do that, why can we not have that explanation?


Mr. Speaker:: If this is the wish of the house, then there is no objection. The minister concerned may make a more detailed statement than he made a moment ago, provided it is understood that the motion is not debatable.


Mr. Nugent:: But only if both sides can be heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This, of course, is against the rules, and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona knows it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that once you made a ruling, that ruling would be followed. But surely, if your ruling is going to be changed and permission granted to the minister to explain what he did not explain earlier, then there should be the right given to other hon. members to speak, because this would be unfair to the opposition.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: It appears obvious that the only thing left to be done is to put the motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Michael Starr: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it negatived, on division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion negatived, on division.


BRIEF PREPARED BY AIR VICE MARSHAL SHARP
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 170-Mr. Forreslall:
That an order of the house do issue for the production of the brief together with all graphs, slides and charts prepared by Air Vice Marshal F. R. Sharp, commander training command, in response to his orders to prepare a brief on the state of his command for presentation to the standing committee on national defence as it was prepared on leaving his headquarters for such purposes and before briefing by the Minister of National Defence and his staff in preparation for its presentation to the standing committee on national defence on June 17, 1966.
Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Forrestall, seconded by Mr. Nugent, moves:
That an Order of the House do issue for the production of the brief-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Mr. Speaker:: Are hon. members asking that I read the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No, dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, hon. members to my left request that I read the motion. The motion is:
That an Order of the House do issue for the production of the brief together with all graphs, slides and charts prepared by Air Vice Marshal F. R. Sharp, Commander Training Command, in response to his orders to prepare a brief on the state of his Command for presentation to the standing committee on national defence as it was prepared on leaving his headquarters for which purposes and before briefing by the Minister of National Defence and his staff in preparation for its presentation to the standing committee on national defence on June 17, 1966.

That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the brief together with all graphs.-
Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 2, 1966
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: -slides and charts prepared by Air Vice Marshal F. R. Sharp, Commander Training Command, in response to his orders to prepare a brief on the state of his Command for presentation to the standing committee on national defence as it was prepared on leaving his headquarters for such purposes and before briefing by the Minister of National Defence and his staff in preparation for its presentation to the standing committee on national defence on June 17, 1966.

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. This material, if any, is considered privileged and the motion is not acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has already made his statement. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: Negatived on division?


Michael Starr: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps with unanimous consent of the house the balance of the notices of motions might be incorporated as a part of the proceedings, so that Your Honour would not have to read into the record the remaining five.


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members agree that we dispense with the reading of notices of motions numbered 171, 172, 173 and 174, although I will call each number.


BRIEF PREPARED BY AIR COMMODORE HULL
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 171-Mr. Forreslall:
That an order of the house do issue for the production of the brief together with all graphs, slides and charts prepared by Air Commodore A. C. Hull, acting commander of air defence command, in response to his orders to prepare a brief on the state of his command for presentation to the standing committee on national defence as it was prepared on leaving his headquarters for such purposes and before briefing by the Minister of National Defence and his staff in preparation for its presentation to the standing committee on national defence on June 28 and 29, 1966.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion negatived, on division.


BRIEF PREPARED BY AIR COMMODORE DIAMOND
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 172-Mr. Forreslall:
That an order of the house do issue for the production of the brief together with all graphs, slides and charts prepared by Air Commodore G. G. Diamond, commander air transport command, in response to his orders to prepare a brief on the state of his command for presentation to the standing committee on national defence as it was prepared on leaving his headquarters for such purposes and before briefing by the Minister of National Defence and his staff in preparation for its presentation to the standing committee on national defence on June 16, 1966.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion negatived, on division.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are being asked to say yea or nay without having any information from the minister concerning whether or not the information is classified or of a confidential nature. The statement given by the minister in one instance does not cover this motion. I must say I resent the arrogant and autocratic attitude of the minister. He should give the house a reason.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may have the privilege of making a statement on each one as called, as was indicated by the hon. member for Edmonton West a moment ago, but I understood that the statement he made at the start applied to all motions. Perhaps hon. members would allow me to call the motions now.


BRIEF PREPARED BY GENERAL ALLARD
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 173-Mr. Forreslall:
That an order of the house do issue for the production of the brief together with all graphs, slides and charts prepared by General J. V. Allard, mobile command, in response to his orders to prepare a brief on the state of his command for presentation to the standing committee on national defence as it was prepared on leaving his headquarters for such purposes and before briefing by the Minister of National Defence and his staff in preparation for its presentation to the standing committee on national defence on June 21, 1966.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, any such material which would exist is privileged and the motion is not acceptable by the government.
Motion negatived, on division.
November 2, 1966

BRIEF PREPARED BY LIEUT. GENERAL FLEURY Motion No. 174-Mr. Forreslall:
That an order of the house do issue for the production of the brief together with all graphs, slides and charts prepared by Lieutenant General F. J. Fleury, comptroller general Canadian forces headquarters, in response to his orders to prepare a brief on the state of his responsibility for presentation to the standing committee on national defence as it was prepared on leaving his headquarters for such purposes and before briefing by the Minister of National Defence and his staff in preparation for its presentation to the standing committee on national defence on June 10, 1966.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, in respect of this notice of motion the same objection would apply, and the motion is not acceptable to the government.
Motion negatived, on division.
PLAN FOR PRAIRIE RAIL NETWORK Motion No. 177-Mr. Douglas:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Transport and any organizations or groups on the plan for a prairie rail network guaranteed to January 1, 1975, as announced by the Minister of Transport on September 12, 1966.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had a word with the hon. member and I think I should like to put on Hansard what I explained to him. Strictly speaking, there is no correspondence at all before the publication of the network. There have been a few representations of an official character received after the publication. Some of these were from individuals and some from organizations. I should be glad to table all the correspondence, except one confidential document where there was an exchange of advice. I think it would be quite unfair to the person whose advice was being sought.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion, subject to the reservations and conditions accepted by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Labour. Has the minister anything to report to the house as a result of the meeting yesterday with representatives of the United Automobile Workers, who were here to discuss with him payments and other related matters in respect of the lay-offs of the automobile workers as a result of the Canada-U.S. auto pact.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon three of my colleagues and I had a very useful discussion with a delegation from the United Automobile Workers headed by their Canadian director. Among matters discussed were training and retraining programs, but the most time, perhaps, was devoted to the matter previously raised by the hon. member for Ontario and others, namely, the transitional assistance benefit program, commonly known as T.A.B. This is a benefit program for workers, who may be laid-off as a result of readjustments arising from the operation of the Canada-U.S. automobile agreement.
I think members of the house should know that my colleagues and I advised the delegation yesterday that the government had given very careful consideration to the T.A.B. program, and to the representations that they have made on more than one occasion, including the occasion on which the hon. member for Ontario was present with a delegation from Oshawa. We advised these people that the regulations governing this program would be amended in order to permit workers who have used up their supplementary unemployment benefits, commonly known as S.U.B. credits, during lay-offs certified by the adjustment assistance board, to draw them subsequently as transitional assistance benefits. In other words, the effect of this change in regulations would be that T.A.B., the transitional assistance benefit program, will underwrite the S.U.B. program, and the workers will get earned benefits, if needed.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister presented this modification of the transitional benefits did the delegation give any indication that this would meet their needs and satisfy them that the matter would be looked after properly so far as those laid off were concerned.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This is a very good question Mr. Speaker, because the attending U.A.W. delegates thanked us for giving them the information, but they said they would like time to consider it before commenting on it.
9446	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister say how many it is estimated, by those who met with him on behalf of the automobile workers, are out of work as a result of the Canada-U.S. automotive pact.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It would be difficult to give an accurate figure; it would be impossible in fact at this time. I can say, however, that the figure is substantially lower than some of the figures which have been mentioned in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Was there no mention of the number by those who met with the minister; was there no estimate given?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There were estimates given.


John George Diefenbaker: What were the estimates.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The estimates varied from community to community and there were very good answers given to some of the estimates put forward.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house whether he has yet been able to begin setting up the method of consultation between labour, management and government which was a topic of discussion at the meeting.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I stated yesterday that my department after very careful consideration and after discussion with interested parties did not intend to set up a tripartite committee covering the whole automotive industry but that it was the intention of the Department of Labour with government approval to try to work on a company basis. We would, then, have tripartite agreements which would permit discussions between a company, its employees and the government.


Michael Starr: May I ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Essex East was present at this meeting yesterday when this organization proposed that the government should set up a tripartite committee to assess the lay-offs in the automobile industry. Did he give them the same state of the union speech he gave me yesterday on this question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be very glad to answer that question. I was surprised that

DEBATES	November 2, 1966
my hon. friend, who represents an automobile constituency, was not present at that meeting, along with other members from various quarters of this house who were there.


Michael Starr: They were there at the invitation of the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said when I met with the workers yesterday, and I say now, the time has come when we have to recognize that to find a solution to these problems there have to be meetings between labour, management and industry.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question. Do I take it that the member for Essex East is prepared to set up such a tripartite committee?


Paul Joseph James Martin: You asked me what I thought, and I told you what I thought. There have to be meetings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Starr: It is my opinion that you have not said one word in explanation.


