1966-11-10

[Stage Direction]
First report of the special joint committee on immigration-Mr. Klein.
Tenth report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts-Mr. Stanbury.

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I present the ninth report of the standing committee on public accounts in English and French. If the house gives consent I intend to move concurrence.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: that the ninth report of the standing committee on public accounts presented this day be now concurred in.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say only a few words on this motion. The public accounts committee is, of course, asking for several privileges, namely creating sub-committees, meeting while the house is sitting, etc. I think that this would be a good time, when a committee is asking the house to grant it such a privilege, to have explained more clearly to hon. members the other privileges included in the motion.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, during the sitting of a committee this morning the chairman made a ruling to the effect that an hon. member who is not a recognized member of the committee does not have the right, under the rules, to vote on amendments or to propose amendments and that his presence does not count to make up the quorum of that committee. Therefore, an hon. member who is not an official member of the said committee is not entitled to raise a question of privilege or to rise on a point of order during the sittings of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this goes against the spirit and the letter of the rules passed last year with regard to committees.
It was also decided by the chairman of that committee-and I must tell you that it was hard to swallow for hon. members who attend committee meetings without being members thereof-that when hon. members have the right to speak, the official members of the committee have the right to speak first and when they have all had their say, other hon. members present can ask questions. I found it rather strange for the chairman of a committee to make such a decision; it was more or less making a distinction between hon. members, those who have the right to speak first and those who take the floor when the first are through.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be appropriate to discuss those matters and clarify the situation, so that we might know exactly where we stand, in short the rules concerning sittings of committees should be more clearly explained, so that from now on committee chairmen will not be able to take decisions which are contrary to the spirit and the letter of the rules and so that even they will have to adhere to the letter and spirit of the rules and show more broad-mindedness with regard to hon. members who take an interest in matters submitted to the members of those committees.


Mr. Laflamme:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, and without the least intention of delaying the debates of the house but rather with a view to setting the record straight as concerns the discussion which took place in committee, I must say that what the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) just said is not at all consistent with what took place in the committee of finance, trade and economic affairs. The matter raised by the hon. member for Lapointe was simply taken into consideration and a decision will be made later.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and, at the same time, I would like to make it a question of privilege.
November 10, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
As the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency states that what I said is not consistent with the truth, I would like to ask that the translation of this morning's discussions in the committee of finance, trade and economic affairs be brought before the House of Commons, so that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency may not be allowed to cast doubts upon what I said a while ago.
The discussions recorded on tape will prove that what I said is the truth.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon.
member for Lapointe is objecting to the committee's asking that the subcommittee be allowed to sit while the house is in session. If that is the case, the committee having been granted earlier in this session the right to sit while the house is in session, I do not think it is asking too much for the subcommittee to be allowed the same right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.1


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, may I table the French version of the agreement between the Canadian government and the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited about the proposed Great Lakes pipe-line.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the document to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposiiion):: The question I have in mind I direct to the Prime Minister because of news items appearing in various parts of the world regarding the seating of Communist China in the United Nations. We have not been able to get any conclusive information here and I now ask the Prime Minister whether or not
[Mr. Gregoire.)
Canada is joining with a number of other nations in presenting a resolution to the United Nations under the terms of which the Secretary General will explore the basis upon which Communist China might be seated in the Security Council and Nationalist China in the assembly.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Those stories to which the right hon. gentleman refers are purely speculative and it would be quite improper for me to comment on speculative stories, especially when they deal with so important a matter.
It is quite clear, of course, that the question of the seating of the Peoples Republic of China will come before the United Nations assembly in the next two weeks-three weeks, at the most-and we are discussing with our friends the attitude which could possibly be adopted in respect of a resolution which will undoubtedly appear, as it has every year, in the name of Albania calling for the seating of Communist China and the expulsion of Taiwan. But I cannot comment on speculative stories.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that the Canadian government has decided that it will not support the Albanian resolution and that it has determined upon another course analogous to the suggestion I made in my original question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are considering the matter. That is as far as I can go at the moment. As soon as I can say something in the house about the policy we propose to adopt when this matter comes before the United Nations Assembly I shall be glad to do so, or my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) will do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister, then, give an assurance to the house that before a declaration is made by Canada on this question parliament will be allowed an opportunity to express its views on a matter which is so important to the peace of the world?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The normal constitutional practice will be followed, as was practised during the administration of the right hon. gentleman, in connection with these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Not in this regard.
November 10, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Since the house seems to be set on a collision course I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider convening a meeting of the house leaders or even of the party leaders to see whether some agreement might be reached on the basis of which terms could be worked out for bringing the present debate on the supply motion to an end and getting on with some of the other business of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure the leader of the house would be glad to meet the other house leaders this afternoon to exchange views with them on this matter. I am sure he would be glad to do that.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, since we are at an impasse I wonder whether the government would consider dividing the present supply bill into two parts, one dealing with salaries and the other with non-salary items, so that one part could be passed and the other part discussed without penalizing civil servants?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether that would be possible. In any event I do not think it would be desirable, and certainly to my knowledge there is no precedent for that kind of division of the bill.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. In order that all avenues may be explored would the Prime Minister, over the week end, consider discussing with the various retired senior officers of the armed forces referred to by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), as recorded at page 9515 of Hansard for November 3, and others, the very important issue involved in Bill C-243 to learn their opinions and, without abdicating the opinions of the government, which I understand very well, then review its insistence on second reading without the committee on national defence first having a chance to consider all the implications of the specific proposals?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Subject to our responsibility as we understand it, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with second reading of this bill in the normal
Inquiries of the Ministry practice as quickly as possible, naturally we would be glad to discuss any of these matters with hon. gentlemen opposite.


John George Diefenbaker: With reference to the suggestion that has been made before, that some division take place in connection with the amounts asked for by the government, instead of the some $300 million odd dollars would the government reduce that to $100 million and proceed with the balance later on, so that civil servants would be paid? There is no reason why, with consent, that could not be done.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think we should stand by the normal procedure in regard to the granting of interim supply to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Why?


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has the government heard that a finance company in Ottawa has announced today that it is prepared to lend money to civil servants during the present crisis, without any interest charge, because this company approves of the stand taken by a responsible opposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple way of resolving this crisis, and we can do it this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that mean closure? [Later:]


Hon. Marcel Lamberl (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and refers to the suggestion made yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). In the event that the Prime Minister does not wish to disturb the normal procedure of discussing a bill in detail prior to second reading, is it not very simple to refer back to the committee on defence the report, without comment, of that committee, so that the first item could be reopened and the whole question be discussed as of now? This would cause no disruption of normal parliamentary procedure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be better for the committee to discuss the bill in committee.
9766	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Is it his intention to announce shortly what action he proposes to take to increase butter production, rather than to lower its consumption?


Mr. Speaker:: I have doubts as to whether this question is in order, as the hon. member could very well place it on the order paper.


Gérard Laprise: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question related to others that have been asked, which I wish to direct to the Secretary of State. Have all the 264 returning officers been appointed?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: There are not 264 to be appointed, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I meant to direct this question to the Minister of Finance but in his absence perhaps I could refer it to the Prime Minister. Was the Governor of the Bank of Canada, when he spoke yesterday in Rome, speaking after consultation with the Minister of Finance or any member of the government when he implied that the Canadian government should establish some form of wage and price guide posts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a text of that speech, which perhaps the Minister of Finance may have, but he is not in Ottawa today. I hope to discuss the matter with him as soon as he returns.

DEBATES	November 10. 1966



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I should like to ask him whether he would consider taking steps to effect the early release of the two remaining Tilco demonstrators who are still in jail, and who were sentenced to two months, which means that if they stay there for the full two months they would be there over Christmas Day.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question.
I had previously instructed my officials to make information on this matter available to me and I am still waiting for the final report of the proceedings held earlier this week. I will take this matter under advisement.



HAL BANKS-POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The original suggestion had to be considered\nNovember 10, 1966', 'later in the light of the expenditure which has been committed by the United Kingdom government to rebuild the school, and it was thought that the decision reached in those circumstances was the correct one.']
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the reported readiness on the part of the law enforcement officials in Ontario to take proceedings against Mr. Hal Banks if he should be extradited, will the Solicitor General say whether or not he has instructed his officials to institute extradition proceedings?


Lawrence T. Pennell: have spoken to the Attorney General of Ontario concerning this matter and our officials are having further consultations. I do not think the matter will be too long delayed before a decision is reached.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, with regard to the suggestion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition that Canada build a new school in Aberfan, Wales. In view of the widespread disappointment in this plan not being carried out, would the government be prepared to reconsider its decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The original suggestion had to be considered
November 10, 1966

later in the light of the expenditure which has been committed by the United Kingdom government to rebuild the school, and it was thought that the decision reached in those circumstances was the correct one.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a most appropriate question to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs in view of the fact that today is November 10, the day before Remembrance Day. This is a matter of considerable concern to many veterans and their dependants across Canada. Can the minister inform the house when he proposes, either through legislation or through his estimates, to increase the disability pensions and war veterans allowances?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am just as anxious as my hon. friend to bring this before the house. I had hoped I would be able to make a statement, which I have ready, to let the veterans know what the government will propose. However, because of the present circumstances in the house I cannot give any assurance. It will be done, however, as soon as it can be done.


Mr. Starr:: The circumstances of the house have nothing to do with it.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has indicated that the increase in the pensions will be accomplished through passage of the estimates, would the minister allay the anxiety of the pensioners and give them an idea what the amount of the increase will be?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I would gladly do that at this moment, Mr. Speaker, if this is permissible.


An hon. Member:: Revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What would be required now is that we revert to motions. Is that what the minister is requesting?


Michael Starr: I am sure permission would be given if the minister requests it.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I have no intention of doing this to assist the opposition in their filibuster.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



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. It has to do with a question I put to him last November 2, and which he agreed to take as notice.
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? November 11 is tomorrow.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: must say that while I have read references in the press concerning possible withdrawal and have had word that the matter is to be discussed in Montreal tomorrow, I have no knowledge that any withdrawal has taken place as suggested by the hon. member. I certainly hope that no such action will be taken.
With reference to a possible meeting I can say that I have had several full and frank discussions with the president and other officials of the C.N.T.U. both in my office here and elsewhere. My door is open to them at all times and I will be very glad to have a further meeting with these officials in this connection if they so wish.


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as chairman of the cabinet committee established to look into this dispute between the C.N.T.U. and the Canada Labour Relations Board. Can the minister tell the house when this cabinet committee is expected to report?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, that matter is still under consideration.
9768	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry TELEVISION



SASKATCHEWAN-C.B.C. BLACKOUT OF FOOTBALL PLAY-OFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State which is of interest to people in all parts of Saskatchewan, having this year a winning team in the Regina Roughriders. Will the government bring to the attention of the C.B.C. the serious position in which the fans in Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Swift Current and Yorkton are, in that the second game and the third, if one is necessary, will be broadcast over the C.B.C.? The minister would be surprised to know the tremendous interest there is in this regard and I hope that she will use some of those qualities Orpheus had in doing something about this situation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can use all of the qualities Orpheus had, but I have already taken up this matter. The hon. member for Saskatoon raised this matter earlier. I am informed that ordinarily the private station in Saskatoon, which is an affiliate of the C.B.C., would carry the games being televised on the C.B.C., that this year that would only be one western and eastern play-off game, and that the other games would be carried on C.T.V. I appreciate that this is not very much help to the people in Saskatoon because they cannot receive those telecasts.
Because of certain questions raised in the house and some correspondence I have received, I have asked the C.B.C. to look into this and I am informed that they are very well aware of the interest of the Saskatoon viewers.


John George Diefenbaker: What about Prince Albert, Swift Current and Yorkton viewers?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Presumably if they can receive it on C.B.C in Saskatoon they will be able to receive it in those other cities. Discussions are being held now with a view to permitting the Saskatoon station to leave the C.B.C. network during the time periods involved in order to pick up the telecasts of the western games from C.T.V. I am not sure how this will work out, but if C.T.V. does this I think all of the games will be received in Saskatoon. I will be happy to inform the house about this situation when I have further information.

DEBATES	November 10, 1966



POSSIBILITY OF TELEVISING OF DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider doing what the British government is doing at this time in respect of a study regarding the televising of the proceedings of parliament?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I had the opportunity this summer of observing what is being done and contemplated in this regard in Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Britain. I am informed that Mr. Speaker on behalf of the House of Commons has made a very detailed study of the U.K. experience and plans to telecast in this regard.
This might be a question about which, under the estimates to which they are related -those for the B.B.G and the C.B.C.

the broadcasting committee might well decide to hear witnesses and to discuss this matter. It will be remembered, however, that when such a motion was placed before that committee to televise the committee proceedings during the Seven Days matter, it was rejected. Perhaps Mr. Speaker on behalf of all members will discuss this matter with the broadcasting committee on the basis of that information which I am sure he now has.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, if it is decided to televise the proceedings of parliament I hope the C.B.C. will revive the name, This Hour has Seven Days.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think that proposal would relate only to that time when the hon. member is making a speech.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this being November 10 I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received a report on the progress of the mediator who is trying to find a settlement in the railway dispute in respect of wages and related matters. Does the minister expect a final report by November 15, which is the fixed deadline?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, two reports have been received
November 10, 1966	COMMONS
in the last 72 hours or so, though perhaps I should indicate that they were only interim reports. I doubt if I will receive the final report from the mediator before Tuesday. Perhaps it will not be forthcoming until early Wednesday morning. It is hard to forecast at this time what will happen, but negotiations are still progressing for extended periods of time each day. It is too early at this time to say what the mediator's report will be.



ITALY-DISPATCH OF EMERGENCY SUPPLIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the government of Canada giving consideration to sending aid in one form or another to the millions of Italian people who are undergoing untold hardships because of the tremendous floods in that country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, emergency supplies have been sent in collaboration with the Canadian Red Cross, and we are now awaiting a reply to an inquiry we made through our embassy at Rome as to what is most needed.



GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Yesterday, in reply to a question I put to him, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that the legislation of the Department of Manpower and Immigration provided all kinds of ways which could be used to solve the problem of the strike at Malartic, in the gold mine region.
Can the hon. minister tell us what might be the most appropriate way in which his department could help the Malartic-Val d'Or region to solve the present serious situation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my department has jurisdiction over manpower itself but not over the mines as such. If some employees are affected by the company operations, we are willing to help them, either
DEBATES	9769
Inquiries of the Ministry directly through our manpower offices, through our mobility program, or through retraining. Those, then, are the ways in which we can help them.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the question I put to the hon. minister a while ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
That is one way of getting them to change jobs, but the present problem is this: the miners are earning starvation wages, and I should like to know if the department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact there are a number of items on the order paper, some of which have been there for several weeks and some of them for several months awaiting the attention of this house, will the Prime Minister make a statement as to why the government is unwilling to place old age pension legislation on the order paper, even though it may be a few days before we consider it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it will be on the order paper shortly, but I am afraid it will be some time before we are able to debate it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister whether "shortly" means next week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question is-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister indicated he would like to answer it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hope so, Mr. Speaker.
November 10, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN ECONOMY



REPORTED INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders oi the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question lor the Prime Minister. Has he noted the further continued increase in the cost of living which was announced today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I noticed that the cost of food has gone down.


Edward Nasserden: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister also noted that the returns to the producers of food in this country have continued to go down under this government?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is not in order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. I have given him notice of it and I have discussed this matter with him. Can he now advise the house of the nature of the current lay-offs at Windsor Park in Halifax and reassure those boys who are still there that this is indeed not part of a postconsolidation program or of a closing down pattern?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, no consideration is being given to the closing of Windsor Park, which is part of C.F.B. Halifax, and the lay-offs we are experiencing there are due to seasonal conditions.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of requests from urgently concerned quarters to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he can now advise the house as to when we may expect the report of the Carter commission on taxation?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the government is hopeful that the report will be received as soon as

possible, but after the number of delays that have occurred in the delivery of the report to the government any forecast would only be pure speculation.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I have sent him notice of it. Is the government prepared to reconsider its decision to eliminate the supplementary winter works program in order to alleviate the problems that have occurred in military camps such as the one at Vernon, B.C. where maintenance personnel have already been reduced to a minimum and further reductions are threatened?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. This program is under the direct jurisdiction of the cabinet and not of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
CODE OF ETHICS IN ADVERTISING On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State which possibly she could take as notice. Assuming that the C.B.C. has a code of ethics for its national advertisers could she indicate what procedure the C.B.C. uses to ensure that such ethics are followed by the national advisers?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice.

STUDY OF STATUS BY ROYAL COMMISSION On the orders of the day:


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of his repeated assurances of concern in the matter will he now consider giving a favourable reply to the delegation which he is to meet asking him to investigate the report of the royal commission on the status of women?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to seeing them within an hour and a half, and I
November 10, 1966

hope nothing in the house will prevent me from giving myself that pleasure.


Michael Starr: Nothing has done so until now.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put the question to the Postmaster General; as this is my first question to him, I would appreciate having a favourable answer.
Is the minister aware of the complaint made by the Montreal postal workers to the effect that the French version of the Montpetit report is not available? Could he recommend that French copies be made available as soon as possible?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, French and English copies of the Montpetit report were available at the same time but, unfortunately, the first issue is out of print; a new printing in English and French is expected shortly.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the Postmaster General tell us whether it is true that the French copy of the Montpetit report sells for $2 while the English copy sells for $1, and could the minister tell us why?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that this question is in order.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary to point out that both editions, French and English, were selling for $1 each and that the new issue, French or English, will sell for $2 each.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. He stated a moment ago that the first Montpetit report sold for a dollar, and that the second will sell for $2 instead of $1. Does he not agree that this is pure inflation?


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: No, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the cost of the first printing was taken over by the Royal Commission and the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, and the cost of the second printing was borne entirely by the Printing Bureau.
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can he advise the house whether he is yet in a position to announce the composition of the commission which will look into security matters, in view of the fact that he has indicated he might be doing so this week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I hope to consult certain persons concerned. I had assumed that I would be able to make that announcement tomorrow but I had forgotten tomorrow is a holiday; so unless I can announce it later this evening it will have to be on Monday.



CHURCHILL, MAN.-STORAGE IN TERMINAL ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's statement to the effect that he will be visiting Winnipeg on Monday to discuss certain matters with the wheat board, will he request the wheat board to give further consideration to the filling of the terminal elevator at Churchill this winter so that the National Harbours Board will not be deprived of revenue to the extent of some $300,000?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of using the overall facilities to the best advantage. It is one of the matters we have been considering and I will discuss it in Winnipeg.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Solicitor General now in a position to give at least an interim report respecting the investigation into the alleged espionage activities that were revealed some two weeks ago? What is the present position? Has sufficient time not
9772	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry elapsed so that the house and the country may have at least a modicum of information on this matter?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I have been daily in touch with my officials about this matter. I am sure they are moving very expeditiously. I am very conscious of the statement I made to the house that I will report at the very earliest opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the reason for the continued delay? Is it the usual custom of the government to delay?



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) who is responsible for Expo. In view of this morning's news to the effect that it is possible that the centennial caravan which will travel through the province of Quebec in 1967 may be encountering many difficulties, would it be possible for the minister to look into this question immediately so as to ensure that the province of Quebec will not be deprived of it next year?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the minister is aware of representations in this matter.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, since I am responsible for the Centennial Commission, and not my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I think I should say that the Centennial Commission is very disturbed by the report that appeared in this morning's issue of the Gazette.
At my request they have informed me that the article is based on incomplete information and that in fact there are municipal centennial committees in 125 communities in Quebec, including all of the 114 which are to be visited by two caravans. I am told that of those, some 82 separate communities have set up their own performing arts festivals to be held at the same time. In effect the Centennial Commission is quite pleased with the improvement of the relationship of the municipalities in Quebec. The technical requirements will be as high as they are everywhere else, and only one of the municipalities had to be dropped because of the lack of an adequate site.

DEBATES	November 10, 1966


Robert Simpson: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the minister could ask the committee in charge of the centennial caravan to take a further look at the geography of northern Manitoba. The map which has been published would I am sure make them lose their way, if they followed the course they have advertised.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $371,999,867.43, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament except Items for Citizenship and Immigration, Defence Production, Forestry, Industry, Legislation, National Revenue, Post Office, Privy Council and Veterans Affairs, already provided for in Appropriation Act No. 6, 1966, and except Agriculture Item 35, Atomic Energy Item 5, Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Finance Item 15, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 40 and 70, Transport Item 103, and Loans, Investments and Advances Items L40, L75 and L80, for which no proportion is granted-$309.794,765.50;
(b)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Public Works Item 65 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,600,000.00;
(c)	an additional two-twelfths of the total amounts of National Defence Item 35, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 20 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates-$3,175,900.00;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L30 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates-$9,166,-666.67;
(e)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (a) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a. Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a and Transport Items 102a and 103a, for which no proportion is granted -$26,276,101.92;
(f)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amounts of External Affairs Item 35a and Loans. Investments and Advances Item L22a (Schedule
D)	of the said Supplementary Estimates-$11,304,-250.00;
(g) an additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Secretary of State Item 40a (Schedule
E)	of the said Supplementary Estimates-$713,-266.67;
(h)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amounts of Finance Item 15a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40a (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$4,716,666.67;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total amount of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present
November 10, 1966
[Stage Direction]
session of Parliament, except Loans, Investments and Advances Item L32b, for which no proportion is granted-$2,252,250.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
["The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. The house will resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.", 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.']
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, when six o'clock was called last evening I had reached the final stage of my remarks so I will not take up too much of the committee's time this afternoon. I just wish to round out the point I was leading up to in my remarks, which has to do with the proposition of the Minister of National Defence that the majority of the young men who are serving in the armed forces are 100 per cent behind his proposal. Although this might be a true and realistic factor in the experience of those who live two generations from now, it is not quite factually representative of the situation today.
To bear this out, Mr. Chairman, I want to quote very briefly from a lengthy brief prepared by seven officers who call themselves junior naval officers, which I understand includes ranks from lieutenant commander, down. One pertinent paragraph from this brief is as follows:
It seems to us that people will always have to go to sea. The future will still require our specialized expertise. To destroy for no sensible reason all that goes with this expertise and which is valuable and good is difficult to understand. So many of the things which the minister wishes to do away with are the outward and visible signs of a way of life, and are very important factors which contribute to a happy and efficient fighting force.
Personally, we are not at all happy about what is in store. We can see no benefits, no reason behind unification. We are told that we are to have broader career opportunities; General Allard tells us that before the end of the year he will outline for us a new career pattern which will make us "very happy". But we don't want a new career plan or broader opportunities. We don't want to hold down an administrative job in Winnipeg, or to be employed in some general job in Gagetown, or to be executive assistant to, say, the Commander of Materiel Command. Our present careers at sea and associated with ships are broad enough now. We have plenty to do to keep up with the challenges of our seagoing profession, and to learn all that we still have to learn about the business of going to sea. When we are older and much more senior, and when we have accomplished all we can in the seagoing profession, then we would be delighted to fill some responsible senior position in an integrated headquarters staff.
In the meantime, we ask nothing more than the challenging and demanding life we now lead. We wish to continue to go to sea in Her Majesty's ships in Canada's service, being, and looking like naval officers.
When it is not necesary to change it is necessary not to change.
Interim Supply
In closing I should like to suggest that while these views are those of young serving naval officers, they do indeed reflect the views of many other young serving officers in both the army and in the air force. I must say that the air force officers are affected to a lesser degree, because to the men who fly aeroplanes, this is their whole life. They live in a small, compact world. The number of pilots in the air force compared with the number of men who keep them in the air is very small and they have their own world. Nothing is going effectively to change that.


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


J. Michael Forrestall: I than kthe committee for its indulgence.


Mr. Coales:: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the government does not want the advice of the hon. member for Halifax, and this is an indication on the part of the government that it does not want any advice at any time on our defence policy. We are told that the policy of the government has no real or serious critics; that it is the kind of policy the Canadian people want. At the same time the minister tells us that he does not want the matter discussed before the defence committee until after he has secured second reading and approval in principle of the bill.
As this debate goes on and on and on it becomes more and more obvious that the government has placed parliament on a collision course. According to indications given both yesterday and today the minister appears to have won his battle in his party and has convinced the backbenchers that his stubbornness is justified: They will go with him to the end.
As I have told the minister, Mr. Chairman, there is just as much stubbornness among the members of the official opposition. The other thing that we have on our side is reasonableness. What we ask for is reasonable. What the government is doing today and what it will be doing in the days ahead is unreasonable. It is even more than unreasonable; it is downright stupid. As a result of what we are doing a general election campaign could ensue. Nobody in the country wants a general election, so this is a pretty serious state of affairs. I would have thought that the last people who wanted an election were the members of the government, because no government would have more sins to answer for than the present one, if they had to face the

November 10, 196S
Interim Supply
Canadian public right now in a general election campaign.
What have we had this year, Mr. Chairman? We have had a year of strikes and ineptitude by the government, with more strikes coming up. We have had a government that has not carried out any of the promises it made to the people during the last general election campaign. Today the old age pensioner does not even have a bill before this house to make provision for him, and he does not know what the government are going to do to implement the promise they made. He has no idea at all.
Then we have the postal strike and a strike by the employees of Air Canada as possibilities in the very near future. It is absolutely ridiculous, but that is the situation we are in; and we are in it, thanks to the government.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The government pays no attention to anybody in the house or in the country who talks about unification. Almost every newspaper in the country supports the just demands of the opposition. That is why the government's attitude is so amazing to me. Almost every newspaper in Canada is aware of the government's arrogance in this matter. The minister is not uniquely arrogant any more, because yesterday the Prime Minister showed an even greater arrogance in his reply to the hon. member for Peace River who had made a reasonable suggestion. Let me refer the minister to the Ottawa Journal to illustrate my point. Let him also look at the Hamilton Spectator of November 9, which says that there is a difference in the debate going on now as compared with past debates. This is no longer an irresponsible filibuster in the minds of newspapermen across this country. They believe that the official opposition is right in what it is doing, and that there is a very great principle involved here. While the minister may feel that by and large, the general public could not care less about our national defence policy, responsible people in this country I believe care a great deal. They want to make absolutely certain that what we do with regard to national defence is right.
They are concerned that if we go on as the minister wants us to do, while possibly no errors may be made nevertheless some errors might be made that cannot be corrected. How does anybody know whether or not that is so? The minister says we have absolutely nothing to fear, and that his policy is right. But the minister has at his disposal the only people

who can advise really whether the policy is right or wrong. Those people are not available to us. We shall only know about this policy if we can call these men before a committee, have them answer our questions, and so eliminate our concern. Should we accept, as the Minister of Transport suggested last year, the policy of a minority government affecting the future of this nation just because in their opinion that policy is right? We should hear the pros and cons of this matter before being asked to make an educated appraisal on second reading.
We cannot go on talking forever about this subject in this chamber. The government needs money to run the country, and that money is not available. If the government thought yesterday we were bluffing it should be obvious today that we are not, and that we are as serious and determined as they are to see that things are done properly. There may be hope yet for this parliament, because the house leader is back and he has common sense. He will meet with officials of other parties. Let us hope he can make common sense prevail among his colleagues, because if they do not listen to common sense we may very well have an election campaign that nobody really wants. I hate to think of what will happen to the Liberals or Conservatives if we have such an election campaign. We cannot have elections every year. They are becoming annual affairs in this nation, and they develop from the ineptitude of this government which seems unable to stick to the priorities it establishes at the beginning of a session. The government does not realize when it gets off the track, and does not know how to get back once it is off.
At the beginning of a session the government lists its priorities, telling us what work it wants done. Already in this parliament we have done more work to date than most parliaments are asked to do. And what happens? Suddenly the government goes off the tracks and takes the country with it; there is a vacuum in leadership. There is no leadership in the house or in the country.


An hon. Member:: What leadership? Tory leadership?


Robert Carman Coates: An hon. member says what leadership? Let me say that there was leadership in this nation when the Conservatives were in power. There was none of this wrangling in parliament that we had during the flag debate, and that we are having in this interim supply debate. This happens because
November 10, 1966

we are without a leader. Right now the Prime Minister lets the Minister of National Defence push him around. The minister is bigger than the Prime Minister.


Mr. Hellyer:: Nonsense.


Robert Carman Coates: Is it nonsense?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You heard the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. He is a strong man.


Robert Carman Coates: He is afraid of you, my friend. That is the trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: He has pulled the rug out from under quite a few cabinet ministers, but he is afraid of you. He thinks you will resign if he pulls the rug out from under you. That is what the Prime Minister is afraid of.


An hon. Member:: Are you a mind reader?