An hon. Member:: He should have saved his breath.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. Do I understand correctly that under the new regulations T.A.B. payments are to underwrite the S.U.B. payments, and has not the union objected up to now to the S.U.B. payments that were formerly available as a substitute?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the last part of the question first. This has not been proposed. The effect of the government's proposed change in the regulations would be that the transitional benefit program will underwrite the S.U.B. program. In the event that the S.U.B. funds should be exhausted, then each individual will get a corresponding T.A.B. credit if needed later.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether hon. members would take into consideration the fact that we have only 30 minutes today for questions, and we have already spent ten of those 30 minutes.
November 2, 1966


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I had not asked a question before, Mr. Speaker, and I will not ask another, but I should like to ask the minister whether it will be mandatory upon automobile manufacturing companies to contribute to this financial assistance?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, but to S.U.B. only.


Michael Starr: May I ask this one, additional supplementary question? Have the details for the modification of T.A.B. payments been worked out as yet, and was the government in a position to answer the many questions that were asked regarding this modified version?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the executive assistant to the Canadian director made an appointment to discuss our proposal with some of the members of the T.A.B. board this morning. They were to meet this morning, and I have not had a report as yet.


Michael Starr: In other words, the details have not been worked out yet.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
For two years now the Minister of Transport has been promising us an air terminal at Val d'Or and Rouyn. I believe that this is an urgent matter. Is the minister in a position to tell us today if his department is now prepared to proceed with the construction of an air terminal at Val d'Or and also at Rouyn, in my northwestern area of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry, but I must tell the hon. member that in my opinion this question should be placed on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a point of order. I have placed this question on the order paper and I have not yet received an answer. Besides, I can see that the minister is rising to reply to my question. Under the circumstances, could you not allow the minister to give me an answer?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is not right for a minister to say this, but I am not at all satisfied with the progress that is being made, and I am trying to get it speeded up.


David Réal Caouette: I am not satisfied either.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister considering a change in his travel plans in respect of his expected trip to Moscow later this week, in view of persistent reports of security leaks to agents of certain behind the curtain countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, sir.



REQUEST FOR IDENTITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Solicitor General and since this question of security relates to all departments of the government, may I ask the minister on the eve of his departure on a pilgrimage to behind the curtain countries, to advise whether or not the foreign country to whom the information was allegedly made available is a behind the curtain country?
Let me ask also whether any announcement is to be made at this time regarding the identity of those in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources who are allegedly implicated, so that the clouds of suspicion that have arisen will be removed from the thousands of other employees of that and other departments?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that, with my right hon. friend's experience, he will agree that the answer given yesterday by the Solicitor General is the answer that must stand under the circumstances.
9448	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer given yesterday involved an expectation and hope that a statement would be made. Now that the Solicitor General is in his place, 1 should like to ask him whether he is in a position to say there was a breach of security or whether certain maps became available to behind the curtain countries which, under normal circumstances, could be purchased at any store in this city?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, I do not believe I ought to go beyond the answer I gave yesterday, except to give assurance that the matter is being pursued as expeditiously as possible.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the senior citizens who will be eligible for an increase in their old age pensions, or those who qualify for the proposed guaranteed income, be obliged to disclose their income or financial resources before receiving any additional money?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the details, and they are naturally of great interest to all hon. members of the house, will be fully disclosed when the legislation is before us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just give me an answer, yes or no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When will that be?



NICKED-GOVERNMENT REACTION TO INCREASED PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: I
have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In view of the effect on the world price of nickel, has the government any comment to make regarding the decision of the International Nickel Company yesterday to raise the price of that metal?
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).)
DEBATES	November 2, 1966


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful to the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. Several months ago the International Nickel Company-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. minister, but it seems to me what he proposes to do now is give an answer in the form of a statement. I hope that what he does now is answer the question rather than make a statement.


Robert Henry Winters: What I intended to say is not as long as you may expect, Mr. Speaker. I thought I should say that the International Nickel Company has been discussing this matter with us for some considerable time. There is developing a world shortage of nickel and unless INCO, which is the world's largest producer, can bring new sources of supply into production demand will outrun supply. This would result in a disproportionately large increase in the price of this metal. This situation was considered with us over a period of time and as a result the price the company had contemplated was scaled down to the point where the government considered it no more than was reasonable to assure new production from additional reserves which have been found in Manitoba and in Ontario near Sudbury. We informed the company that we deemed the proposed price to be reasonable, having regard to increased costs as well as to inflationary pressures. We have had in mind our desire to work with the United States government to contain the forces of inflation on the North American continent.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the shortage of nickel as outlined by the minister, has the government considered the possibility or urging these companies to reverse their policy of closing down proven nickel properties, as they have done in so many areas in the north, so that this shortage may be alleviated?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not aware of that situation, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. On July 8, as
November 2, 19G6

recorded at page 7382 of Hansard for that date, I asked the minister the following question:
-has a letter gone out from the Department of Industry advising those interested in trawler construction for the fishing industry that there may be some change in the regulations after August 1, 1967?
The minister replied:
I will check on that, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the time that has now elapsed has the minister any report to make of this matter?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have not the precise information here today. I will once again undertake to check on this matter and provide the hon. member with an answer tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question directed to the Minister of National Defence on October 26 by the hon. member for Calgary North, who asked the minister whether it was correct that the estimated cost of the refit of the Bonaventure is now $8 million.
When answering a question on the cost of the refit of the Bonaventure I pointed out, as recorded in Hansard of April 27 last, that firm price contracts had been let in respect of the known modifications to the vessel in the amount of approximately $5 million and firm price contracts had also been let in relation to government-furnished equipment in the amount of approximately $2.23 million. Since that time the cost of the firm price contracts for known modifications has not changed, nor has the cost of the government-furnished equipment.
The third element of cost of the refit was a figure put in to cover the expected changes and repairs that would be needed, and could only be determined in extent when the ship was in the repair yard and the engines and other machinery had been opened up. Since the ship has been under repair we have learned that the estimate made in advance as to the cost of this unforeseen or immeasurable work, rather than the figure of $880,000 that was put in, is more likely to be approximately $3 million. So the total cost, instead of the figure given of $8 million last April should be $11 million-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must intervene at this moment. It seems to me that the type of reply being given by the minister should not be given at this time. I fully realize that the question, once it is allowed, is of the type that requires this kind of information. I am sure that I made the original error and should have suggested to the hon. member for Calgary North that the question be placed on the order paper. I hope that the information already given by the minister is sufficient.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since I have not had the opportunity of giving the minister notice of my question, perhaps he would take this as notice. Is it the intention of the Board of Transport Commissioners to permit the immediate closing of the railway station at Thamesford, Ontario, by the Canadian Pacific Railway? I anticipate that Your Honour will suggest this question is not in order. I point out that it meets both qualifications necessary for a question to be asked on the orders of the day in that it is, first, indeed a matter of national importance and, second, it is urgent. On the question of national importance, I am informed by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we would save time if the minister were allowed to answer the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not informed of the intentions of the Board of Transport Commissioners.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I draw this matter to the attention of the minister because I am informed that this is about the only railway station in southwestern Ontario that has facilities for the loading and unloading of cattle, and there are a great many cattle in western Canada awaiting shipment to this part of Ontario. This is a matter that affects the country as a whole, not to mention our export trade, and it affects several members on the government side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now arguing his case.
November 2, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



CASH VALUE OF 3 PER CENT PERPETUAL BONDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister or the government formulated a plan to redeem the 3 per cent perpetual Dominion of Canada bonds?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that this question was asked yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


David Vaughan Pugh: I suggest that since yesterday the question has become more urgent. I have asked the question, and I think the minister was about to answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in government policy.



DONALD REPORT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT ACTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. If necessary, he could take it as notice. When is the house likely to hear of any decision made by the government as to its intentions and policies arising out of the Donald report, particularly with respect to the promise made a year ago with regard to certain grants and the opening of the Lingan mine?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will direct this question to the minister.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
In view of the final withdrawal of the C.N.T.U., from federal organizations, as announced for November 11 next, would the 

minister agree to call a meeting of the leaders of the C.N.T.U. in his office to assure them that their union will be dealt with fairly and ask them to postpone their withdrawal?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Milton L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the government consider imposing the necessary measures for the freezing of leases and the establishment of rent control on all dwellings and housing accommodation in the city of Montreal, and for a surrounding radius of 60 miles until May 1, 1968, when the abnormal situation created by Expo will have subsided?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General with respect to the investigation into the security case being conducted by the R.C.M.P., to which the minister referred yesterday. Have the R.C.M.P. searched the premises of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; and if so, what articles or items were seized on that occasion?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is proper for me to report on the course of any investigation while it is still being conducted.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Importance and should be dealt with at this time. Would the minister look into a report emanating from the maritimes area that the rates being charged for express shipments are higher than those being charged for freight shipments although the goods are travelling in the same car and arriving at the same time? Would the minister check with Canadian National Railways on this matter, with a view to having this practice discontinued?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the government give consideration to forming an all-party committee of the house to propose some significant action to celebrate Canada's centennial right here on Parliament Hill, and perhaps in the centre block?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. member for this question. I may say to him that the hon. member for Chicoutimi has made a similar proposal.


Michael Starr: When?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This morning.


Michael Starr: Where?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In places that count.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, outside the House of Commons.


Mr. Ricard:: This is not the place to discuss those things.


Paul Joseph James Martin: "Places that
count" of course includes the House of Commons. I have learned that one makes progress by recognizing that suggestions from the government side are oftentimes as valuable as suggestions made by those who sit on Mr. Speaker's left. In any event, this proposal, which is now being discussed, will be referred to the Prime Minister. I must say that it seems to me to have a great deal of merit.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: This is a prize revelation of the government's attitude.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Always be loyal to your own people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It relates to the civil rights of people visiting Canada and the civil rights of a number of people who have been incarcerated and whose status is under inquiry by the minister's department. I may summarize my question in the following way: Why is the Department of Immigration taking the position that when bail is refused by an inquiry officer to a visitor from another country whose status to remain in Canada is questioned, such a refusal cannot be reviewed by a high court?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, the question is based on an allegation or assumption and therefore is not acceptable.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I did put the question the other day but today I shortened it. What are the rights of people who are incarcerated while visiting Canada, when bail is refused by the department, and this decision cannot be reviewed?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for a legal interpretation and I do not think that type of question is acceptable.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
In view of the numerous railway tragedies occurring recently and particularly the one which happened yesterday at Montmagny, in the province of Quebec, where four persons lost their lives, is the minister taking the necessary steps to ensure that the committee on transport and communications will study immediately or soon the problem of grade crossings?
9452	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir.


Auguste Choquette: I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Since this problem is assuming alarming proportions, is the minister considering the possibility of increasing the grade crossing fund, so that this problem might be solved?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR PRICES REVIEW BOARD On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a very worth-while and important question to the Acting Prime Minister and to ask him to strongly advise the Prime Minister in the following matter. In view of the tremendous rise in prices which Canadians are experiencing at the present time, can the minister strongly advise the Prime Minister to give consideration to the setting up, with provincial co-operation, of a price review board in order to help place some type of control on prices that are beyond the means of the consuming public?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, my hon. friend is asking a question that is based on suggestions which have already been made on this side of the house.


Michael Starr: When and where?


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the Kingston conference, for instance.


Michael Starr: On what date?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In any event the Prime Minister will be given this question, and it will receive his active and immediate attention.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the two labour unions of Quebec have each in turn invited the Quebec members of all parties in this house, would the 
DEBATES	November 2. 1966
minister agree to do likewise, as a matter of courtesy, and invite those two unions, on behalf of all Quebec members, regardless of party allegiance, so that we may hear both points of view at the same time?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, a cabinet committee is looking into that problem which concerns the C.L.C. and the C.N.T.U., and I hope the decision will be announced shortly.
I feel we are pretty well aware of the position of the two unions and that nothing would be gained by inviting them both at the same time, except provide a new forum for the member for Lapointe.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton L. Klein: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked a question to which I should like to reply now. The discussions of the steering committee determined a general feeling that trips to Indian reserves would be more productive and comprehensive in the form of a number of small study groups visiting numerous areas rather than the necessarily restricted and formal procedure of the whole committee visiting only a few areas. It is not clear whether the present terms of reference give such authority, and new terms will be sought as soon as possible if required. Travel arrangements will be made thereafter at the convenience of members of the committee. I hope the committee will be able to assemble for that purpose within a matter of a few days.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $371,999,867.43, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Items for Citizenship and Immigration, Defence Production, Forestry, Industry, Legislation, National Revenue, Post Office, Privy Council and Veterans Affairs, already provided for in Appropriation Act No. 6, 1966, and except Agriculture Item 35, Atomic Energy Item 5, Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Finance Item 15, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 40 and 70, Transport Item 103, and Loans, Investments and Advances Items L40, L75 and L80, for which no proportion is granted- $309,794,765.50;
November 2, 1966
[Stage Direction]
(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,-866.67;
(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 Mfear ending 31st March, 1967.
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, last night when we adjourned at ten o'clock I think we had pretty well established the position that while the government gives lip service to the principle that parliament is entitled to information-some government spokesmen have even bragged about setting up a committee to ensure that information is made available-this government continues to go to desperate lengths to keep information from parliament. They are so worried about the defence situation that the minister goes to any length to prevent it from coming to light.
I think the house should really examine the position in which the Liberal party has put itself, as evidenced by the vote taken today, so that there should be no question that it is official Liberal party policy today that the government does not answer to parliament. By voting against the motion they have said that it is the government which is supreme and not this house. The minister has said so during the debate. For instance, on page 9346
Interim Supply
of Hansard, when speaking of witnesses before a committee he said;
This does not mean and cannot mean, of course, that departmental officials and serving officers appear before the parliamentary committee as private individuals speaking on their own behalf. They are there as representatives of the department.
Mr. Chairman, to suggest that a parliamentary committee is limited to summoning before it only those witnesses whom the minister decides should come is nonsense.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not say that.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: There is a suggestion inherent in what he said that if a witness works in the department, then he is a department representative and as such speaks for the minister. We, in this party, reject this contention most emphatically. Everyone who believes in a responsible and democratic government must uphold the power of parliament. When parliament summons witnesses through its committees, whether those witnesses be civil servants or officers of the armed forces, they should be allowed to present whatever facts are in their possession. It should not be up to the minister to decide whether they should do so or not.
The minister emphasized this again on page 9346 of Hansard when he said:
It is fundamental to our parliamentary practice that the minister responsible for a department will have the sole discretion as to the limits of the special material that his officers may present.
Again, it is spelled out very clearly, in the statement: "the minister shall have the whole responsibility as to what material his officers may present." Can there be a clearer statement of the minister's belief in his superiority over parliament?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I suggest that this is not just a statement of the minister's that can be denied by other ministers, the Prime Minister, or Liberal backbenchers. The motion rejected today by the house, as a result of the Liberals voting against it, emphasizes the principle to which I have alluded. The minister has rejected the question of privilege. As we have seen in the Landymore case, material was deleted. When the minister talked about privilege, he must have been aware what judgment would be made of his remarks to the effect that he had a right to determine what the committee shall hear. Does the minister think that his right is superior to that of parliament? When the minister's party voted today, rejecting the

November 2, 1966
Interim Supply
motion tor production of documents having to do with that question of privilege, the position of the Liberal party was made clear.


The Chairman:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that he is now reflecting on a decision of the house.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I had not intended reflecting on a decision of the house. I was merely pointing out to hon. members opposite the position that their party is in as a result of the vote this afternoon. I must point out that the stand taken by this minister with respect to defence matters was that they shall not be revealed to the House of Commons. I suggest that those so enthusiastically backing this minister, who steadfastly refuses to allow defence matters to see the light of day, have got themselves and their party into a position which would make Sir Wilfrid Laurier turn in his grave, and cause distress to other Liberals walking the streets. I know that my Liberal friends at home will be more than a little annoyed at the Minister of National Defence. Their reaction will be, I am sure, that no matter how embarrassing some of these defence matters may have been to the minister, the embarrassment heretofore is as nothing compared to the embarrassment of the Liberal party now as a result of the vote in the house today. That vote will embarrass the Liberal party and all those who believe in democracy.
The position has been made very clear by the Liberal party that the minister is superior to parliament. That is the official position now. Their position is that they are not responsible to parliament.
Is there no way by which members in this house can reach the minds and consciences of members opposite? Are members opposite going to sit as a solid phalanx, steadfastly refusing to put pressure on that minister to do what everyone knows should be done, namely, giving the facts to parliament so that we can intelligently discuss these pressing matters of defence?


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


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, on entering the debate on interim supply for a few moments this afternoon I, too, want to make remarks with respect to defence policy and defence matters. It has been my privilege and honour in the short time I have been in this

house to be a member of the defence commit-tie, and to be one of the original group forming that defence committee when it was established in 1963. So, this has been a matter which I have followed with keen interest, and which 1 will continue to follow with keen interest, particularly when one watches the evolving progress of the integration of our armed forces and the steps leading towards unification.
Today in particular, following the discussions of the last couple of days, I want to allude to a document which has come to hand. I am not referring to that document which showed, side by side, the documents of Admiral Landymore and those of the hon. Minister of National Defence-that Rosetta stone, that Cleopatra's needle from which we can discern and determine not only what was in the mind of the minister but what was in the mind of the navy.
I have another document to which I shall refer in a moment or two. This is a very interesting document prepared by the new defence critic of the Tory party.
Hon. members will remember that on October 31, in the exchange which took place as recorded on page 9353 of Hansard the minister said, in part, addressing the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona:
-did you in fact burn 19 copies of this memorandum because you were afraid it would see the light of day?
I am referring to the study paper, or to the policy paper of the Conservative party on the subject of defence. The hon. member replied:
I don't know what you are talking about and you don't know either.
Then the Minister of National Defence went on to say to the hon. member:
Do you deny such a document exists, that there was in fact a memo prepared by Admiral Brock?
To which the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona replied:
I have no idea of such a document.
It was at this time that the hon. member for Halifax entered into the discussion and spilled the beans. He rose, and it was rather comical and said:
My hand lies very deeply in that document and I am very concerned with it.
His hand, at this moment, lies deeply in the other hon. member's back. The hon. member for Halifax went on to say:
The minister talked about drafts that were changed, and one thing and another. The first 19 were destroyed; indeed, the first 19 were burned.
November 2, 1966

Imagine that. That is just like the Nazis during world war II. He continued:
What came cut of it I hope will be presented publicly at the right time to the Canadian people and will represent a viable, reasonable and worthy alternative to the utter nonsense we have listened to over the last 20 minutes. It is a very valid document.
In those words, the hon. member for Halifax announced the defence policy position of the Tory party. He hinted to us that this was the position which would be unveiled, I presume at the oncoming convention which will take place in one week or ten days. At that time the new defence critic of the Tory party would reveal the new position of the Tory party-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: I should be delighted to permit a question.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: In reading those statements of mine, is the hon. member suggesting that I was not telling the truth to the house, or that I necessarily went along with everything that the hon. member for Halifax suggested? Is that what the hon. member is saying?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer to your question is obvious.