Robert Carman Coates: I think the Prime Minister is right. I think this man will resign if he pulls the rug from under him. He is not the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. He is not the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He is not the Minister of Justice. He is a stubborn, arrogant man who thinks he is right; who thinks he has a divine right to give Canada a defence policy that nobody else will know anything about until it is implemented. We in the official opposition say he has no divine right to give this country a defence policy unless we first know about it, say something about it, and indicate in a constructive way what is good or not good about it.
We are going to stay here day and night if necessary, until we get our reasonable request.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was conceived years ago, and now we are waiting for it to see the light of day.


Michael Starr: Conceived where, in an incubator?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
For all we knew during the last election campaign, which was only a year ago, none of these things were to happen. The minister was not talking about this ill-conceived plan of his during that election campaign. He was not talking about removing the word "royal" from everything he could get his hands on. Why was this so? Because they were losing votes right and left as it was, and he did not want to startle the Canadian people any further by talking about the defence policy which he and
Interim Supply
his deputy assistant had managed to obtain in their deliberations, wherever they may have taken place.
We do not even know for how long this minister has been going forward along the path he has chosen or how far he has already taken us, because we cannot get information of this kind from him. All we are told by the minister is that he has a plan, the kind of plan everybody in Canada wants. When we urge him to tell us something about it, he says: "After you have given approval in principle, I will."


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, as soon as we start to deal with the bill.


Robert Carman Coates: Bring the bill on for debate with this minister? We would face closure before we had been talking two days, because he is a man who takes the same attitude in this house as the late C. D. Howe. He does not care for parliament. He cares for what he wants, and he intends to get what he wants even if he is running his own leader off the face of the map, and that is where we will run him if we have a general election.
One of the things I find hard to explain is how the Secretary of State for External Affairs could agree to leave Canada at this time, taking into account his position as one who may be the successor to a man who might as well leave because he does not really provide any leadership any more, anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Carman Coates: There is nothing shameful about that. Everyone in Canada knows that for three years he has been the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had as far as leadership is concerned. There has been one difficulty after another. And here we are in yet another difficulty. Why? Because the Prime Minister gives us no direction, because he allows parliament to be directed on courses which it should not have taken, because he ignores the priorities he pledged to the Canadian people.
This is the kind of Prime Minister we have. This is the reason we are in a mess right now. And if hon. members think we are in a mess now, think of what is coming up next Tuesday and Wednesday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You will be making your speech at the Chateau Laurier.


Robert Carman Coates: The minister will sit there solidly in his determination to get his way no matter whether we have a general election or

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
not. He puts his defence policy before everything. If there is the degree of solidarity in the country in favour of this policy which the hon. gentleman would have us believe there is, why not let people talk about it in committee? Why this determination to make sure that he gets his policy through before he will say anything about it?
I liked an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail yesterday, because it is an example of the stubbornness which exists in the minister's mind. The article said that servicemen in Camp Borden were told that newspapermen would probably be coming round to make a survey of their attitude toward the new defence policy. They were told to talk freely to the reporters but to remember, always, that no one in the armed services could be critical of government policy. This would make a fine survey possible.
No doubt this is the kind of survey the minister wants in the House of Commons. We are not allowed, apparently, to be critical of the policy until after it has been put into operation; there can be no discussion until the policy is in effect. By then it will be too late, we shall have the colonels on the ships. Won't it be grand when a colonel walks into a navy mess. Someone will look at him and say: "Surely, you are in the wrong mess." He will reply: "Oh, no, I am colonel So and So and I am in Hellyer's navy." Then everybody in the world will be laughing at Canada, if they are not already laughing.
An hon. member says I am an idiot. That is the kind of attitude which is taken by this government. One is an idiot if one says anything which they do not want to hear. Well, maybe I am an idiot. I am an idiot for being in this place where we have a government like the one opposite; even for talking here, because it does not make any difference. They do not pay any attention or care what anybody does. They take the attitude that they will do what they wish to do and that nobody will stop them. "Who is to stop us?" They have the steamroller going. But there is a difference this year.
Throughout the flag debate we were right. We were as right as we are today.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Correct.


Robert Carman Coates: But do you know, Mr. Chairman, what happened during that flag debate? We had too many fair weather fighters. When the going got tough they said: you had better stop. But there is a difference this time. We do not intend to stop. That is the difference.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, we are not going to stop until this bill is sent to a committee before second reading, so that we can find out what this defence policy is all about.
These debates are of value to this country for only one reason. They draw attention to the dictatorial, arrogant attitude of this government and underline the fact that no matter what is said the government will insist on having its way. In this instance, however, the government is wrong and unless it changes its mind the country will suffer and no one will benefit.


Mr. Patterson:: Up to the present moment, no member of the Social Credit party has taken part in this debate on interim supply.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This, however, does not denote a lack of interest in the issues that have been raised. I have followed with interest most of the debate on the two major topics of concern, and although I do have some comments that I wish to make on the question of defence policy, I am going to reserve those for a later occasion.
It is not even my intention to discuss other issues that are of concern so far as legislation is involved, but I just want to call attention to the serious difficulty in which we find ourselves at the moment. The government on one hand and the official opposition on the other have seemingly reached an impasse, a stalemate, with the lines firmly drawn. We are of the opinion that a number of important factors must be taken into account. These factors are of such overriding importance that some way must be found to resolve the impasse in which we find ourselves.
First of all, I should like to call the attention of the committee to the fact that we must find an answer to this problem in the interest of our own parliamentary institution. We have been standing up in the house and talking across the country about the damage that has been done to the image of parliament. I just want to say, without casting blame on either side, that the image of parliament is not being enhanced at the present time with this type of debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I think we ought to take cognizance of that. As I say, I am not blaming the government and I am not blaming the official opposition. I am just stating that the image of parliament is suffering because of a
November 10, 1966

situation that is developing and has developed here in the House of Commons.


Mr. McIntosh:: Somebody must be to blame.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I am going to make a proposal later on-


John (Jack) McIntosh: You cannot ride both sides of the fence.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I am not on both sides of the fence.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Well, you sound like it.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Perhaps you just cannot understand anything, except some categorical position one way or the other.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Well, just answer.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I am not going to get involved in a controversy at this moment.
My second point is that the national interest requires that a solution be found to this immediate situation. Someone has mentioned that we are two or three years behind so far as our legislative program is concerned, and I suppose we could all agree with that statement. Reference has been made to old age pension legislation, to veterans legislation, immigration policy, medical insurance, scientific research, national housing, a film development corporation and many other items, some on the order paper and some not.


Mr. Winkler:: Old age pensions.


Mr.   Paiferson@: I mentioned old age pensions right at the start.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You should have mentioned them twice.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I would be glad to do that. We have quite a list of legislative items, either on the order paper or proposed, but these are all being sidetracked because we find ourselves in a rather prolonged debate on interim supply. I suggest that in the interests of the nation we ought to find some solution to this problem so that we can go ahead with the legislative program and those affairs that are of vital concern to the country.
Thirdly, I believe it is absolutely essential that we find a solution in the interests of the public servants of this country. We must recognize that their welfare is being affected by this situation.


An hon. Member:: A Conservative filibuster.
Interim Supply


Mr.   Patlerson@: Those are not my words. We have had considerable debate on the cost of living and on the difficulty people are experiencing in keeping food on their tables and a roof over their heads. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that our public servants, who are serving Canada so faithfully and so well, require prompt receipt of their pay cheques in order to keep ahead of things or even to keep up with them. A delay in the receipt of those cheques results in embarrassment and in hardship. I say that these people must not be made to bear the brunt of our failure to solve our problems in the House of Commons.
I am not sure how the superannuated civil servants receive their cheques, whether they are dependent on the passage of this resolution or not. But I suggest that these people, as well as all others who are affected by our actions, are going to find themselves is extremely difficult circumstances.
I appeal to the two right hon. gentlemen who have the greatest responsibility in this house to co-operate in finding a mutually satisfactory way out of this impasse.


Mr. Churchill:: That suggestion was made this afternoon, wasn't it? Wasn't it suggested that the resolution and bill be split into two parts as the answer to this problem, and that sufficient money be voted immediately to pay the salaries of government employees?


Alexander Bell Patterson: I heard the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And it was rejected by the Prime Minister.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The suggestion was made that the house leaders meet to try and resolve this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was in addition to the other suggestion.


Alexander Bell Patterson: That is all right, but I would point out to the hon. gentleman that he has made a lot of speeches and this is my first in this debate.
The suggestion was made that the house leaders meet. I suggest that this will not be adequate. I believe the two right hon. gentlemen should meet, should discuss this problem face to face and come up with a satisfactory solution to it. Both these right hon. gentlemen are acknowledged as great Canadians and great statesmen in their own right. We in this party appeal to them to meet behind closed doors, even as labour and management must some times meet together behind closed doors, to resolve the problem.

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
I further suggest that in order to expedite such a meeting and lend urgency to it, we should consider adjourning the house for an hour or two so that they may carry on debate and discussion face to face, with the urgency emphasized by the fact that the house is standing adjourned. I do not make this as a motion but as a suggestion to which consideration should be given in order to emphasize the gravity of the problem facing the Canadian nation.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, in the unification bill which received first reading a short time ago, and which will come before the house for second reading we hope in the near future, we will be dealing with a matter which will have a very great effect on our defence forces. These are the defence forces on which we spend one quarter of our taxes every year, and on which we depend for the security of the country.
On a matter of such importance to our country I believe it is imperative that, before the members of the house should be asked to pass on the principle of the measure, and in order to do an adequate and proper job of examining the legislation, we must have at our disposal all the material that it is possible to obtain. This material that we need to do an adequate job of examining this measure is possessed only by the minister and his advisers.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We have asked the government to have the committee on national defence reassembled so that we may learn from the Minister of National Defence and from his advisers how they plan to bring about unification, and how unification is going to improve the efficiency of our forces, as the minister, over and over again, has claimed in his self-laudatory statements in the press and on television. These questions to which we require answers have not been answered in the white paper of 1964. In that white paper the question of unification was only very lightly touched upon. Since then the minister, as we know only too well, has refused to answer the questions which we have put to him over and over again. It is for that reason we are still persistently asking him to enable us to do the job that our constituents sent us to parliament to do; that is, to examine this important legislation. This can be done properly only by having the committee assembled so that we could obtain this information from the minister and his advisers.

Because of the minister's refusal to call together the committee so that we would be able to obtain the information we have requested, we are being asked to vote for a principle which will have an important and far-reaching effect on the future of this country without the information which is needed in order to intelligently discuss the matter. There is a very important principle at stake here. The government is demanding that parliament make a decision on the principle of a bill, while at the same time it is deliberately denying the representatives of the people of this country the information possessed by the government and which can be obtained only from witnesses who have not been made available. This information is necessary to us, as representatives of the people who sent us here, so that we can decide whether or not the principle of unification is good.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You will get it as soon as we get on with the debate.


George Harris Hees: I ask the minister how he expects the representatives of the people to pass on the principle of a bill before the information upon which we must judge the principle is made available. He knows, 1 know, and the members of the house know, that this is an absolute impossibility.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You will get the information when you get to the committee.


George Harris Hees: These are the self-same tactics that were used by another Liberal government ten years ago in the infamous pipe line debate of 1956. That denial of information to parliament led to the very much justified defeat of that government a year later. Today, we are faced with the same kind of arrogance, the same refusal of information. This is the same type of information the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time, Mr. Howe, refused to give the house concerning details with regard to the construction of the Trans-Canada pipe line. The results of that refusal are too well known to require retelling here. This is exactly the same situation today. This minister has the information we want and his advisers have the information. If he would call together the committee on national defence we would have before us all the Officials who have the information we require. We would be in a position to ask them for the information we need, and we would obtain it.
Today, once again, we refuse to accept the dictates of an arrogant government which says that the necessary information shall be
November 10, 1966

denied to members of this house prior to their being called upon to decide on the principle of a bill. As I have said, there is no other source from which we can obtain this necessary information except from the minister and his advisers. The only place in which we can obtain this information from his advisers is in the committee, when they are called before it as witnesses. We reject outright this kind of arrogance, and we demand we be given the information to which we, as representatives of the people of Canada, have a right before we are asked to vote on the principle of a bill-a principle based on the information, for which we are asking.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the principle of this bill is a very important one; that is, either unification is good or bad according to whether it will improve or reduce the effectiveness of the Canadian armed forces. How can anyone decide whether unification will improve or reduce the effectiveness of the armed forces until we are given the information concerning how it is intended to be brought in; what it will do; and what it will not do. Until we have the details which we need, it is absolutely impossible for us to make an intelligent decision.
We can only be sure whether unification is good in principle or bad in principle after the minister and his advisers give us the information we, as representatives in this parliament of the people of this country, have a right to request. The only explanation any of us on this side of the house can find for the minister's refusal to make the information available by calling together the committee and letting us hear the witnesses before we make our decision on second reading, is that this minister and this government are afraid that the minister's advisers, under cross-examination by the members of the committee, will demonstrate clearly that unification is impractical, is costly, and will reduce, rather than improve, the effectiveness of our armed forces. If this were not so, Mr. Chairman, this minister, who does not shy away from good publicity, would be the first to call together the committee so that he could surround himself with a little more of the aura of greatness which he so desires at this particular time and which he feels is so important to him during the next twelve months. I do not need to go into that any more deeply than I have. I think it is obvious to all of us what I am talking about.
The only way in which we have been able to obtain information is by discussing this 23033-6181
Interim Supply
matter with active service personnel. Let us forget the people who have retired, for the moment. Most of us have been able to discuss this matter with active personnel, in all parts of this country, and in all services. We have been able in this way to gather a fair amount of information concerning how this matter of unification is progressing. Therefore I suggest that we examine for a moment the facts as we find them. We might start by differentiating-and this is something about which the public seems to have been strangely misled-between unification and integration. Integration is something which has been going on in the Canadian armed forces for at least 25 years. Those who were in the last world war know very well that this was the basis of the combined operations in world war II. Integration is the combining together of the three services to form a more effective fighting team, although leaving those three services with their separate indentities.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This unification process has been proceeding for the past 25 years. It is not something that this minister of this government started; it has been going along and improving steadily over that period. I believe, as I think we all do, that it can be improved even more. Integration should proceed to the highest possible degree, but let me make it clear that integration is something quite different from unification. Unification is simply no more or no less than the loss of identity of our three armed forces by the adoption of a common uniform, a common name, and a common rank structure with the resultant complete disregard for the history, traditions and pride of our armed services which have meant so much to this country, and will mean so much in the future. If these things are left alone, these services will be able to carry on the excellent job they performed in the past during two world wars and the Korean operation.
This minister, for reasons best known to himself, has decided to mutilate our armed forces and change them into something of which he alone knows the form. What are the benefits that are claimed will be brought about by unification? The principal one is that it will be easy to transfer men from one service to another if casualties or other reasons make that desirable. With the high degree of complexity which exists in our modern weapons systems, it is essential that a man today be trained in a specialty. It is impossible to transfer a man from one service to another without a great waste of time and

November 10. 1966
Interim Supply
money, and the minister knows that perfectly well.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would you say it is difficult to transfer a pilot from one service to another, or a navigator?


George Harris Hees: I say it is impossible to transfer a man from one service to another, and I stand by what I have said and you know perfectly well it is true.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You just said it would require a waste of time and money.


George Harris Hees: A perfect example of what I am talking about, and there are hundreds of others, is a man who is a gunner on a battleship. This man cannot be shifted to operate a gun on a bomber or a tank without a lot of retraining which would require time and money, resulting in a waste of the time and money originally expended in his training. The minister knows that quite well. This statement applies to every field of combat activity. Our forces have become far too specialized and complicated to make possible or easy an interchange of personnel. If men are shifted from one service to another today they will require months of retraining to become proficient in the new line of combat duty. This will require a new start from scratch, with a resultant loss of time, effort and money.
The minister said, when speaking to the defence committee on May 12, that there were certain anomalies between the services and that an important objective of the government unification plan would be the correction of those anomalies through unification. He listed them as, different terms of services, different trade structures, different promotional opportunities, different commissioning procedures from ranks, and different retirement ages.
This minister knows perfectly well that all ranks in each service have their equivalents in the other two. All he needs to do to correct this anomaly is to specify the regulations which will apply to equivalent ranks in all three services. This kind of thing applies to the whole field, and the minister knows perfectly well that these things cannot be done better by unification. As I will point out in a few minutes, it will create a great deal of difficulty.
Let us examine the disadvantages which unification will bring about if it is applied to our armed forces. Let us first of all consider our combat services; the crews of our fighting ships; those who fly our fighters and bombers, and those who comprise our battle formations

in the field. These men face extreme dangers time and time again in the performance of their duties. If they fail to face adequately those dangers, their objectives, the objectives of their units, and the objectives of our whole armed effort will not be achieved.
Everything in our armed services is pitched to one operation; that is, we must make sure that when these men are in battle it is possible for them to achieve their objectives. If men under fire do not come up to scratch, and are not able to do that because they do not have what it takes at the time, our whole armed effort is completely wasted. The members of this house who have been members of combat units in wartime, and there are many of them here today, know very well that the men must have a great deal going for them if they are to face danger under enemy fire and do so satisfactorily. These men must have pride of country, pride of service, pride of unit and pride of self, all of which add up to morale. A considerable part of morale comes from the uniform the men wear, the history and tradition of the service and the unit. If you take these things away, as this minister proposes to do by this legislation, you will take away some of those things which are essential to that extra effort which so often makes the difference between failure and success.
Let us remember that if our combat units do not achieve their objectives, the whole effort of our armed forces is doomed to failure. The billion and a half dollars that we are spending each year might just as well not be spent if we are not going to train our armed forces in a way which makes it possible for these men to carry out their duties proficiently.
We all hope that these men will not have to face another war, and the best way of preventing that from happening is to let our potential enemies know that we are ready, poised, and capable of striking a much harder blow than they are capable of striking. In case this minister is still under the misapprehension, and I am afraid he is, that the 1966 purpose-the Paul Hellyer purpose-of our armed forces is that they should in future be parade ground soldiers or soldiers engaged in peace-keeping operations, then I say we should examine this situation to see just exactly what the role of our armed forces must continue to be.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do you believe that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it?
November 10, 1966


George Harris Hees: Our purpose must be to help preserve world peace, and this can be done by demonstrating to those who might be tempted to try to achieve their objective by waging war that they would suffer more than they would gain by doing so. I think we all know that the first two world wars would never have started if the aggressors in each case had believed those who would be their adversaries had the courage, morale and fortitude to resist in a way that would cause those aggressors more trouble than they could cause. There were miscalculations in each case.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There must never be another miscalculation. If there never is, there will never be a third world war. We have a very important part to play in seeing that another world war does not start. The best way to make sure that one does start is to make it clear to our potential adversaries that we are not prepared to take our place in the line and do our duty effectively. That seems to be the objective of this minister and of this government. It is a disgraceful objective.
Mr. Chairman, if war is to be avoided in the future, we and our allies must be able to convince our potential enemies that we can cause them more damage than they could if they attacked us. It is just as simple as that. The main reason why there has been no atomic warfare in the world today is that the potential aggressors know perfectly well that the atomic might of the United States could deal a blow many times greater than it would receive. It is this simple logic which is keeping atomic peace in the world, and heaven help us if it does not in the future. I believe that it will.
To play our full part in helping to maintain world peace, we must maintain effective armed forces in proportion to our wealth and to our population.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to answer the minister after I have completed my statement because my time is limited.
We cannot allow someone else to protect us and at the same time maintain our self respect and our influence in the community of nations. Enabling our country to play such a role must be the objective of the training and maintenance of our armed forces. In order to play an effective part in helping to maintain world peace, our forces must be capable of winning objectives which are allotted to them
Interim Supply
in the event of another major conflict. We must remember that our potential enemies have accurate knowledge of what is going on in the countries of the free world, just as we have accurate knowledge of what is going on in their countries. If our preparedness is known to be ineffective, and I believe it will become known as ineffective if the minister's scheme of unification goes through, then our contribution in helping to preserve world peace will be greatly reduced. It will be known that we are a weak link in the allied defence chain.
Our enemies will then be that much more tempted to attack and to try to obtain their objectives through armed force than if they knew that the whole line is strong and ready to repulse them in a much more effective manner than they could strike us. It is the very simple technique of the bully who does not take on someone stronger than himself.
Canadians are generally very proud of their armed forces and that is why they are very upset by the measure which the minister and the government have introduced. They want to ensure that their forces are effective and that their effectiveness is of the very highest order. As tax payers, they want to make sure that the operation of these armed forces is economical. If changes are to be made, they want to make sure that those changes are necessary and that such decisions as are made are sound.
For these reasons, it is imperative that this bill be examined by the defence committee before parliament is asked to decide on the principle. We can only pass judgment on the principle of the bill when the information which tells us whether it is a good or bad principle is made available to us. It is only the appearance of the Minister of National Defence and of his associates before the committee on defence, which can make that information available to us.
If we do not get it, second reading of this bill is a sham and a futile exercise. We were not sent down here by our constituents to do this sort of thing.
It is ridiculous for the Prime Minister to say, as he said yesterday, that the procedure we have suggested would kill the bill. Of all the fatuous statements I have ever heard that is one of the greatest, and I have heard quite a number of them since returning to this house a year ago. I have heard them from right across the aisle. This procedure which we have suggested was used with great

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
success about two years ago when, on February 18, 1965, another very complicated bill on transportation was referred to a standing committee for examination in detail before it came up for second reading in the House of Commons. If the government refuses to accede to our request-which is only a request for information to which this house is entitled-then I will remind the minister of the Liberal government of 1956 which refused information in the same way in which he is doing it. I do not think he will get away with it any more than did C.D. Howe in the election of 1957. I think the minister's action will rebound on the government in exactly the same way, and the government certainly deserves it.
If the government refuses to give us the information for which we have so justifiably asked, it will demonstrate that it has learned nothing in the last ten years, since its predecessor's autocratic handling of another bill called the pipe line bill of 1956. If the government should persist in its present arrogant attitude, it will demonstrate once again that it is no better qualified to govern this country than was the government of 1957, which the people of Canada threw out because it had been there too long and had become too arrogant. This government has not been in office nearly that long, but today it is equally or more arrogant. I am sorry to see my old friend, the minister, leading the charge. I have great respect for him, and I hate to see him try to obtain his objectives by doing what he is doing to the armed forces, which I and many members of this house love very dearly because we happen to have been fortunate enough to have served with them, and we know how good they are. I believe they are entitled to far better treatment than they are getting today.
In conclusion, I urge the minister to be man enough and to be big enough, to say "I can do something a little differently and a little better". It is easy to be stubborn and arrogant, and to say "I won't, I won't, I won't. I think I have the votes behind me, and I will do what I want to do". That is what C. D. Howe did and that is why his government was defeated in the next election. The same thing will happen to the minister and to the government. I ask the minister to be big enough, and to be man enough, to reverse his stand. It takes a big man to do it, and we will congratulate him on it. We will not jeer or cheer or do any of the things he might expect. We will congratulate him sincerely on reversing his decision,
[Mr. Hees.l
because he will be doing it as a democrat and not as an arrogant autocrat, which he is today.
I urge the minister to recall the committee and provide parliament with the information without which we, the representative of the Canadian people, can in no way do the job we were sent here to do; that is, pass judgment on the principle of the unification bill, one of the most important bills to have ever come before parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder-


Malcolm MacInnis: How
come a fellow who knows all the answers is now asking a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if my hon. friend will now answer a question which I attempted to put to him earlier? He has mentioned the necessity of preparedness in maintaining a strong military capability in Canada as a contribution to the maintenance of world order. Does he feel that in order to maintain this capability and effectiveness Canada should continue to make available to the members of its armed forces the atomic weapons which they would need in the event of an emergency?


Malcolm MacInnis: That is not a question.


George Harris Hees: I would agree with the view taken today, because this is 1966. I have not studied the matter recently, but I would say that the view taken by the chiefs of staff committee on this matter would be a sound one.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What is it?


George Harris Hees: I should like to hear it. The Minister of National Defence is asking us about some of the things that we cannot find out from him, even though we have asked him over and over again.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are asking Admiral Brock.


George Harris Hees: Let me tell the minister that if he will call this committee together, and if he has questions to ask about certain steps which should or should not be taken in reshaping our armed forces, then we have the people who would be glad to attend the committee and tell the minister how to run his department. They would tell him how to run the armed forces of Canada in a way which would make the people of Canada and the armed forces of Canada proud, and would raise their
November 10, 1966

morale, instead of it dropping to the lowest ebb it has ever been in my experience in this country.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You refuse to answer the question.


George Harris Hees: May I ask the minister a question. Has he any other questions?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member for Elgin is in his seat, and I am glad because a few moments ago he made reference to a question which had been asked by one of the members on this side. He replied "See the white paper". I interjected and said that the hon. member did not even know what was in the white paper. If that sounded like a derogatory reply, it was not intended in that way.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Oh, no?


John (Jack) McIntosh: No. You do not know what is in the white paper either. A great many Canadians do not know what is in the white paper.
For the hon. member's information I should like to read him the first line of the section headed "Conclusion":
In this paper no attempt has been made to set down hard and fast rules for future policy and development.
Hon. members opposite have told us that all the answers are contained in this white paper. From the introduction section to the conclusion, this white paper is very vague, as it was intended to be.
Having mentioned the introductory section, I think hon. members opposite should listen to one part of it, as well as to the objectives. I think they would be better informed if they read the white paper. If they did, they would prevail upon their minister and make him realize he has put us in an impossible position, as many speakers on this side have said, from which we cannot back down. If we did, we would be the laughing stock of the country, and the minister would put his policy of unification, or amalgamation-I do not care what you call it-into effect.
In other words, we would not have armed services. Many people have said that we would have a glorified police force, but I doubt very much whether it would even be that. One hon. member even mentioned that its members could be considered as mercenaries. Is this the position into which hon. gentlemen opposite want to put the members of our armed forces? Do they want them to be called
Interim Supply
mercenaries, or to be referred to as a glorified police force? I do not think they do.
The reason hon. gentlemen opposite support the minister at this time is that they do not know the facts any more than we do. I should like to read to them what is said in the introduction to the white paper, and then perhaps they will have second thoughts:
Many of the basic principles that govern Canada's defence policy are constant because they are determined by factors, such as geography and history, which are specific. Others, such as the nature and the magnitude of the threat to peace and security and the development of weapons and weapons technology, change rapidly and drastically. Therefore, defence policy must adapt itself to such changes, while principles remain constant.
That is not happening today under the new policy of the minister, Mr. Chairman. We are afraid that these principles are not going to remain constant. The white paper continues:
That is why it is desirable for the government not only to provide for defence changes when they are necessary, but to keep the public informed of the nature of and the reasons for the new policies.
That is precisely what we are now trying to get the minister to do.
This can be done through White Papers on Defence-
I have told hon. members what is in the white paper.
-debates in the House of Commons-
This is what we are engaged upon now. This is our job as members of parliament representing the people of Canada. We are trying to get information from the minister through debate. Third, it can be done through-
-discussions in parliamentary defence committees-
The minister will not let the bill go there.
-and in many other ways.
The white paper then sets out the objectives:
The objectives of Canadian defence policy, which cannot be dissociated from foreign policy, are to preserve the peace by supporting collective defence measures to deter military aggression:-
If we have not got the forces to support our alliances, then what good are our forces? Our allies certainly do not want policemen, and I am also certain they do not want mercenaries. I continue:
-to support Canadian foreign policy including that arising out of our participation in international organizations, and to provide for the protection and surveillance of our territory, our air-space and our coastal waters.

November 10. 1966
Interim Supply
As long as the minister will assure us that he is not going to break up the army, the navy and the air force, I do not care what he calls them. But we must maintain the protection of our territory, our air space and our coastal waters.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We intend to do that.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I hope I do not hear any more red herring arguments about the white paper.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have explored pretty nearly every avenue in order to find a way out of the position into which the minister has forced us on this issue. I think it is very obvious that we are at deadlock or, as somebody said today in this chamber, on a collision course on this issue of national defence. In fact, there is a lot of speculation in the press about this matter. The press also wants to know which side is going to capitulate first. I should like at this time, in my own way, to try to put an end to that speculation, because I do know one side that is not going to capitulate.


An hon. Member:: Oh no?


John (Jack) McIntosh: There is no "Oh no" about it. I said a few moments ago that the members on this side of the house would feel we were not doing our duty as representatives of the people of Canada if we allowed this minister, and permitted hon. members opposite to allow the minister, to shove something that we do not know anything about down our throats.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: You had two years to think it over.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Think what over?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Unification.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What is unification?