Grant Deachman: I would not endeavour to make an interpretation of the things set out. I would not do anything like that. I impute no motives to hon. members. I simply say to the hon. member: this is what stands in the record and whatever people in the house are prepared to believe, they will have to decide, I am sure. The hon. member will have to live with those decisions.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I have no trouble living with my stand. If the hon. member wants to make a charge that the situation is other than as I said, then I suggest he should be an hon. member for a change.


Grant Deachman: I make no charge. I simply read Hansard. Is that an offence in the House of Commons?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Watch out for the leaks.


Grant Deachman: You can imagine how much interest would be caused if it were known that a paper like that were abroad in the land. What scurrying there would be in the halls of the press gallery if the hon. member for Halifax, still eager to push along with the
Interim Supply
new policy, still seeing himself the wave of the future, went to the press gallery and gave them one of these confidential documents.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I want to read something which will throw light on the nature of this document.
In the Citizen today we find on page 22 a story by John Walker of the Southam News Services describing how the document was taken to the press gallery and unveiled there.
The Conservatives have Anally released Admiral Jeffry Brock's "confidential" national defence policy paper which, in its third revised version, is being studied by the Tory caucus' defence committee.
Would it not be interesting to know who has been revising the admiral's paper?
The secret paper, which calls for a pause in the headlong integration program and for Canada to abandon all nuclear weapons now, was given out by Halifax M.P. J. M. Forrestall. He, along with Edmonton's Terry Nugent, has been leading the present Conservative battle with Defence Minister Hellyer over unification. It was the first time that the Conservatives had admitted that the retired admiral, who was asked to quit in 1964, was drafting defence policy papers for the party.
Indeed, it was the first time that we on this side of the house realized that the hon. member for Calgary North had been replaced as defence adviser of his party; that he was out, and that a new defense adviser had been chosen. This was the first time we knew, for example, that the hon. member for Edmonton West was no longer in the inner conclaves of his party as a defence critic and that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had been shown the door because a new defence critic was on his way in. It was an interesting revelaton.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A lot better than Lee.


Grant Deachman: The article goes on:
As late as Monday night, when Mr. Hellyer asked Mr. Nugent in the House what had happened to 19 copies of the second draft-
How many drafts of admirals' papers do you people over there keep writing?
-of this secret document, Mr. Nugent denied knowing about them. A week ago the Edmonton member was trying to get a member of the parliamentary press gallery before the bar of the house for suggesting Admiral Brock was directing his actions from the public gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: Just a minute; it is funny, but I must control myself.
Mr. Forrestall said that the admiral had been asked to make a study of defence policy "about 18 months ago" by E. A. Goodman, Toronto lawyer and party organizer during the 1965 campaign.

November 2, 1966
Interim Supply
So, 18 months ago a new defence adviser had been quietly contacted by a vice president of the Tory party and asked to work on behalf of the Tories, all unknown to the defence critics on the front bench opposite who have been handing out advice to the minister of defence. Behind them, there was a new apple in the barrel.
"We wanted a reasonable alternative to the present defence policy," said Mr. Forrestall-
I suppose they wanted a reasonable alternative to present Tory defence policy. Not being able to get one which satisfied them from their own front bench, they brought in Admiral Brock. It all becomes quite clear. They wanted an alternative defence policy-
-which could be studied by the defence committee and then perhaps put before the whole caucus as a policy for the party in the next election campaign."
Admitting that a Toronto newspaper had gotten hold of the paper-"I hope it is the right version" -Mr. Forrestall said the committee had decided to release it.
They were not even sure what they were releasing. By his own admission, even the hon. member was not too sure what he was giving to the press gallery with regard to Tory policy. But it was on paper. And he did have it from an admiral, so let it go.
The report goes on:
He said 19 copies of the second version had been burned, to keep them secure. He didn't know where the 20th copy was.
If ever there was a Keystone Cop's comedy going on in the ranks of the Conservatives, it has to be this.


J. Michael Forrestall: Here is the 20th copy.


Grant Deachman: You are wrong. I have the 20th copy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Take care that nothing leaks.


Grant Deachman: I continue to quote:
Admiral Brock, an outspoken opponent of Defence Minister Hellyer's unification plans for the three services, had revised the text three times-
I wonder who was leaning over his shoulder, editorial pen in hand, to help revise this thing.
-the last time being in the past month or so for the reopening of the house when the first attempt was made to get Mr. Hellyer to hold off unification.
Mr. Forrestall said Opposition Leader Diefenbaker had seen the document-he wasn't sure which version-and while not exactly blessing the project, he had encouraged them to continue.

It is a mixed up comedy. He was not sure which version.
Others who had seen the Brock policy statement, he said, included caucus defence committee members Douglas Harkness-
Now, of course, relegated to the background-
-Marcel Lambert-
Another defence critic carefully passed up, though a former vice-chairman of the defence committee-
-Gordon Churchill, Angus MacLean, Heber Smith and Davie Fulton-
The heir apparent
-about 20 to 25 in all. The admiral who has been here following the debates for several weeks and working in the office of one of the Tory members who has been absent-
Imagine that! They had sneaked him into the building, ensconced him in an absent member's room; they had given him virtually everything except a seat in the House of Commons. And the new Dauphin, the new prince, was upstairs in his chamber ready to be brought down.


An hon. Member:: Trinity will soon be vacant.


Grant Deachman: What a story! Well, this new defence critic-
-has seen Mr. Diefenbaker and talked to Mr. Nugent on a number of occasions before his recent attacks on the government.
He had talked to Mr. Nugent. Mr. Nugent had talked to him. Now, here is a curious thing about the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona. I am imputing no motive when I say to him that here was this hon. member surrounded by 20 people, all with editorial pens in their hands and all of them furiously editing the work of this admiral ensconced in his room upstairs. All of those people were coming in from time to time and saying: "Have you got the paper ready? We need it for the Tory convention."
He was there and day after day we had to listen as the hon. member rose to give us one more instalment of Terry and the Pirates, and his life with Paul Hellyer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: The amazing thing about
all this was that he did not have the slightest idea, not a clue, as to what was going on upstairs.
November 2, 1966


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a question of privilege; I hate to spoil an entertaining speech, but if the hon. member wants to refer to what I said in the house he should not use the old Liberal trick of misinterpreting, distorting and twisting my words. The question asked of me referred to these copies being burned. I had some idea that people were making submissions, but when the minister talks about all these things being burned I do not know what he is referring to. If the hon. member would refer to what I said, instead of what he would like me to have said, I would have no objection.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just admit it slipped your memory.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I will put this story aside, and let me call upon another witness. I turn now to the Canadian Press, that sharp eye which is always in the gallery, carefully noting what is going on below, even when there is hardly anybody here.
What does the Canadian Press say today? It says that the hon. member for Halifax told reporters:
-the original paper had been prepared more than a year ago at the request of some Conservatives by retired Rear Admiral Jeffry Brock.
He added that it had been redrafted by a committee including Douglas Harkness and Gordon Churchill-
These were the people who were pouring over Admiral Brock's production.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman-


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer two questions at once.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I want to rise on a question of privilege.


Grant Deachman: I throw myself on the mercy of the Chair to ensure I am not bullied by these fellows.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Calgary North on a question of privilege.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am rising on a question of privilege. The hon. member has just quoted some press report which 1 have not seen, and which brings my name in as a member of a committee which had something to do with revising a document, about which the hon. member has just been talking. I have never taken any part in revising that document, or
Interim Supply
doing anything else along that line in connection with it. Therefore this report he is reading from is completely incorrect.
I might say at the same time that I see no relevance in the debate which is taking place on this whole matter. It has nothing whatever to do with the issue of unification or the setting up of a committee to go into that, which is the question we are debating.


Grant Deachman: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will put this material aside. However, since this horse has been shot out from under me I still have another horse to ride.


J. Michael Forrestall: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, in order to set the record straight with reference to the comments made by me last night respecting those who have seen this brief, the question asked me by pressmen was, "Who has seen this document"?, and not, "Who has participated in any of the revisions"? In addition to those who live in Toronto and have seen the Toronto Daily Star, I assumed they would be the members of our defence caucus, and that is all.


Grant Deachman: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will put aside these documents from which I have been reading, the Canadian Press article which apparently got the story quite wrong, and the article by John Walker, long-time parliamentary reporter, one of the most experienced men in the House of Commons. I am prepared to set aside this material on the word of the junior hon. member for Halifax, who recently entered the house-


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, there are only one or two people in this world privileged to call me the junior member for Halifax. The member speaking now is not one of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the city of Halifax have an apology for that recent remark, Mr. Chairman?


Grant Deachman: Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to a document that I have here, which was distributed to the press gallery by the hon. member for Halifax, be he senior or junior, old or young, and which is the new defence policy of the Tory party. I think it is interesting to note that this document was repudiated a moment ago by the hon. member for Calgary North. I am very happy

November 2, 1966
Interim Supply
indeed to see his repudiation on record, because he has been, along with me, a member of the defence committee-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is again attempting to misrepresent the situation. He is talking about my repudiation of this document. There is no question of repudiation. I repudiated the statement which he read as having emanated from the Canadian Press. There is no question of repudiation or otherwise in connection with the document he is talking about.
I might say that I suppose I have a dozen other papers in my files in connection with defence policy, which have been prepared by people who held high office in our defence forces, suggesting various policies and courses of action that should be taken. There is nothing unusual in a senior officer preparing a paper in regard to defence matters or policy.
There is no question of repudiation or otherwise in regard to this or any of the other numerous papers of a similar kind that I have in my files. They are representations made by people of experience and they, of course, may or may not be accepted.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a good deal of confusion in the ranks of the Tories about this document. I am prepared to accept the word of the hon. member-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure to what document the hon. member is referring. The one that I believe was prepared by Admiral Brock is clearly marked "Proposals for the Conservative Party". The one he is referring to is a Conservative defence policy. Is there another document I have not heard of, or is the hon. member attempting to mislead the house? Is this the Tory policy, or just proposals for the party to consider?


Grant Deachman: I had to struggle with this very problem myself, Mr. Chairman, and it gave me considerable difficulty to find out whether I was dealing with the real McCoy or not, whether this was one of the very numerous documents that may or may not have been burned, or lost in the shuffle, as the hon. member for Halifax has described.
I think the hon. member will agree with me when I say there has been so much confusion about documents-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, are you attempting to say you have been reading from the defence policy of the Conservative party? Have you been misleading the house or not?


Grant Deachman: I think I am entitled to an explanation-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: There was no doubt when you identified it.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, we listened patiently in the house to one solid week of explanations from the hon. member as day by day, chapter by chapter, he revealed his problems to us. I am replying to a question and I will give my reply in my own way if I have the protection of the Chair.
What I was saying before the interruption was that with the confusion of documents on the other side one would be very cautious in coming into the house with a document from that side on this subject-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, the hon. member said he was reading, and led the house to believe he was reading from the Conservative defence policy paper. I want him to identify that paper and tell us whether the document he is now reading from is that, or is he attempting to mislead the house in this regard?


Grant Deachman: I have a paper in my hand which the hon. member for Halifax took to the press gallery, gave to the press and identified to them as the study paper, the policy position paper of the Conservative party.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What does it say on the document?


Grant Deachman: The hon. member described it as a valid document which would be revealed by the party in due course.


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order-


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Halifax on a point of order.


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, the paper in question was never represented in that fashion. If the parliamentary press gallery saw fit to represent it in that manner, it is they who misled. The paper was never represented to be anything other than exactly
November 2, 1966

Interim Supply
what it is, a reasoned proposal from a great Mr. Hellyer: Was that the first time you Canadian-	had seen it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Michael Forrestall: -a man who knows a little bit more about defence policy, I suggest, than all the rest of you on the other side of the house put together. But it remains nothing more than that, a proposal to our party.


Grant Deachman: Well, sir-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On that point of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Grant Deachman: May I answer these gentlemen one at a time, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is rising on the same point of order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yes, on the same point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Halifax.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This member who is speaking now misled the house by first saying that he was quoting from a Tory official policy paper, and then he pretends he is confused. If it is a study paper, it says quite plainly "proposal, proposal, proposal". Is that the paper to which he is referring and which he is being so careful not to read? It can be plainly seen that these are proposals. Is that the paper?


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of privilege at this point and I think a point of privilege over-rides a point of order. My point of privilege is this. If the hon. member who has been denying he knows anything about this paper is now able to stand up and identify the document by saying it says on it "proposal, proposal, proposal", then what the hon. gentleman said in the House of Commons to the Minister of National Defence is not in accord with what the hon. gentleman is revealing to the house now. He knows about the paper; he read the paper and was there when the paper was prepared. He has told us this now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On that point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the solution is obvious to anyone who had any brains. I heard about this paper and immediately after the session I got a copy of it so that I would know what you were talking about.
23033-598i


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Identify the paper.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. member and I both understand what the paper is. There is a great deal of confusion in the mind of the hon. member for Halifax. Certainly, he pulled the wool over the eyes of the press gallery. He has not yet identified this paper. I should like to know what paper he is waving around. For 10 minutes we have been trying to get out of him what it is that he is supposed to be reading. First he misled the house that it was a Conservative paper; next, he was hiding what it was. He will not even answer whether this is a proposal paper. Why does he have to act so much like the Minister of National Defence, and desperately hide these facts.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, if I can get
a crack at it, I should like to start to read the paper. This paper is headed "national defence -a policy position paper". In its first sentence it says "careful examination of the white paper on defence dated March 1964 will be helpful". Well, I cannot think of a better way to start out a Tory policy paper, because there is hardly anybody on the other side of the house who bothered to read it. That is proposal No. 1, that the Tories read the white paper. I think that is not a bad proposal. What do you think? You have had a look at it too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: He says that is proposal No. 1. I just want to identify the document. He pretended to read the document. He talked about it, and said it is proposal No. 1. Is that not a document which has in large letters "proposal No. 1"? So, it is not your suggestion that it is proposal No. 1. In reading it, you purposely left out "proposal No. 1", did you not?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is the untampered version.


Grant Deachman: Now, the time is moving on, and I think we have pretty well identified it. I think I have been able to sort it out for hon. gentlemen opposite who were so confused in respect of this document. Lord knows, what with burning things, running about from room to room, hiding admirals upstairs, sneaking them into the gallery and so on, it is easy to imagine how confusion

November 2, 1966
Interim Supply
could arise in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. I think we have helped to clear the air about that. We all know who ordered this document, and we know who the fellows were who edited it. We have a pretty good idea what has been going on over there.


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


Grant Deachman: Not just now; I am going to finish what I have to say and then you can make a speech.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege concerns the use by the hon. gentleman of the word "sneaking". All members in the House of Commons will have to sit up and take notice, because there is an authority in this House of Commons on sneaking, and that is it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The flag debate.


Grant Deachman: The unfortunate part of this whole incident is that here was a man who had rendered excellent service to his country, and a vice chairman of the Tory party lured him into a position which he thought would be that of defence critic of the Tory party. For a year and a half, he had him preparing odds and sods of documents and had him embroiled in party politics. In the process of this, he and others of his friends got other good men who had served their country well in peace and in war innocently embroiled in such organizations as "Trio". What we can do at this point is look across at these gentlemen who thought so slyly that they were organizing some kind of cabal to defeat the government in its purpose. In other words, they have taken along with them and have involved a number of innocent persons who, had they known what would happen to them, certainly never would' have associated themselves with this affair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona on a point of privilege.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, the last remarks of the hon. member I think should be withdrawn. He said "so slyly", imputing an improper motive, I suggest, or an improper method of doing business. The entire tenor of the speech of the member I suggest, when compared to an honourable way of putting

forward an argument, brings home the fact that what he has been attempting to do all along is impute improper motives to myself. We only have to look at the way he handled this document, his misrepresentation of it to the house, and his refusal to answer questions about it or to identify it. Even then, when a document is being read, he does what no other member in this house would have the nerve to do; he pretends to be reading it and leaves out the part of it which would identify it. I suggest this is the type of activity he has been carrying out, instead of defending his minister and explaining things. If he wanted to carry out an attack on me, this has been a very fine and fanciful performance with no regard for any decency in respect of a member of this house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to follow the line which has been taken by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I am not particularly concerned whether the Conservatives have policy papers,-whether they burn them, chew them up, or swallow them. I do not think this is a matter of great national moment. I do wish to say, however, a few words about the agreement which was tabled in the House of Commons last Friday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with reference to permission for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to build a line through the United States from Emerson, Manitoba to Sarnia, Ontario. I should like to express the concern which this party feels in respect of the policy decision which is involved in this.
On August 25 the Prime Minister publicly gave the reason the government had decided to reject the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to build this line through the United States.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
They were good and sufficient reasons, reasons which in my opinion still stand. On October 4 the Prime Minister issued another statement saying that the cabinet had reversed itself, and that in view of the fact Trans-Canada had made certain changes in its application permission was being granted to build this line. The minister has now tabled the agreement and we have had a chance to see it. Yesterday, he endeavoured to make some defence of the decision.
This pipe line is an important matter to the people of Ontario and Quebec who will be served with natural gas from that line, but that is only part of a wider picture. It is part
November 2, 196G