Malcolm MacInnis: Make your own speech.


John (Jack) McIntosh: If the hon. member would answer that question, we could end this debate. We want to know what unification, or the other word the minister used, amalgamation, mean. The people of Canada want to know what unification means.


Malcolm MacInnis: Tell us, Jack; the minister can't.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Perhaps the committee would allow the hon. member to complete his remarks. Perhaps I might add

that I am not being critical of the hon. member, but would he address his remarks to the Chair?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I always address my remarks to the Chair, or to another hon. member through you.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Another flag debate.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It could be, but that would be your fault, not ours. You people opposite are supposed to have control over the business of the house, but I am quite sure the government has no control of the business of this house. If control is there, it is very weak.
I should like to know why this issue was raised before interim supply. Hon. members opposite knew exactly what our reaction would be, but they knew this would be the only possible way to get this measure through. Without blackmail of some sort, the minister would not have had this topic debated at the moment. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the government are certainly wrong in this case.


Rémi Paul: We were not wrong
about the flag. It is now the flag of Canada.


Malcolm MacInnis: But you
did not get the Pearson flag.


Rémi Paul: That is your opinion. I have a different one.


Malcolm MacInnis: Of that I am sure.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I hope that we in this house would always be able to take differing opinions on different issues.


Mr. Ricard:: You have two flags.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: There may be a number of reasons for the minister's attitude. One of them may be, as someone has said, an effort to establish within the cabinet a strong man. And the Lord knows, as does every member in this house, that they want one in the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Did you say straw man?


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, strong man. There is another possibility. Perhaps the minister is afraid that his argument will not stand up under questioning. Perhaps he is in a weak position.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Fear not.
November 10, 1966


John (Jack) McIntosh: We do not know the reasons behind the Prime Minister's stand, when he would not listen to the plea of the leaders of the opposition parties who presented several ways in which this issue could be resolved. They did not want the administration of this house to be held up. But the Prime Minister is as adamant as the minister in rejecting every suggestion. The Prime Minister has said that by following certain suggestions we would kill the bill. But arguments have been brought forward to show this is not so. The bill would not be killed if the matter were dealt with in the way suggested by the hon. member for Peace River. Nevertheless, the government thinks it would be killed.
How can we judge the minister's reasons for doing what he is doing when we can get no answers to our questions. We must get answers to certain questions, and I believe our requests have been reasonable. We see no reason for the minister's refusal to take advantage of opportunities to answer at least some questions. He should answer questions, rather than saying, "I am sure of this policy", or "See the white paper".
Interim supply, as the minister knows, provides the only method available to us now to force the government to reveal to the people of Canada what is behind the radical change in the defence policy of our country. Also, we do not believe in the principle of the bill, so we cannot agree to second reading which, in effect, would force us to agree to the principle. As I have said before, if we agree to the second reading, we will be the laughing stock of this country. The minister by his actions, and by his refusal to answer questions put to him in this house, has put us in an impossible position. I said before that we cannot give in to the proposed action of the government. I, for one-and there are many like me on this side of the house-were I to give in, would feel I was not doing my duty as a member of parliament.
I say, we cannot afford to gamble that the minister is right, and that 20, or 40-I do not know the exact number now-of the highest qualified advisers in the country are wrong. This is the position in which the minister has put us. If we believe the minister is right, when he says, "You will not be sorry", and "I am sure of this" it means, in effect, that the 40 senior advisers in this country who have been discharged or who have resigned are wrong.


An hon. Member:: It is 69 now.
Interim Supply


John (Jack) McIntosh: I ask the people on the other side of the house to allow us to get the answers, and not to support the minister who wants to adopt this foolish position. What you are saying is, "The minister is right, and 40 senior military personnel are wrong".


An hon. Member:: It is 69.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It is 69 I am told. How utterly ridiculous this is.


An hon. Member:: We are buying a pig in a poke.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Also, we do not know what the minister is proposing by his unification. If we knew, it would help to clear up some of the mystery.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am anxious to tell you as soon as we get on with the bill.


John (Jack) McIntosh: We cannot accept that, because we cannot accept the principle. On all the issues which have come before this house, we have had some information. Whether they had to do with pipe lines, agriculture or anything else, we knew where we could go to get information. In this debate, we do not know where we can go to get information. We have tried to get information from the minister, but he refuses to give it to us. In fact, he refuses to tell us what unification or amalgamation actually means.
I do not know where the minister got his advice. Some people have said that perhaps he had a divine mandate, direct from heaven. That may be so, but surely he could reveal some of his information to the members of this house.
If we are to remain a sovereign power, we cannot rely on some other country to defend us. This is what would happen if unification, as we believe it to be, is allowed to be put into effect. There are many other factors at stake in this issue, and some of them have been referred to by the previous speaker. The first and most important thing is that the defence of our country takes top priority. Another factor to consider is our national pride. I do not believe for a moment that the Canadian people want to be sheltered under the United States umbrella, and not take some part in our defence.
I said on a former occasion that we are one tenth of the size of the United States in population, and possibly in resources. If we do only one tenth of the job of continental defence, we can hold up our heads with pride and say that we are doing our share. Defence

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
must be on a continental basis. It can no longer be confined to the boundaries of a country. We cannot be expected to defend Canada only at our boundaries. We must enter into alliances with other countries on the North American continent. At the present time we are participating in continental defence. But, Mr. Chairman, if through the minister's unification this glorified police force comes into being, then we would have to depend wholly on the United States forces to defend us. I do not think that we, as Canadians, want that.
Another factor to take into consideration, if what I have just referred to is allowed to take place, is our prestige in the eyes of the world. How long do you think that Canada would be looked up to if what I have referred to is allowed to happen? Not for very long, I suggest, Mr. Chairman.
Some people suggest that our actions will likely force an election. As an earlier speaker said, we do not want an election nor do I think the country wants one, particularly at this time. It is said in the press that an election, if held, would be in January. I do not want to go around my part of Canada in the middle of January, because I know I shall not be able to reach many places that I should reach. We do not want an election, and we do not hide that fact. But you are the people who will say whether or not we shall have an election. The whole outcome rests on your decision. Let us end this speculation, because we will not quit. If there is to be any change, it has to be on the part of the government which is responsible for this issue at the present time.
It is your responsibility to administer the procedures of this house, and let us not forget that. The government's threat of an election over this issue is nothing short of blackmail. This may not have been the only time that the government has used such a threat, but I say again that we are not going to succumb to blackmail, under any conditions, on this issue.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: And if an election is called, the responsibility for that election will be on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and the present Minister of National Defence. The issue will not be national defence, as some of my colleagues have said. There are many other issues on which this election will be fought in our home ridings.

When the hon. member for Fraser Valley was speaking I interjected. I did not mean that interjection to be facetious. I wish to add, now, that you cannot ride the fence on this issue. You are on one side or the other. Possibly some people in this house would like to ride the fence, and they say, "A plague on both your houses".


Mr. Duquel:: There are people like that in your party.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I beg your pardon?


Gérard Duquet: You have those who ride the fence.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Tell us who they are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Name them.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: Other parties in this house are saying: "A plague on both your houses." They are lying back, hopeful that this battle between the Grits and the Tories is over they will be able to pick up the spoils. I do not think that will happen in Canada.
I trust this will be the end of speculation as far as the press is concerned. We told them on the opening day of this debate that this was what we intended to do, and we do not propose to capitulate now. I should like to remind hon. members on the other side of a few things which are being said by the press across the country at the present time. The present debate had been going on for a few days before the people of Canada were aware of what was taking place. At first, the editorials were largely opposed to the stand the Conservatives were taking. But as the commentators looked into this white paper and saw that no satisfactory answers were contained in it, they began to take a different view.
I should like to refer to an item on November 7 in the Winnipeg Free Press, which has always been regarded as a Liberal supporter. Indeed, we thought sometimes, that it dictated Liberal policy. This article makes seven points which are interesting to read and which I believe the minister should take into consideration. It says:
Although the government would like to create the impression that integration is being accepted largely without question in the armed forces and throughout the country, this is not the case.
Surely, members opposite can listen to their own advisers, even if they will not listen to us. The article goes on:
There is also a genuine feeling on the part of some senior officers that the current policy of promotion
November 10, 1966

favours those men who support Mr. Hellyer's views; if one opposes them, according to one officer, "from a career angle you are finished.''
We had evidence of that just prior to the present debate. The second point made in this article reads:
One reason for the doubts and questioning is that the government's complete plans for integration or unification are as yet vague and undefined.
They might have added the word "amalgamation", since that has crept into the debate. It goes on:
There is also reason to believe that in its drive to push ahead with integration, the defence department is not anxious to have any member or past member of the armed forces who might be critical of the program appear before the defence committee.
Critics of the integration program have three major objectives. They want to see maintained the identity of the three services even within an integrated defence organization. They would like to see a halt made in the integration program so that problems which have arisen can be examined.
This is the request which has been made of the government time and time again throughout this debate. I continue to quote:
And they would like to have a full inquiry made into future plans of the government in this field so that their impact can be properly assessed. The latter could not, of course, be done without the government disclosing all details of its future program.
This is all we want. We may agree 100 per cent with what the minister is proposing, but we certainly do not intend to agree with him blindly. The fourth point made in this article is this:
The critics' requests for fair hearings do not seem unreasonable.
None of the requests I have heard made from this side of the house appear unreasonable to me. If there are any which appear unreasonable to the minister, let him say so and we will withdraw them. The fifth point made in this article is:
The implications and consequences are many and varied. It is, in the circumstances, no more than right that the government should be willing to lay its cards on the table, so that the armed services and the Canadian people can see what the government is trying to do and can then give the government's plans the consideration they deserve and should have.
We agree 100 per cent with what is said there. The sixth point is:
This, as Mr. Diefenbaker rightly pointed out, puts the Commons in the awkward position of having to vote approval of the bill in principle before it has had an oportunity to hear the views of those who are opposed to it.
Interim Supply
And the seventh:
Legislation containing so many critical changes to the nation's defence structure should be given detailed study in committee before the house is asked to approve it in principle.
This is all we are asking the government to do. Remember that these proposals which I have enumerated come from the Liberal party's own adviser, the Winnipeg Free Press. We would be content if the government would follow the suggestions outlined in this editorial.
As far as I am concerned, my hon. friend from Kamloops in his speech a few days ago clearly outlined precisely what we want. As reported in Hansard on page 9517, he had this to say:
After all, at the root of this discussion is the policy of unification and the question of whether this country can afford it in terms of the security of the nation, the expenditure of dollars and the efficiency of that expenditure.
We want to find whether the policy is correct.
He went on to say:
The minister's policy of unification appears to be based on three assumptions. I must necessarily summarize here, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, they are these: first, that there will never again be a conventional war in the sense of say world war II.
If that is one of the minister's assumptions, he has no more right to say it is a correct one than I have. No one knows whether the next war will be a conventional war. We must guard against that possibility, otherwise, as I have said before, we might just as well disband the Department of National Defence and save the entire vote of money for that department.
The hon. member for Kamloops continued-
-second, that a nuclear war on a world scale is impossible to envisage, or if we can envisage it, it would be impossible for Canada to do anything effective, and we might as well forget about it.
At this point the minister interjected to say:
Don't give me my assumptions. Use your own.
Anyone could be forgiven for wanting to know what the minister's assumptions are. We should like to know what makes him believe his assurances are correct. I say once again that his proposals might, in theory, be good for Canada. But theory does not always work out well in practice. There must be something else besides theory. Take, for example, an appendectomy. It is easy to explain what it is, to say it is necessary to make an incision to remove a useless gland, and so on. But if the operation is performed without the necessary

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
skill the patient might die. This is what, we are suggesting might happen as a result oi this dangerous experiment upon which the minister is embarking. Doubtless he believes it will work out in theory, but if it comes to the test and the skill is not there, the defence of Canada is dead. The United States can no more afford to take a risk than we can.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The result of all this is that we could be very easily absorbed by the United States, and if that happens the minister, in large measure, will have contributed to it.
I now wish to refer to two articles which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning. Apparently the feature writer, whose article appeared on the front page, did not know what the editorial writer would be saying, or vice versa. The editorial says:
Although it is usual practice not to send a bill to committee until it has passed second reading in the House of Commons, the government should be prepared to make an exception in the case of the armed forces unification bill.
Further on it says:
-it has not yet been as fully explored as it should be before it is determined in principle.
If Mr. Hellyer feels it would be a personal affront to have the bill sent now to committee, then he is putting person above country.
I am sure the minister does not want to do that. The editorial continues:
He is serving himself rather than the nation in demanding committee investigation before unification is approved in principle.
By forcing us to give second reading now, he knows he is forcing us to approve it in principle. That point has been made several times. The editorial concludes by saying:
The investigation, nevertheless, should be held. The future of the armed forces is considerably more important than Mr. Hellyer's pride or Mr. Diefen-baker's politicking.
The article by the feature writer on the front page quotes the Minister of National Revenue as follows:
"I think it's very unfair that civil servants should be penalized because the opposition in the Commons wants to hold up interim supply," the Revenue Minister added.
If the Minister of National Revenue said that, then he has certainly gone down in my estimation because he knows that is not true. He knows that it is not the responsibility of the opposition to see that the civil servants are paid. It is the government's responsibility to see that civil servants are paid. This may have been one of the reasons the government
[Mr. McIntosh.1
presented this bill at this time, knowing that interim supply was coming up, and thinking they could force us to pass the bill because of what civil servants would do to the Conservative party in case there was an election.
But, Mr. Chairman, we are people who are not going to put person before country. Our country comes first, before the civil servants, before the members of the government, or anybody else.
The feature writer went on to say:
If the Conservatives persist in their blockade, the government would have little alternative but to dissolve parliament and call an election ....
This is ridiculous because there have been several proposals made today to get the government out of this situation, and satisfactorily to both sides. I say to the members of the government: you don't have to call an election, but if you want to, go right ahead. We are not afraid of an election, and don't you ever forget that.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, as I rose to speak I heard some references from the other side of the house to the effect that there is another one. If the government was not so adamant in refusing the request made by the opposition for information concerning the defence bill, we would not be taking up all the time allotted for estimates on interim supply. This is one reason for my participation at this time, because I wish to speak on the estimates of the Department of Transport and of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I am happy to see the Postmaster General in the chamber because I wish to speak about his department in connection with the Department of Transport. I am sorry that the hon. member for Quebec East, who accuses us of sitting on the fence, is not in his seat, although I believe he is still around the building. I would like to tell that hon. member that I am not sitting on the fence with respect to an issue which I wish to raise in a few moments, and I would like to hear him express his views on the subject which I shall raise.
On a recent tour of the lower St. Lawrence area the Postmaster General announced a new mail service for the district from Camp-bellton to Gaspe. I commend him for wishing to improve the mail service in that area. We who live on the peninsula do not enjoy
November 10, 1966

Some time ago your newspaper published, under Letters to the Editor, a few articles concerning road maintenance in the Gaspe peninsula.
Further to those articles, here is an account of a trip from Montreal to Gaspe taken on January 28, 1966. We left Montreal on the "Chaleur" at 8.30 p.m. We were comfortable and had a good night's sleep. Got up for breakfast at seven o'clock-


An hon. Member:: Too early.