of a much greater problem which the people of Canada must face. Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources quoted that old saying, that the art of governing is the art of foreseeing and choosing. He said the government had to make a choice in respect of this application by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
Let me submit to the committee that the choice with reference to the location of the pipe line is only part of a much wider choice which the government is making and which the Canadian people must make. That choice is whether or not Canada is going to survive as an independent nation with an autonomous economy over which its people have complete control. We have to decide whether this country is going to be a nation full, free and independent or whether we are going to become part of a great economic hegemony on the North American continent.
When I pose this choice, it is not because I am anti-American as some newspapers have suggested. As a matter of fact, while I differ with the policies of the United States government on a number of matters, I have a great regard for the citizens of that country. I took some of my education in the United States and I have members of my family who live in the United States and who are citizens of that country. I have had the privilege of lecturing from time to time in a number of United States universities and I presume, if for some reason or other I were not able to live in Canada, I would probably choose to live there because I like that country and its citizens.
But I also happen to be one of those individuals who believes that this country has something worth preserving and that this country has a contribution to make to the world which it cannot make if it is merged into the United States hegemony. I intend to use all the influence I can wield to see to it that in the choice which the Canadian people must make in the next few years we, come down not on the side of continentalism but on the side of a sane national policy to keep Canadian national identity and to develop a people who are strong and free.
This is a choice which I think must be made by the Canadian people in the next few years, because in my opinion we do not have unlimited time, the sands of time are running out. My criticism of the government is that it is already making a choice as a result of which we are witnessing in this country a creeping continentalism, and bit by bit the resources and the economic facilities of this
Interim Supply
nation are coming increasingly under the control of foreign investors.
Canada is a country in which over 70 per cent of its oil producing and refining industry, over 60 per cent of its mining industry, over 54 per cent of its manufacturing industry, 90 per cent of its automobile industry and 100 per cent of its aircraft manufacturing industry, is entirely in the hands of foreign investors. Foreign control has now moved into our financial institutions, into insurance and into advertising agencies so that more and more control today is in the hands of foreign investors and less and less of the decision making power lies with Canadian citizens.
The hon. member for Davenport, the former minister of finance, made a speech which was reported in the Globe and Mail of October 26 of this year. That article reads in part as follows:
Former finance minister Walter Gordon said yesterday that the Canadian economy has fallen so far under foreign control that professional persons have become fearful about expressing opposition to the trend.
The article quotes him as saying:
'It means that lawyers and accountants, engineers and geologists, many advertising and insurance agents, and people in all phases of finance, are hesitant to speak publicly about their fears of what is happening to Canada.'
The article then states:
He suggested this situation would continue until Canada, like Mexico, establishes clear rules and regulations respecting foreign ownership and control of domestic businesses and resources.
The article then goes on to say:
Mr. Gordon noted that the Liberal conference had approved a resolution in favour of North American free trade. This resolution, if implemented, he said, would almost certainly result in some kind of merger with the United States.
The actions of this government over the past two years have caused concern to the people who are devoted to the idea of maintaining a national Canadian identity. We have the Columbia river agreement by which we turned over to the control of United States investors and power companies one of the largest rivers on this continent. The Cana-dian-U.S. auto agreement, about which great things were predicted but which today really means that three large automobile companies, entirely owned and operated from the United States, have a privilege which is denied any Canadian citizen or company, that is, the right to move their cars freely back and forth across the border without paying duty. As it

November 2, 1966
Interim Supply
now transpires, this agreement gives these companies the right to move European cars into Canada free of duty.
We all know about the recent conference the Liberal party held in the city of Ottawa. At that conference the member for Davenport, and some of the holdouts from the Kingston and Peterborough conferences, endeavoured to put up a fight for maintaining some semblance of Canadian nationalism, but apparently they were completely routed. Apparently the continentialists in the Liberal party were triumphant.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I think the most significant remark came from a delegate from the government of Saskatchewan who said that as far as foreign investment is concerned, all we want is more of it.
Now we have this agreement, which by itself may not excite the public. However, as part of the total picture, it is just another step in this program of continentalism by which the government is seeking to build a great economic complex in which Canada will be only a small part and Canadian decisionmaking power will be infinitesimal. All history has demonstrated that political power always follows economic power. We have to make up our mind whether we who inherited an independent northern nation are going to pass that on to our children, or whether we are going to look forward to the day when they will be part of this great, northern, rationalized economic hegemony under which all the things that Canada represents will have disappeared.
I am not arguing that there may not be advantages in an economic merger, and ultimately a political merger, with the United States. Of course there are some advantages. But I believe there are great disadvantages. I think there are both tangible and intangible assets that are worth preserving in the Canadian way of life. It is because I believe this that I am so critical of this agreement which has been placed before the house by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The moment anyone opposes continentalism he is accused, as the hon. member for Davenport was accused at the recent Liberal conference here in Ottawa, of being a protectionist, of trying to make Canada an isolated national unit. This is not the case. I recognize, as I am sure every person who has studied the problem does, that as President Kennedy once said of the United States and

Canada, geography has made us neighbours and history has made us friends. Because we are side by side with the most powerful industrial nation in the world, it is only natural that the United States will be our best customer and that we will be her best customer. I hope that will always continue to be the case.
We do not oppose exporting goods to the United States; of course not. We do not oppose exporting fuels such as gas, oil and coal to the United States. But we believe there must be a prior claim for Canadian industry and development. We believe that if there are surpluses which we do not require, of course we should be prepared to sell them to the United States. But our first consideration must be for the utilization of those assets which can help to develop this country.
The other day someone said-I think it was the hon. member for Bow River-that if you can sell wheat to communist countries, why cannot you sell gas to the United States? There is a great deal of difference between selling wheat and gas. You can grow a fresh crop of wheat each year, but there is a limit to how much gas we have. Therefore we should make sure that before we export any fuel or any form of energy we retain sufficient to promote our own economic growth.
There is a great deal of difference between trading with a nation and allowing a nation to take over the control of our economy. The Prime Minister spoke on this subject the other day, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of October 31. Over the week end the Prime Minister addressed the Quebec wing of the Liberal Federation of Canada in Montreal, and is quoted as having said:
Canada could not seriously contemplate a free trade union with the United States and the Caribbean countries unless the Canadian economy were strong enough and Canadian ownership and control of all our sources of prosperity complete enough to ensure that we could not lose our political independence.
That sums it up very well. Of course we want to trade with the United States. Of course we want to do business with them or anyone else. But the paramount issue is that we must be strong enough and must have sufficient ownership and control over our resources to make sure that our economic and political independence are not jeopardized. The interesting thing about the Prime Minister's statement is that, while it is 100 per cent accurate, what the Prime Minister says and what his government does are completely at variance. The Prime Minister stands at the
November 2, 1966

front door singing, "O Canada, We stand on guard for thee", while at the back door he is selling Canadian resources which are vital and essential to our future development.
Those who are supporting the government's decision to put this pipe line through the United States have told us that there is no problem about gas; there is plenty of gas. But what they have not told us is whether it will be available. There is gas in the ground, but will it be available to the people of Ontario, and particularly the people of the northern part of Ontario where it is so essential if we are to have industrial development of that area?
I notice that the brief submitted to the National Energy Board on March 1, 1966, by the Fort William-Port Arthur and District Labour Council quotes the president of Twin City Gas Company Limited. When asked about those areas for which they were not able to get firm commitments of gas, and what it would mean if the line was not looped until after 1970, he said:
We are sticking our necks out by saying to some industries that the gas will be there.
I maintain that the very first consideration of the government must be to see that Canadian industries and Canadian areas are served adequately with gas before we talk about exporting this commodity. There is no objection to exporting it, but surely Canada has a prior claim on the resources which belong to her. My chief objection to this agreement is that a very important asset will now be taken beyond the control of Canadians.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This Great Lakes pipe line will be operated by a company in which Trans-Canada has only a 50 per cent equity. It will come under the jurisdiction of the United States government and under the regulatory authority of the Federal Power Commission. What control will we have? In the statement which the Prime Minister made on August 25 his concern was evident. This is what he said:
The government does not believe it to be in Canada's best interest that the future development of facilities for bringing western Canadian gas to its eastern Canadian markets should be located outside Canadian jurisdiction, and subject to detailed regulation under laws of the United States which are naturally designed to protect the interests of United States citizens.
I have asked ministers of the government, particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to
Interim Supply
tell the house in what way the minor changes in Trans-Canada's proposals remove the concern which the Prime Minister expressed on August 25. This pipe line will still be outside Canadian jurisdiction and will still be under some other regulatory authority.
In the same statement the Prime Minister went on to say:
This decision does not imply any lack of confidence in the continuation and development of cooperation between the natural gas industries and the respective regulatory agencies in the two countries. On the contrary, approval of this application might give rise to future difficulties where United States regulatory authorities might be put in the embarrassing position of having to resolve a conflict between their duty under United States laws and their desire to co-operate with Canada.
That was a perfectly valid objection made on August 25. I submit that nothing has happened in the interval to remove the validity of that objection.
Yesterday, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was speaking, he quoted extensively from the brief presented by the Canadian Lakehead Industrial Commission Incorporated, a brief which, by the way, was presented to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that this brief set forth the advantages and disadvantages, and he admitted that finally it came down on the side of the disadvantages of building this line through the United States.
However, it is significant that the minister only quoted the advantages in supporting his argument. He did not quote the disadvantages which are listed in this brief, and I will not quote them all. First of all, it is pointed out in this brief that we will lose the economic impetus, the employment and taxes that will come from building this line in Canada, and that we will lose the corporation taxes and the employment that is inherent in the maintenance of this fine here in Canada. It points out that since the line through the United States will only be 50 per cent owned by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, we will get only 50 per cent of the profits coming back to this country on which taxes will be paid. But the thing that impressed me-and I hope it will impress the house-is that a group of people at the lakehead who are primarily interested in attracting industry should decide that the major factor in reaching a decision on this matter is not the financial consideration but some of the intangibles that must go toward building a better Canada. I would just like to read what they said:
The financial implications are great, but there are equally important intangibles to be considered.

November 2, 1966
Interim Supply
With the construction of a line through the United States, Canada would lose complete control over the disposal of a tremendous gift of Providence- our huge resources of the world's finest fuel, natural gas. A Canadian installation would guarantee complete control and United States consumers could be dealt with generously, on the advice of the National Energy Board, but entirely free of the vagaries and whims of a variety of foreign regulatory bodies, as would be the case if a $200 million-installation had been committed largely to United States territory and jurisdiction.
It is even possible to envision a contingency in which, entrenched in the United States and depending on American consumers beyond any hope of withdrawal, Trans-Canada might be subjected to political or consumer pressures regarding rate structures, so should $200 million committed to American soil and a large United States business having been developed it is not possible to imagine the supplier telling its United States consumers or the various regulatory agencies there to "go fly a kite." It is not inconceivable that some day in the future, with such a heavy dependence on United States goodwill and consumer capacity, there would come into being a natural gas rate structure that would provide U.S. industries with a competitive edge over their Canadian counterparts. Canadian industry, now fighting gallantly to meet the competition of the American industrial colossus, would thus be confronted with a further, and entirely unnecessary, handicap.
We have had some experience of this on the west coast where, I am told, B.C. gas is being sold in Seattle at a lower rate than in Vancouver.
Before quoting what the Canadian Lake-head Industrial Commission Incorporated said in conclusion, I want to agree with the minister that this group of men have been very fair and have tried to balance the two points of view. They end up by saying the following:
We have stated the case on both sides and have asked some questions. We feel it is in the national interest that these questions be carefully considered and the fundamentals of the entire issue weighted in the light of Canada's needs and national interest. Many, many times in recent months politicians from every party have stressed the need for Canada to become less dependent, in an economic sense, on the United States. There is talk in high places even of the need to "buy back" much of the ownership of Canada's industry and resources from the Americans.
And yet, here we have a project that is designed to supply cheap Western Canada natural gas to the developing industrial complex in Eastern Canada; but are we seizing on it with both hands, rejoicing to have it as a tool for our advancement to increasing industrial power and maturity?
No, indeed. There is a danger that once more we are going to lean heavily on the United States' economic power, with the plea that it's a bit cheaper that way. What should be a vital artery coursing with a flow of industrial lifeblood for the Canadian economy threatens to become nothing

more than a thin umbilical cord tying us to U.S. progress and through which only the most meagre amount of sustenance may flow.
When are we going to stand up on our own feet, to cheer about being Canadian and be prepared to accept the implicit obligations of our own nationhood?
Now is the time. Let us not make the mistake of creating something more that will be impossible to "buy back" in the years that lie ahead.
I commend the sentiments that have been expressed in that brief to the government. Monetary savings are not everything. As a matter of fact even the monetary savings need to be examined by this committee.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I notice in appendices 18 to 20 of the National Energy Board report that there is a table setting forth the average cost of transmission per thousand cubic feet of natural gas. For the period from 1967 to 1976 the National Energy Board's figures place the cost, for the southern line through the United States, at 19.55 cents.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order, please. I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.
The Depuiy Chairman: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall just finish the point I am making. The figure for the average cost of transmission per thousand cubic feet on the southern route through the United States is estimated by the National Energy Board at 19.55 cents, and for the northern route at 19.77 cents. The difference is .22 cents per thousand cubic feet. But, Mr. Chairman, those figures are based on the assumption that the money to build the southern line will cost 6J per cent interest, and for the northern line will cost 7-Jr per cent interest.
If the Canadian government really wants to have a line built in Canada, surely, by guaranteeing bonds and by making of some its credit facilities available, it could reduce that 7| per cent figure to 6J per cent, which would bring the cost of the Canadian line to a point where it would be comparable with the other. Of course, we would be in favour of having public ownership of the whole line, but I am not expecting the government to consider that at the moment. At least our proposal would get costs down to where they are comparable.
November 2, 196S

I say, altogether apart from the cost factor, if we are to stop the drift towards continen-talism, in our opinion this agreement ought not to be continued with. We shall insist for the duration of this debate that this agreement be submitted to parliament, so that we have an opportunity to express by means of our votes our stand on this important matter.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on this interim supply motion I could not ask for a better introduction to my remarks than those made by the hon. member who has just spoken. There is no issue in Canada today more important than this traditional issue of whether we are going to maintain on the north half of this continent a country that is peculiarly our own. That issue has narrowed down now, after the Liberal meeting in Ottawa two weeks ago, and the remarks by the leader of the New Democratic Party to two words: nationalism and continentalism.
It is clear that the majority of the Liberal delegates meeting at Ottawa in annual convention have turned down the nationalistic proposals of the hon. member for Davenport. We can only take the resolutions which have been passed as an indication of where the Liberal party is heading.
Traditionally, in Canada, the one big distinction between the Liberal party and the Conservative party was in our party's attitude vis-a-vis the United States. We may have many differences, and many things in common, but there is one thing on which there is no equivocation, one thing from which the Conservative party has never deviated. I refer to the attempt to preserve on the north half of the continent a culture and nationalism distinctly our own. We are not trying to say that our culture is different, or that our nationalism is different from any other. We are saying that it is our own, and that is the key issue.
Over and over again in our political and economic history, the Liberal party has gone back to the recurring theme that it is inevitable that we join the United States, and therefore we ought to make it easier instead of more difficult. The history books of this country are full of this.
It is only 190 years ago, Mr. Chairman, that signs were posted on every doorway in the little community of Montreal asking the people to join the democratic nations of the south in rebellion against the crown. The elite of Montreal, both English and French speaking, were for this idea of joining with 23033-599
Interim Supply
the democratic people in the colossus to the south. When the chips were down, it was the rank and file French Canadians who resisted this, and the congressionalists were turned back. That was 190 years ago, almost to one week.
I pointed this out because this issue recurs in Canada every generation. I do not want to use my 30 minutes in a recital of this recurring attack on our nationalism and independence. What the hon. member for Davenport has been saying, what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has been saying, is of great concern not only to men in the Liberal party and in the New Democratic Party, but is a vital matter of life and death to every Conservative in this country who deserves to carry the title "Conservative". If we have stood for one thing, it is for our independence.
We now have a weak government, a wrong way government, that seems to make blunders with every move at the local level. This government has allowed itself to be swept along by these Canadian Barry Goldwaters from western Canada into the idea that we have to run pell mell into the arms of the United States colossus. This issue is the key issue in Canada today.
The hon. member who has spoken is a nationalist. I am a nationalist, too, but there is a difference. All during Conservative history we have fought, by restrictive techniques, to give what bargaining power we can to our farmers, our workingmen and our industrialists. This policy has built the base of agriculture, mining and industry in this country. The Conservative party has changed, but in one respect only. This change started years ago, in the Port Hope conference of 1942. Conservatives from Toronto began to express doubts about the efficacy of the high, protective-tariff techniques of defending our nationhood. They pointed out how, under this high barrier, we were inducing companies, mostly foreign owned, to set up here. Those companies wanted the barriers kept. These barriers were one of the biggest inducements to bring ownership of our companies into the hands of foreigners.
So, in the convention of 1942 in Winnipeg, we moved our ideas toward freer trade. There was no sell out of industry, of the farmers or the workingmen. We said: "Let us see our way to joining the world." There was another fundamental reason impelling our thinking, and it was this: the thing that gives us the tremendous living standard that we

November 2. 1966
Interim Supply
have in the western world is the system known as corporate capitalism. We have long recognized that the socialist approach is the wrong approach. It means a lower level of living. People like the Russians-in fact, every socialistic country in the world-are moving away from this concept of socialism, because they cannot compete in the production of goods with the completely illogical system of corporate capitalism. This system has no morals, no logic, no coherence, but it produces more than any other system throughout the world. As you see these socialist nations trying to come back to the fundamental incentives that are in this system of corporate capitalism, you realize who is winning the battle.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
However, that is not my point. My point is that modern corporate capitalism is no longer national. It is no longer continental. It is world-wide, and it is becoming increasingly universal. Our labour unions are no longer national, no longer continental; they must reach out and become international, too, as the world moves on, not toward high protective barriers but toward universality. All institutions must be in tune with this movement or they are not serving their people well.
Modern nationalism is just as strong and it has the same objectives, but there is one difference. We are trying to put our country in tune with the tremendously constructive forces of that phenomenon of our age, international modern capitalism, and we are trying to harness those forces for the national good.
I suppose we could build a wall around our country and try to live within it. That is the natural result of the reactionary policy of hon. members on my left. On the other hand, we could take a chance and, through the efforts of our working people, our business people, our farmers, lumbermen and miners, enter into world-wide competition with every high wage country in the world and every low wage country, and survive.
We, as a government, took that course in 1960. It was a time of recession and we decided that instead of using restrictive techniques we would ask the Canadian people to go out and see not only the basic products of our forests, our farms and our mines, but the products of secondary industry as well. And that policy resulted in the increase of our exports from $4 billion a year to over $10