James Russell Keays: You have to get up in the
morning; you must be rested to do so.
I will now continue.
-thinking we were arriving in Matapedia, Alas! We were only in Rimouski, late because of a snow storm. After a colonial breakfast, "fruit juice, toasts and coffee"-
I should now like to say that there are no more toasts, they're all cold buns.
-we arrived at Matapedia around 9.00 a.m. We then got off the "Chaleur" to take the "old mail train" because, due to the storm, the "Raliner" could not wait to pick up passengers from the "Chaleur". However, the weather was nice and mild in Matapedia. We reached New Carlisle at four o'clock. We had spent four hours on the train, without a bite to eat, not even cold water to drink only warm water.
We had been told that once in New Carlisle, a few lean sandwiches and coffee would be available. All we could get were a few cup-cakes, some chocolate bars and soft drinks. For people who had not eaten anything since morning, it was not too "invigorating". Kept our slow pace, reaching Gasp6 at 9.20 p.m., very tired and, of course, famished.

November 10. 1966
Interim Supply

Mr. Chairman, there is something which very often recurs in connection with that service of which I speak. Repeatedly, I have asked the Minister of Transport to endeavour to get the C.N.R. to improve the service, to this same headland. They feel the people who are served there are easy going, and therefore will not put any pressure on them. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the population already have shown their unwillingness to accept that service and their desire for a new service from Montreal to Gaspe.
If I might refer back to my remarks concerning the Postmaster General, I say we could still maintain the same mail service and give the C.N.R. some additional revenue. We would be doing two things at the same time. This is the reason I hope there will be some co-operation in this matter and some study made by the Department of Transport and the Postmaster General concerning these intended services. Although I think we could justify the service now, the addition of mail service would further justify it and improve the transportation system on the lower St. Lawrence.
On the subject of transportation I may say that, as members of the house will recall, a few years ago a bill was passed which provided for the construction of a rail line between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts. At that time we said there would be great improvements in that area, and much research would be done with a view to finding natural resources. Although this government has refused to build that railway, we now have proof of the fact that had we gone ahead with that railway we would have had 700 Gaspesians employed. However, since the development of the area has been slowed down, they will have to wait a few years before they find employment. It is not an easy task to find employment for 700 or 800 people. This is something which should concern each and every one of us. I hope the government will consider the possibility of putting into effect that bill which was passed by those who are now the official opposition.
At this time, I should like to speak about a subject which is of deep concern to me; that is, the ship which has caused so many words to be written in the newspapers of La Belle province as well as outside the province of Quebec. This issue seems to have caught fire, because the people believe that the Grande Hermine should find a final berth at Gaspe. They feel history should not be distorted; that we should give to the birthplace of Canada
[Mr. Keays.l
what belonged to a man whom we honour on this occasion, the man who discovered Canada and took possession of the land of Gaspe in 1534. Pressures have been exerted by those in Quebec City who think they should have this ship. Let me tell you that if they wish as ardently as that to have a ship, they should ask for the ship of the founder of the city of Quebec. Let them have the replica of Champlain's ship, if they really need one, but give the Grande Hermine its proper place in history and at the same time help the economic situation which exists in the area.
You are aware, Mr. Chairman, that many millions of dollars have been spent studying the economic situation in the area and we have been confronted with the necessity of developing further our tourist industry. Tourism is something which can give more employment to the people, and bring more dollars to the area. In order to build up the tourist industry, we will have to develop our parks. We will have to have all the necessary amenities which tourists wish, as well as all the facilities; but there is something else which is needed. The people who visit this peninsula must know that they are going to the birthplace of Canada, and expect to see there something of our history, a (5:20 p.m.)
Unfortunately, all they will see is a granite cross, because since 1534 we have forgotten that Gaspe was the birthplace of Canada. If we could get this ship, if the government would concern itself with the historic site we have requested for so many years, it would contribute a great deal to the tourist industry in that region and would be co-operating with those who have been entrusted with the development of the Gaspe peninsula. Everyone would then be working as a unit, and there would be a meeting of minds. I am sure, under those circumstances, within a few years we in that lower part of the province would be enjoying those facilities and services enjoyed in the other parts.
Let me go even further and suggest that the Auditor General should look at some of the expenses which will be incurred if we move that ship to Cartier Breboeuf park. How many millions of dollars is it going to cost to develop that park, and how many years will it take? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars will it cost to move that ship to Cartier Breboeuf park, and what do the engineers' reports suggest as to the feasibility of this proposal? I read recently that the bridges will have to be lifted to allow the passage
November 10, 1966

of that ship. Many thousands of dollars will have to be spent in addition to the amount now authorized.
I am gratified by the response we are receiving from across this country to the request that the Grande Hermine be permanently berthed at Gaspe. The boards of trade in the lower St. Lawrence area, and all public bodies there including the junior board of trade of Quebec City, have endorsed our plea that the decision of the government in this regard be rescinded. I do not know how the government is going to resist this pressure or how it is going to disassociate itself from those who are only interested in the golden mile. It will have to disassociate itself eventually and give each of these regions in Quebec their traditional rights.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the committee, but I hope that the Postmaster General will consult with the Minister of Transport to study the possibility of retaining mail service by railway. Even if that were the only justification for the service, it should be established, but it would at the same time give better passenger facilities to those who so desperately require it.
I hope those who are interested in the history of our country, and wish to see justice done, will join with all those who are working so hard to make sure the birthplace of Canada is recognized by berthing this ship at Gaspe.


Rémi Paul: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Russell Keays: Certainly.


Rémi Paul: Could I ask him the
following question: Which government decided to build the Grande Hermine and, second, who decided that it should be moored in Quebec City?


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, I have never spoken of dates nor decisions and I do not want to make a political issue out of it, it is only a matter of justice for the citizens of the Gaspe peninsula, and that is what I am striving for.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member would like the government to rectify an injustice.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend had been in the house, when I first spoke about this matter-


Rémi Paul: I was here, Mr. Chairman-
Interim Supply


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend can simply refer to my speech and to the dates which I mentioned when this matter was dealt with.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a few minutes to answer the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) who raised the problem of mail transportation in the Gaspe peninsula.
I am very pleased to note that the hon. member for Gaspe appreciates the improvements that the Post Office Department wishes to make in the mail service for the Gaspe peninsula.
Since the mail service between Campbellton and Gaspe no longer meets the requirements of post office patrons, due to train schedules, the department had to resort to highway transportation in order to provide a more adequate postal service in that area.
Therefore, instead of getting the mail at
7.30	p.m. by train 246, from now on Gaspe will get it at 1 p.m. and 4.15 p.m., by two express truck routes between Campbellton and Gaspe. In order to keep to their schedule, those trucks will stop only at the main post offices, including Carleton, at 6.10 a.m. and 10.45 a.m., New Carlisle, at 8.30 a.m. and
12.30 a.m. and Chandler, at 10.15 a.m. and 2 p.m. The local truck between Chandler and Gaspe will reach Gaspe at 5.30 p.m.
It goes without saying that the truck service which has been operating on the north shore of the peninsula for the past few years will continue to serve Gaspe, reaching that point at 5 p.m. This highway transportation system will involve four separate contracts, -which the hon. member read some time ago-which will be allocated by tender to area residents, for a total approximate cost of $100,000 a year, an income that people in the Gaspe peninsula will derive under our new system.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The C.N.R., when informed of our intention to change our mail transportation system, had no reaction whatsoever. But there is one sure thing: if the people of the Gaspe peninsula are not satisfied with their present mail service nor with the service provided by the C.N R., they will be happier about the service to be provided to them by the Post Office Department shortly.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the hon. minister.
Is the hon. minister concerned about the $100,000 which will be paid to five or six

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
persons in my area or engaged in the transport service in general, in connection with postal service to the people in my area which could stand much improvement?
I would also like to ask him another question. He states that present timetables no longer correspond to passengers' needs or to the improvements his department would like to bring about.
I would like to give him an example. You leave Campbellton at five o'clock in the morning. Would it not be possible to modify the train timetable so that it would leave Montreal an hour earlier and get into Gaspe at about one or two o'clock in the afternoon? This would improve train and sleeper service, and it would benefit residents of the Gaspe peninsula, who make use of it.
Thus, they could travel more easily and have their meals on board the train, instead of mere sandwiches. Just recently, we left Montreal and already there was no more chicken pie left. The train left Campbellton on the return trip to Montreal the next day and we were told: There were too many passengers last night, so there is nothing left to eat.
I therefore feel this service could be improved, along with improvement in the postal service.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, I can answer this question briefly. The only interest which I presently have, as Postmaster General, is to improve postal service in the country. As my department is in charge of organizing postal service in the Gaspe peninsula, I do not feel it is in my interest or in the interest of residents of the Gaspe peninsula to wait until Canadian National Railways modify its time-tables or improve its service.
My responsibility is to improve postal service so that Gaspe residents may get their mail much faster and, with the new service, the hon. member is aware that several Gaspe residents will probably get their mail one day sooner.
However, I would point out to the hon. member that this is the first time he raises the question in the house, notwithstanding the fact that, when I visited the Gaspe peninsula, he accompanied me on several occasions, and I was happy to have him with me, when we visited the beautiful Gaspe peninsula. As you know, Mr. Chairman, my wife comes from that area. If the hon. member had thought of it at that time, he would have been able to submit his request to the

hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), for I am not in a position to assist him in that regard.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, I accompanied the minister on a few occasions in the Gaspe peninsula, but he did not invite me to speak; therefore, I did not have any opportunity to make that request to him.
Nevertheless, I ask him humbly to improve the mail service in the Gaspe peninsula if possible. I also ask him to approach the Minister of Transport with a view to improving passenger service in the Gaspe peninsula.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I pledge myself to do that, Mr. Chairman.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I join the debate on interim supply at this time when it is our parliamentary duty and privilege to put before you our various grievances. I intend to discuss the vital matter of defence, as I see its application in my part of Canada. I also intend to discuss some matters pertaining to transport and to public works, as well as an important agricultural matter relating to businesses engaged in the processing of milk.
When we turn our attention to the defence of our country and to the alarming facts which we have learned in the past year with regard to the deterioration in efficiency and in the morale of our armed forces, we can come to no other conclusion than that the minister and his department have failed in their duties to the Canadian people. In spite of the bonuses and financial bait which the minister has offered to men to induce them to join the armed forces, all the facts show nothing but a steady weakening and deterioration of the military forces. 1 remind the minister that this undesirable situation is partly a result of the policy which he has pursued in abandoning the volunteer militia system of recruitment.
I have made inquiries in my riding from military men of many ranks and varied experience. They all point to the great need of basing Canada's defences on a small but intensively trained regular army acting as an instructional cadre for citizen soldiers forming a well trained and competent militia which can be quickly brought to full strength in case of war. I pointed this out to the house in committee of the whole last February 22, as appears at page 1591 and 1592 of Hansard. At
November 10, 1966

that time I asked the minister not to abandon the volunteer militia system which has served us so well since 1812. But he disagreed and said he wished to save money. His department abandoned the system and in some cases had the local armories torn down. The militia units are gone; they sold their furniture, their prize mementos and also their loose property. It is a shame to walk through the empty armories which are left. Even the training has been discontinued. Instead of having the reliable old system whereby young men could train so many nights per week, we see them now standing around the street corners with nothing to do. Whatever they might be doing now, it cannot equal the character and physique building program offered them by the volunteer militia.
It is enough to bring tears to one's eyes to see these armouries now. It is sad to walk the deserted drill floor and through the empty rooms of the still well preserved, first class armoury in my home town of Napanee and to think of the thousands of men who trained there ever since 1915 when it was built. These were the men who defended Canada and who made it possible for the minister and his department to obliterate and abandon the time honoured militia system without which he would not be here at the present time. What a travesty of justice and defence this is. The minister said that this move would save money and that the saving would amount to some $8 million. He said that abolition of armouries all across Canada would be a big saving. Mr. Chairman, I submit the government is penny wise and pound foolish. The saving which they can realize from this action does not even equal the price of one aeroplane, as is shown in the new budget. I am sure the minister will admit that in the event of a war, even a nuclear war, it will be the trained and equipped infantrymen who will be the important factor not only in our defence but in the work of survival and restoration in the aftermath of war, if there are any survivors. The minister has abandoned these men.
The minister seems to be thinking only in automated terms. Is this what the half million dollar computer has told him? Certainly, I will admit we need equipment. It should be the objective of any administration to see that our army, navy and air force are equipped in the best possible way, but the prime requisite is trained men who take an interest in their work and whose morale is high.
Interim Supply
This brings us to the question of integration and unification. In answer to my inquiries, I was told by men of experience that integration is a good thing but that absolute unification is not. Integration results in greater efficiency and better economics in the armed forces. If money can be saved through the avoidance of duplication and through the integration of headquarters and general staff, so much the better. This could apply to the integration of the three services. However, to remove, obliterate and abandon the identity of these services and of the battalions, the regiments, the squadrons and the units which form them is a mistake. In this way the minister undermines a basic and vital human trait and virtue. He disregards the virtues of teamwork and the individual pride in collective accomplishment.
This impalpable but perceptible quality has been carried down through generations of mankind. It was present among the forces of the ancient city states of Greece and in ancient Rome. It was present at Waterloo and Trafalgar, at Vimy Ridge and Paaschendaele, at Tobruk and the Battle of Britain. Pride in teamwork is an attribute without which the armed forces of any free people cannot properly function or exist.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I remind the minister that, despite his present actions, Canada is not a dictatorship. Canada is not Russia or Red China. I remind the minister that in dealing with our armed forces, or what is left of them, he is dealing with free men, and he can get more out of free men if they are allowed to function and thrive in an environment of healthy, creative accomplishment.
So, I say to the minister that which is being said all across Canada by the majority of Canadians in this country: integration in all its economic meaning, yes; but unification in the meaning that it would have a stultifying effect upon the units of our armed forces, no. I also ask him to send this important question to the committee before the second reading stage of the bill.
Now in reference to transport, I wish to protest the applications, several in number, of the Canadian Pacific Railway to close and remove the station building and agent operator at Roblindale, Ontario, in the constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox. Also, similar applications by the same railway company have been made to accomplish the same end at the stations at Tichborne, Ontario, Sharbot Lake,