billion a year. Assistance was given in the form of export credits, by changing the value of the dollar to a realistic figure. We demonstrated that we could succeed.
I stand here as a nationalist, but as an expansionist nationalist. I stand as an opponent of old fashioned restriction, of trying to protect ourselves behind walls, whether in Quebec, in Canada as a whole, or any other restrictive block. I am asking the Canadian people to join the world. There are humane reasons for doing so. There are selfish reasons. But they all add up to the same thing, expansion at home and expansion abroad. This is where I differ from the hon. member for Davenport, and this is where I differ from my hon. friend who sits near me, on this question of seeking to protect the Canadian people.
We differ as to the technique. I think his technique is 60 years out of date. As he points out, all this has a bearing on the pipe line question which we have been considering. I should like to ask him as a favour, as an old friend of mine, to listen to what I believe to be a true description of the situation. I will begin by reminding him of some things we have in common. In 1955, in Saskatchewan I proposed publicly that the price of natural gas in the city of Saskatoon be lowered by 25 per cent from the price at that time, which was 96 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. I argued that if the price were reduced to this extent, the volume of gas purchased by consumers would be so much greater that a greater profit would be made by the power corporation owned and controlled by the government.
At first, there was laughter. But the government changed. I believe the argument which I presented had merit, and a month later the price was reduced from 96 cents to 72 cents. This was not all. The head of the corporation told me that prices were to be reduced again because the government was following a policy of limiting the profit.
This follows because the gas industry is a fixed cost industry; if you increase the volume passing through the pipe line, unit cost is reduced. The consumers benefit, the power corporation benefits, and the whole economy is able to develop. These are historical facts from the province of Saskatchewan and they prove the principle that the industry must have volume.
The second example is also from Saskatchewan. During the time Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was trying to get markets lined up so
November 2, 1966

that it could obtain financing, the company told the government of Saskatchewan, through the power corporation, that the wholesale price to the public "at the gate" was 26 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken was premier of the province. I think he will remember that what saved Saskatchewan was the fact that there are three small gas fields on the border between Saskatchewan and Alberta. By bringing this gas in and placing it into the storage wells in the western part of Saskatchewan, we put another economic factor to work which reduced the price at Regina from 26 cents to 20 cents.
This second factor is the key to the present situation. The operation of pipe line companies in connection with storage are largely dependent on ability to store gas close to the market during the summer season so that it can be brought into consumption in the fall. This increases the load percentage which, in turn, results in a lowering of cost. Anyone who reads this application carefully will find this is the key to the presentation.
I am in a position, today, where I have to be outspoken and I am bound to say that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has probably been the most stupid company in the economic history of Canada when it comes to presenting a case. It dealt only with the government. It did not have the courtesy to keep the various parties in the opposition informed, including the New Democratic Party, the Social Credit party and the Creditistes. They did not tell the people.
When a monopoly has been given to a private company, the only course open to it if its operations are sound, is to tell the people. The company did not do this and, in a way, it deserves what it is getting here today. In the second place, the National Energy Board is not free from blame. Under the act, the board is responsible for telling the company and for telling the people of Canada what should be done to ensure that gas is available to Canadians. But the crux of this situation is that neither the company nor the energy board gave warning that the consumption of gas in Ontario and Quebec had risen to such an extent in the past five years that the producers were caught in a desperate position two years ago. They realized that if they did not get a line built by November, 1967, they would lose the market in the Windsor area and in the Toronto-Hamilton area to American pipe lines.
23033-599J
Interim Supply
American Pipe Line crosses the border at Niagara and Sarnia. The company is already competitive. If they ever get into the market it will be impossible to get them out. Who built this market up in Ontario? Was it American pipe line? It was not. These markets in Ontario and Quebec were built up by western Canadian producers. Western Canadian producers have sold gas to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines at prices far below those they charge when gas is sold to California.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It strikes me as very incongruous, Mr. Chairman, that today there is not one squeak from anybody in the Liberal party or in the N.D.P. about the fact that right at this very moment there are applications for huge volumes of gas to go into California. In fact, there is not one news story about this. On the sale of gas to California we get as much as 24 cents per thousand feet, while most of the gas coming into eastern Canada has been selling at 10 cents. Surely, we have paid a heavy price to build up this market in Ontario, solely because people in Ontario are Canadians.
But now the time is coming when, if we cannot get enough gas through in the next few months we shall be looking to Panhandle and other American companies opposite Sarnia. All I ask my hon. friend to do is let me read the names of those in the United States who are opposing this pipe line going through the United States.
I am not quarreling with the very fine people from the lakehead. You cannot blame them for presenting their very imaginative brief, trying to have the line routed through Fort Frances and by Lake Superior. I do not quarrel with the people of Timmins, of Kenora and Fort William. They know the assessment that comes from a pipe line, and know how their motels are filled. Every board of trade in the north is seeking the pipe line, but I say look at who your allies are. Look at the people who are bucking this proposal to go through the United States.
Is the province of Quebec bucking it? No. Is the province of Ontario bucking it? No.


An hon. Member:: They are.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My hon. friend does not know what he is talking about. I know what I am talking about. All I am asking him to do is to listen to a list of those who are opposing this pipe line through the United States. I want to ask my hon. friend, is he now the

November 2, 1966
Interim Supply
ally of the National Coal Association of the United States, of the United Mine Workers of America, Panhandle, Eastern Pipe Lines -there is a whole long list here of United States companies.
I do not blame the mine workers of the United States of the coal industry of the United States for opposing this line going through the United States. They have a $300 million a year market for coal in Ontario, and they want to preserve it. But I want to ask the question, why should Canadians beg to help the United States coal industry? Who wants to help Panhandle come back into our market? Look where your friends are, and then you begin to see the truth.
Western Canada has fought hard to build up this market in Ontario and Quebec. We have subsidized it for nearly ten years. Under this new proposal for moving gas from western Canada to eastern Canada, the original intent was that only 10 per cent of the gas would be dropped off. The remaining 90 per cent was to come on to meet the present market in Ontario and Quebec.
But then this uproar developed, not in Canada but in the United States. If hon. members go back and read Hansard of March 1 and March 2 they will find that I asked the Minister of Finance if he would not ask cabinet ministers in the United States government to do something about the fact that our sovereignty was being infringed. If the Americans want to deliver trucks full of goods up to Alaska through our country, we don't trouble them all the way along. We help them, as a good neighbour should. But when western Canadians want to move their gas to their fellow Canadians in Ontario, with 90 per cent of it going right through and the pipe line to be built in one year, from where do we get the opposition? It comes from the American mine workers and from the National Coal Association of the United States. I never thought it would come from Canadians.
I am a nationalist. I do not want to see a Canadian market lost to American pipe lines just because we have not been smart enough to build our own pipe lines fast enough. What makes the southern line economically so attractive? There are two reasons. The first is the tremendous volume that can be moved through it because of the size of the pipe line. But the big factor is that this route has access to storage in western Ontario that the alternative northern route has not got.
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has looked at every hole in the ground in northern Ontario to store gas. The way it can reduce the cost is to store gas during the

summer time and then pipe it on to the consumer in the winter time. The company has looked at the mining area of Sudbury. It has looked at every hole possible, but storage must take place where there is impervious rock because the company does not want to lose the gas.
However, there are empty gas holes in southern Ontario. I simply point out that by making use of these storage facilities, one on the Canadian side at Dawn township near Sarnia, and two on the Michigan side, this pipe line company can reduce the price of gas at Windsor and in the whole Union Gas area. The proposal is to put a Canadian gas line through southwestern Ontario, a main trunk line where there is not one now, and then move the gas to Montreal and Toronto.
Mr. Chairman, I have just a few minutes left before we adjourn this evening, and I should like to stop at this point because the remainder of my remarks bear on a slightly different subject. But in the time that is left to me let me repeat that I support this southern loop; (a) because it holds Canadian markets for Canadian gas for Canadians-I am a nationalist on this point-and (b), it keeps American gas out of Canadian markets.
I am a nationalist and I am prepared to read into the record the names of all the people opposing this, and then ask my hon. friends in the N.D.P. why they are supporting American coal mine workers over the nickel workers at Sudbury, the steel workers at Sault Ste. Marie and Hamilton, and the manufacturers at Waterloo, Windsor and Oshawa? What have they got against the working people in these cities? What have they got against the working people in Montreal?
By taking the stand they have taken-and perhaps it is in ignorance-they are driving a stake into the heart of the ordinary person who is trying to achieve a reduced cost of living. At a time when the whole country is talking about high costs, here is a chance to reduce the cost of gas 10 per cent to 15 per cent, yet seemingly my hon. friends want to pay more for American gas.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the hon. member substantiate that statement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am prepared to substantiate these remarks. I heard the minister last night referring to a reduction of 3 cents per thousand cubic feet. In conclusion, may I say I was of those who took part in drafting the National Energy Board act. Under the terms of that act we have set up the common carrier principle whereby, if the gas price is
November 2, 1966
reduced in any one division of the pipe line, that reduction must be passed on to every other zone along the way. If the final zone is Montreal and the price is reduced there, then the reduction moves back along the line. The result is that the least price reduction will take place in Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How much reduction?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member asks how much.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You said 10 or 15 per cent.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think it was the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who quoted that. Mr. Chairman, I call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, can the Solicitor General tell us whether the government has changed its mind again or whether we will proceed with this business tomorrow?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the government proposes to follow its consistent course. The business for tomorrow will be the same as that enunciated last evening.


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


Thursday, November 3, 1966