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
Ontario and at Kaladar, Ontario, the three latter being in our district.
Lately, we have heard a lot in this chamber regarding railway abandonment, Mr. Chairman. Most of these abandonments have been in western Canada where in places whole lines have been totally abandoned. I contend that no railway company continuing to operate through an area should be permitted to abandon stations by means of such applications. These lines are not being abandoned. In fact, they are among the most productive, in my opinion, of the C.P.R. lines in our part of Canada. Therefore, according to the charters granted this railway company, they should be made to continue to serve the people in the areas served by these railway stations. I ask the Minister of Transport to support me in my argument and to see that this railway company is not allowed to abandon these services to the people of these communities at these stations I have enumerated.
Some time ago I pointed out to the Department of Public Works the value of a program of construction of new wharves on navigable waters along the shores of Prince Edward and Lennox counties. We have had fair response in this regard from the government. These public works have been of benefit to our tourist industry and also to our commercial fishing industry. The dredging of harbours and the construction of wharves must continue. It is a good thing for the local community and is helping to build Canada.
The village of Bath, occupying a picturesque setting at the eastern end of the Bay of Quinte, needs a wharf. The village corporation now owns a very suitable site on the shoreline for the building of this wharf. At another point, more inland on the Bay of Quinte, the village of Northport in the township of Sophiasburg, which is in Prince Edward country, also is in need of a public wharf. Many United States tourists are accommodated in the summer at this beautiful country village on the south shore of the Mohawk Reach. But many more who come by cruiser could be accommodated if we had a public wharf there.
I understand that the responsibility for these services, if they are situated along navigable waters, is that of the Department of Transport. However, I direct my request regarding these services to both the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport.
In regard to manufactured milk processing, I think it appropriate to make a general comment in connection with the state of the

industry. This does not concern the fluid milk producers because their market takes care of itself; any increase to the producer for fluid milk is usually passed on as an increase in the bottled price to the consumer.
I do not believe they are facing any particular problem. The trouble at the present time is all concentrated on the manufacturing field. The big problem before us at the moment, originated from the repricing resulting from the subsidy by the stabilization board here in Ottawa. The present minister established a price of $3.25 per hundredweight at the farm, paid by the factory or processor, and he stated that there was no reason why they could not pay that. He was completely wrong, because he did not know the economics of the milk business. I believe he listened too much to the assistant deputy minister in establishing those figures.
Along with that there was the withdrawal of the previous subsidy, which worked out to 38.1 cents per hundredweight. This information was withheld from the public and they do not know to this day that that was withdrawn and the burden placed directly on the manufacturer. Most of the manufacturers cannot stand it.
The additional subsidies that come to the producer as a result of the Ontario and Quebec federal wrangle over milk prices are an extra 25 cents being paid by Ontario, 35 cents being paid by Quebec through the winter months until the end of next March, and an additional 8 cents paid by the federal government, as well as 75 cents with the recent increase of 2 cents per pound of butter, to bring the price to $4.33 to the producer at the farm. Still the manufacturer's cost stands at $3.25.
The returns from manufactured milk will not justify that price in most cases, especially among the small independent Canadian operators. They are the ones who suffer most. Anyone engaged in the industry will tell you that they normally calculated a 90 cent spread between gross selling price and the cost to the producer, Which was a rule of thumb processing cost. This 90 cents took care of the interest on the investment, the capital investment, depreciation, the complete operation, labour, wages, packaging, delivery, etc. They believed this a fair margin. Now the average spread is down to 60 cents or less. Most of these small independents cannot exist on this basis.
I have several of these independent companies in my riding, and they all bear out what I am relating to you here today. I have an audited statement of one company in my
November 10, 1966

riding which they furnished voluntarily. Attached is a 10-year summary of the operating data of this company. Their net income after depreciation and taxes from 1956 to 1966 is recorded year after year in a very uniform manner. The management of the company has been good, and it is still good. Their best year was 1959, but for most of the years in the 10-year period they averaged a net after depreciation and taxes of $37,000 per year, which is not too much when you consider the capitalization and the production of this company.
But this was not so in 1965, when it was more than cut in half and fell to $18,000. I am told that the record for 1966 will show a net loss. This is alarming. This is a very reliable company, in business since 1930, with a good producer relationship. In 1965 they paid out $1.25 million for milk in our district and also $265,000 for wages, salaries and supplies. About 30 per cent of their product is exported and a great deal of it goes to Japan in the form of milk powder. This firm is a valuable factor in our national effort toward a favourable trade balance; and I remind the house that Japan is one country with which our trade balance is in our favour. But this company will pay no dividends this year. As of the end of September of this year, their net loss is $61,520. This is according to their auditors.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Now, what about this company's farm relationship? In 1964 they paid $33,999 more for the same milk than they did in 1963. In 1965 they paid $66,000 more for the same quantity of milk than they did in 1964. In 1966, to date, they have paid $88,612 more than they paid in 1965 to the producers.
Now, as I stated before, manufactured milk belongs in a different category than fluid milk because of interprovincial trade, and export trade. This company has to export to live. Their market in Japan is lower this year as a result of world competition. They also export to the U.S.A. But their best market is the domestic market. About 39 per cent of their total sales are determined and affected by their export trade to world markets.
Most boards of directors are not necessarily milk men. They are financial men. They look at a financial statement, and they will not go on indefinitely with this loss picture. If this continues, this company will have to cease operations and close. One Company closed two weeks ago in western Ontario. Many of our cheese factories have closed their doors during the past year. The ones that still survive
Interim Supply
are subsidizing government. They are subsidizing Canada; this is true especially if they are exporting at a loss. They have had to assume more overhead in pay raises, taxes on building materials and production machinery, plus the added cost of the Canada Pension Plan. These are all federal measures that stand solidly in the way of these small independent dairy industries' efforts to making ends meet.
To further prove my point as to the adversities faced by milk processors, I give the following figures, which reveal conditions and prices in 1950 compared with the present. These figures are absolutely reliable, and were given to me by a cheesemaker in my riding. In February, 1951, No. 1 cheese sold for 41 cents a pound on the Belleville Cheese Board. Cheese factories are now getting only two cents more per pound or, 43 cents. The government has not given consideration to the differences in the costs of processing cheese, which costs have vastly increased in the sixteen year period. In 1950, rennet-an extract used by all cheesemakers to curdle milk-cost $8.00 a gallon. The price of rennet now in 1966 is $27.50 a gallon. One factory in my riding buys 600 gallons of rennet per year. In 1950 you could hire factory hands at $30 to $45 per week. Now, in 1966, the cheese factories have to pay from $90 to $100 a week. In 1950, an eight gallon milk can cost $8. In 1966, this same can costs $18.50. In my investigation I even found one case where municipal taxes on a cheese factory had increased from about $70 in 1950 to almost $1,600 in 1966. I also learned that within the past month 25 cheese plants have been put up for sale in Ontario. These are almost in a state of distress because of the cost price squeeze to which their management and boards of directors are subjected.
There is another point I wish to make. The government and the Department of Agriculture say they do not want fodder cheese. This is winter-made cheese manufactured from now until spring. Of course, the British market demands and gets from us nothing but grass cheese, made from milk from cows on pasture. But some of our cheese factories do make a good grade of pasteurized cheese during the winter for local markets. Much of this cheese is used right here in Canada. In this way, the factories keep their men employed in the winter and there is no marketing problem connected with this cheese. I think any factory that can make winter cheese should be encouraged to do so and its work should be assisted and encouraged instead of impeded.

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
Let us look at some of the evidence given to the joint committee on consumer costs recently. I take issue with some of it. Some of it is not true. Statistics prove it is not true, in spite of the deputy minister's statement that the prices paid Canadian farmers for produce rose only 6.6 per cent from 1949 to 1965. He refers to prices paid for Canadian produce. He does not say milk products. He has taken all the farm prices lumped together to confuse the issue. Now, we must be fair and I am sure the house wants to be fair. Let us look at the facts. From 1949 to 1965, farm cash receipts from dairy products increased 52.5 per cent and the dairy products retail price index increased 26.9 per cent. This is a lot different from what was portrayed to the joint committee on consumer credit and costs.
To sum up this matter, I submit that the small independent Canadian milk processor is in a very serious situation, as are the independent condensories, the creameries-both co-operative and independent-and all the cheese factories. The farmer-producer was in a serious situation, and in need of relief. He got relief. But what good will this be to him if his processor, the powdered milk plant, the condensory, the creamery, or the cheese factory goes out of business? These manufacturers I am talking about are in an untenable position.
All their costs of production have increased. They are now the ones who are caught in a newly-created cost-price squeeze. The plant I mentioned as an example bought 32 million pounds of milk in my constituency last year. We do not want to lose this industry and we must not lose this industry. I understand that processors in the United States have a problem because there is an over-all shortage of dairy products in that country. I suggest that this government now negotiate more exports of our Canadian dairy products to the United States of America. I point out to the government the ridiculously low Canadian quota of Cheddar cheese allowable in exports to United States-600,000 pounds-compared to the millions of pounds of United States cheese and cheese specialty products permitted importation into Canada. I hope, for the sake of our staggering milk processing industry, that this government will make a deal far better for the country than their recent car deal. I believe that the United States might be receptive to such a suggestion since they are so short of many dairy products. Something must be done, and done soon. I hope the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce will look into this problem.

I referred to Canadian independent companies and co-operatives who are in such danger at this time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member and advise the house that it is six o'clock. In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to leave the chair.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the question is as follows; the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, (Mr. Regimbal) Expo '67-Montreal-tourist accommodation.
It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motion (papers) and public bills.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: As the journey of interim supply through the house is not proceeding very quickly, I wonder whether hon. members would be prepared to dispense with the private members' hour.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to dispense with the private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no consent.


Mr. Peters:: Will the house be adjourning for supper for the next hour?


Some hon. Members:: Adjourn.


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, will the Chair ask hon. members whether they are prepared to adjourn for a supper hour this evening?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give consent to adjourning the sitting for one hour?


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 10, 1966


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us try two hours.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: When you indicated there were no unanimous consent to the consideration of supply through the supper hour, was it Your Honour's belief that some objection had been raised from the opposition to your left?


Michael Starr: That is right. He does not have to ask you. He saw it, definitely, and you are only trying to make politically whatever you can out of this.


John George Diefenbaker: The insolence of the minister.


Michael Starr: Another example of his arrogance.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I could not believe members opposite would want to hold up the pay of the civil service and the armed forces.


Michael Starr: Keep that up and you will be here for a long time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps this is a good opportunity for the house to proceed with private members' business.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-6 respecting the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company-Mr. Basford-Mr. Batten in the Chair.
On clause 1-Change of name.
Mr. Howard:: I suppose it makes some sense to somebody that we should now be dealing with matters relating to the private business of an insurance company rather than with the business of the Canadian people. But it sure as hell does not make sense to me.


An hon. Member:: Why not go for supper?


Frank Howard: No, I do not want to go for supper. I want to stay and deal with this committee business.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lisgar is impeding my consideration of this bill by making inane observations which reach me, but nobody else.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: The hon. member was hungry a few minutes ago.


Frank Howard: And I am still hungry, there is no gainsaying it. I merely made a passing
Private Bills
comment, but it does not seem sensible that we should not be dealing with interim supply, which concerns public business, and that instead we should be occupying ourselves with the private affairs of a small, select group of people who want permission from this house to establish private practices which they would like to pursue in the insurance field. This particular application relates to the Pacific Coast Insurance Company, and I should like to comment on the bill which is now before us.
At the outset, let me say that this bill has had a strange progress so far. In one way it can be compared with the bill relating to the unification of the armed forces against which members of the Conservative party have railed. The principal objection raised by the Conservative party to the armed forces bill is that they do not want to be obliged to consider the second reading because they do not feel they have had an opportunity to get full information, or any information, about its contents, its purpose and so on from the sponsor of the measure. Hearing no objection, I presume that what I have said is correct.
It seems to me that a comparison can be drawn between that armed forces bill and the position in which the committee finds itself now with regard to Bill S-6. In the first place, when Bill S-6 was given second reading-and, incidentally, the Conservative party supported second reading-the house was given no explanation whatever about its purposes. In fact, the hon. member who moved the second reading of the bill, the hon. member for Lethbridge, was not only not the sponsor of the bill but I am inclined to believe he did not even have authority to move his motion. So the house was in the position of being asked to endorse a bill, without any explanation of its content or purpose having been given. As I say, this is comparable to the situation in which the Conservative party claims it is placed in respect of the armed forces unification bill.
We did get an explanation on second reading, though, from the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, but only after we had reached the stage at which, by speaking, he would close the debate.
This, I thought, was like putting the cart before the horse, because it left us in a position where we were unable to comment on what had been said by the sponsor in explanation of the purpose of the bill. But he did get it across to us finally. I do not say this in any unkind way. I understand the awkward

November 10, 1966
Private Bills
position in which the hon. member had been placed by the members of his party as far as the procedural situation was concerned. I merely say, in a factual way, that we did not get an explanation from the sponsor until we were asked to vote for or against the principle of the measure.
There are a number of principles which we should consider with respect to this application. As I understand it, the company concerned is part of a group which is controlled in the United Kingdom-I stand to be corrected if I am wrong; I am not sure of the relationship between this company and other companies. It seems to me that in one sense, if this insurance company is somehow or other a subsidiary, controlled from the United Kingdom, it is not really a Canadian-owned business.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
One of the matters with which we must concern ourselves is the degree, if any, to which Canadians and the Canadian parliament will have any say with respect to the manner in which this company conducts its business so far as its responsibility to Canadians and Canada is concerned. There is a provision In an act, which I believe is known as the British and Foreign Insurance Companies Act, that a majority of the directors of such a company must be Canadian citizens. That is an enunciation of a general philosophy with respect to Canadianism which parliament has endorsed, but it does not mean a great deal.
We all know that private companies, especially those in the insurance field, do not have too much regard for international boundaries. The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company, and other such companies are not in business or incorporated in order to be patriotic. They are incorporated to conduct a certain class of business with the general public and thereby make a profit. Patriotism and international boundaries are questions that come after the demand placed upon them to maintain a profit picture throughout the course of their activities and operations.
Therefore, the question of whether we get any sort of effective, meaningful and reasonable attitude favourable to Canada or Canadians out of such companies, by virtue of the fact that a majority of directors are required to be Canadian citizens, is doubtful. I would extend this provision with respect to this and other companies to say, as I understand is said in other jurisdictions, that all of the company directors must at all times be

Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada. But even that in itself would not orient the operations of such companies to Canada. However, it might help. The degree of national interest which each of us has might then be reflected somewhat more in a company's operations if the majority of directors were Canadians.
In this regard, it is interesting to refer to what I now consider to be the official Canadian attitude in this respect, an attitude which was manifested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) in Calgary recently at a meeting of the Japan-Canada trade council or conference. I do not have a copy of his speech with me, but I think I can paraphrase his remarks with some accuracy.
Just a few days ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs complained to the Ja-pan-Canada trade conference or trade council that Canadian businessmen are not able to obtain, through their investments in companies in Japan, any effective voice in the operation of those companies or subsidiary corporations in Japan. He said that Canadian businessmen were denied the opportunity effectively to run the affairs of their companies in Japan because of the attitude of the Japanese government. I might say this is a commendable attitude which should be followed by the Canadian government so far as operations in Canada are concerned.
The minister outlined the reason that Canadian businessmen who had invested money in subsidiaries in Japan were not able to have any say in the operation of those companies. It was simply because, by official determination, the Japanese government did not want equity capital. It wanted borrowed capital, debenture money, because it knew that if it permitted equity capital to enter Japan, the Japanese would be in the position of having absentee landlord ownership of their corporate structure, which is the situation we have in Canada today.
Because of enticements offered by the Canadian government, at least 75 per cent of the equity ownership of Canadian industry-from the stump to the fence post, as we used to say in the woods, or from raw material to the manufactured unit-is controlled by people who are not Canadian citizens and who do not even live in the country. But that does not happen in Japan because the Japanese say, "We want the control of our resources and our industry to remain within our
November 10, 1966

own hands and under the control of the Japanese government."
As I say, Mr. Chairman, this is what the Canadian government should be doing. But at Calgary, the usually firm and determined voice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs turned into a meek complaint about the situation. He said to Japanese investors in effect, "You have lots of opportunity to come to Canada. In fact we want you to come; we invite you to come. You can come over here and own part of our natural resources and control them, and control the companies that exploit them. We let you do this, but you won't let us do it in your country."
The Japanese entice only debenture money for capital expansion, and this is the course the Canadian government should be following instead of meekly crying a few tears, as did the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Calgary, about how bad the Japanese were to keep Canadian investors out of effective control of industry in Japan.
It is this sort of meek sell-out attitude that has been reflected in the conduct of Canadian enterprise for many years, and it did not alter even when we had a change of government some six or eight years ago. The same course was followed. It seems there was a determination, by indifference if nothing else, to sell out control of the resources of this nation to foreigners. This is a course to which I object.
During the course of the debate on interim supply, we participated on the subject of the Trans-Canada gas pipe line, hoping by our comments that we could influence the government to reverse its decision to sell out another one of our resources through the proposal to build the pipe line in the United States. This proposal would place under the effective control of the United States the gas which will be transmitted through that pipe line from south of Manitoba to Sarnia. Our comments had no effect.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I submit that it is a deliberate policy of the Liberal government to entice equity capital into this nation to a point where we become nothing but vassals to any foreign interest which wants to invest money in this nation. This is the concern I have about this particular bill which is before us. This company, The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company, regardless of the fact that it has a name relating to the Pacific coast of British Columbia, is a company which will have its orientation to profit and to foreign ownership.
Private Bills
This may not be the exact time to do it and this may not be the exact company to choose in order to accomplish this end, but I am of the opinion that the shareholding capital of this company, and other insurance companies, should be limited so that no more than 50 per cent of the shareholding capital of any company operating in Canada could be held by people in other countries. In other words, we should ensure by statutory requirement that at least majority control of any company rests within the hands of Canadians. In this way we will get that extra degree of orientation and authority over the operation of the company.
Government policy recognizes the necessity to curtail foreign ownership of banks. Why does it not recognize the necessity to curtail foreign ownership of insurance companies, and The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company is no exception to the general rule. If the government has decided, by virtue of the bill relating to the Bank Act, that private and chartered banks must be limited in so far as foreign ownership is concerned, then it seems equally just that The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company and other insurance companies likewise should be limited in so far as foreign ownership is concerned.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Maurice Rinfret: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: My friend from Timiskaming has some pertinent information to give the committee in respect of this bill. I think I should give him the floor.


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will give me the same latitude you gave to the hon. member who introduced the bill. Fire insurance is rather a touchy thing; it depends who your neighbours are. I am going to refer to this bill, but for a few minutes I should like to mention another subject which is before the house. It really is fire insurance I am talking about. We have an arrogant minister who is putting us up for sale. Why can we not send a certain bill to the committee? Let us send this one too. Here we have one thing which is very basic to our system, the control of the House of Commons. I am not an historian, but I believe if you look at history

November 10, 1966
Private Bills
you will find that many men have lost their heads because somebody said, you cannot spend money unless I say so. That is exactly what they are trying to do to us now. Are they afraid of the committee? Are they afraid of us? What are they afraid of? Why not be honest about it? When I read this morning in the Globe and Mail that the Tories are holding up the civil service pay I said, that is a lot of nonsense.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member and bring to his attention that the subject before the house is an act respecting The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I will accept your ruling; but it really is insurance.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped circumstances would be such that this type of bill would not come before us until another bill had passed the other place. Some members may be aware of the complaint we have been making about many of the private members' bills, and the fact that we really are not qualified to deal with the technical aspect of these bills. In addition, a committee of this place does not seem to be dealing with these problems. There are some changes which should be made in the method by which the bills come before the house.
This bill came before us some time ago. It has been to a committee and now has been returned. I am afraid that this bill may reach the bottom of the list, and therefore there may be some difficulty because of this. I regret that this should happen. However, this bill does raise the problem which I think we have discussed for some time and which is inherent in many of these bills; that is, bringing before parliament of a bill to change a company name. I do not know what was the matter with the name, The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company. I am not sure whether they got into some difficulty, although I rather doubt this. I imagine The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company is no different than it has been for many years. We are well aware of the fact that it belongs to a large insurance group in England. It is part of the Century Insurance Trust Company of England, has been for a long time. This company originally came into being as The Pacific Coast Insurance Company by an act of parliament in 1908. It came back to parliament again in 1920 and again in 1926.

I believe this company has served the people to whom it has provided coverage, not only in the province of British Columbia, but also in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec. With the exception of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, it has sold insurance in all the provinces. Obviously, therefore, it is not necessary to change the name of this company because of anything the company has done. I think probably there has been some change in control of the company within the Century group and they wish to change to this name for the purpose of doing business on the west coast as well as in the rest of Canada.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Another problem faces many companies today and that is changing their names to make them easier to translate into our second language. I do not think we, in parliament, should deal with these bills requesting a change of name without the assistance of a capable linguist. We cannot make a proper decision as to name substitutions for the purpose of easy translation without that expert advice.
This bill is placed before parliament for another reason namely, increased capitalization. We have been very concerned about the financial aspect of this bill. Let us hear from the sponsor about this increase in capitalization. The original stock of the Pacific Coast Company was in $100 units. This bill proposes a split on the basis of 20 to one. This would make the shares $5 each.
Other companies have told us that their stock splits were being made to accommodate the market. We have heard arguments that if shares are valued at $100 each they are difficult to sell, but if they are valued at $5 they are easy to sell. We have also been told that if shares are valued at 50 cents each it is impossible to sell them because people feel they are not worthwhile. Stock splits of this kind are made because of the market and the customers with whom the companies wish to deal.
This bill has three simple clauses but does not give any information as to the reason for the stock split. It does not tell us whether the Century Insurance Company of England owns all the stock or whether this is a company owned by Canadian shareholders. It does not even indicate the business in which this company is engaged.
It seems that everyone on the other side of this house is anxious to sponsor insurance
November 10, 1966

company bills. The companies seem to be anxious to promote new companies in order that every member on that side will have the opportunity of sponsoring one. If we continue to follow this course we will create a dangerous situation. Most underwriters of insurance have a drawer full of forms, and it does not seem to matter which one they fill out in given circumstances. We will eventually reach a point, because of the lack of drawer space if for no other reason, that we will have to cut down on the number of these forms. If we allow the creation of 30, 40 or 50 new companies each year none of them will make any money and the shareholders will be in serious difficulty.
As the last speaker said, fire insurance is very necessary but the cost of it varies depending upon the type of residence. This cost is also related to the number of agents who are selling the insurance and whether or not it is being sold by a broker because there is no local agency. For these various reasons, I believe we should make a thorough study of these insurance company bills in order that we do not waste our time dealing with simple changes in names to facilitate translation. In this way, we could select those bills which should be considered by parliament. If we continue to deal with all these bills we will not give proper consideration to the important ones.
This bill does not indicate whether there will be any benefit to the shareholders as the result of the change in capitalization from $1 million to $2 million. We do not know whether the extra stocks will be placed on the market or just held by the company. It is probably apparent that the company will not reduce the stocks again to $2.50. It is likely these stocks will be held by the company to allow an amalgamation or a merger of the Century insurance group with the new company in Canada. This will probably make some money available to retire the liabilities of the previous company. I am not aware of the response of the shareholders to the request of the company to split its stocks, but I presume the company has given this some consideration.
I believe that the recapitalization is desired for the expansion of the Canadian operation, but that is ancillary to the original purpose which is the change of name to facilitate translation. The French version of this name is "La Compagnie d'Assurance Century du Canada". Probably the increase in capitalization is not a factor of great importance. If it is of importance why would the company ask
Private Bills
for it in this way? If that is not true, then we should ask for an explanation. We have heard arguments to the effect that a stock split is about as necessary as another hole in the head.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The other day this company declared a special dividend of $3.70 on a $50 investment. I think we can do without this kind of stock splitting. It is better that such operations should be exposed rather than covered up. I am not suggesting that this is the case here because I do not know what the results of increased capitalization will be. I believe that if the sponsor of the bill had thought there would be a change in ownership he would have told us so. He did mention it, but had very little to say about it. I will quote from page 5321 of Hansard where the hon. member explains the operation:
The increase in capitalization from $1 million to $2 million is simply for the purpose of providing funds for further expansion within the group, and it is not proposed that any shares authorized by the increase in capitalization will be sold to the public. The change of name and the increase in capitalization really arise from internal reorganization.
As you see, Mr. Chairman, there was no reason whatever for this bill to come before parliament because the owners of this company will continue to be The Century Insurance Company.
Capitalization will probably not be increased and, as a result, there will be no decrease in the value of the stock; but this is an internal matter. If this company had not felt they could come before parliament and get anything they wished without any questions put, they probably would have found no hardship in continuing to operate under their original name and in the original location. I suggest this is what would have happened.
Mr. Chairman, this problem first arose in the last two months and was given a great deal of impetus when a company such as the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company, which had operated in Quebec for many years, found it advantageous to change its name. I suggest they should be satisfied with the name they now have. I would also think that the change of name to The Century Insurance Company would raise a number of problems which would not be raised if the change consisted only in a translation of the name from English to French. I also suggest that the change in capitalization is not in the interests of Canada or for the benefit of anyone buying insurance

November 10. 1986
Private Bills
from the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company. It is only of benefit to the internal operations of the company and the time of the Canadian parliament should not be wasted on such matters.
I think the government should introduce a bill which would eliminate the necessity of considering bills of the nature of the one before us now. Even the sponsor of this bill admits that the recapitalization is incidental and is an internal, bookkeeping operation which does not have much to do with the expansion of the company. It is agreed that this stock will not be put on the market in any case. The government has agreed to the introduction of a bill which would eliminate the necessity for such bills. I suggest to the government that they have not been fair to the hon. member who, I presume, was asked to sponsor this bill. Most of the hon. members who have sponsored such bills have done so as a service to the government, and I think it is unfair to ask them to do so at a time when steps are being taken to eliminate the necessity of considering such bills in parliament.
Mr. Chairman, we do not question the right of parliament to examine the problems that are raised in such bills. I only raised the matter of stock splitting because it was mentioned in this bill and was approved by this parliament when it agreed to a stock split from $100 to $5 which is a 20 to 1 split. According to my understanding this is not the kind of stock splitting which brings no benefits to anyone but the manipulators of the companies. We have already considered another such company which falls within that category. I suggest that this type of operation will have to be controlled by parliament and eventually eliminated. I believe that the stock splitting which has been requested in this bill is not the same type of stock splitting referred to in most bills but is a change in the capitalization of the company. This gives an opportunity to the partners who own this company, but are not shareholders in it to take advantage of a free exchange of certain equities which they may hold in the Century Insurance Company of another country.


Maurice Rinfret: I must point out to the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words?


Maurice Rinfret: Order, the hon. member has already spoken in this debate and I do not think he is entitled to speak again.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is quite correct that I have spoken before in the debate but we are now in committee and I submit the rules permit a member to make more than one speech in committee. We have already listened to five speeches from the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona when the house was in committee. May I make one comment?


Maurice Rinfret: I apologize to the hon. member. He is quite correct.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a comment a propos of what was said by the hon. member for Timiskaming. My comment does not apply in particular to the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company but it is a general comment regarding the manner in which certain companies have operated in the past for the exclusive benefit of those who are "in the know" and who are familiar with the operations of the company and to the detriment of the average shareholder, the widow or the person with a few dollars saved up who wants to invest in the growth of our nation.
I should like to point out the unscrupulousness of some of these companies which for the sake of making a buck, injure the rights and position of the other shareholders in the company.
I will refer to information contained in the "Monetary Times" of November 1966 regarding a company called the Aetna Investment Corporation. I will summarize it in a few sentences. The Aetna Investment Corporation entered into an arrangement with the Cowi-chan Copper Company whereby Aetna loaned $850,000 to the Cowichan Copper Company to help it to overcome some of the difficulties which that company had with its mine on Vancouver island.
In consideration of the loan Aetna was given 200,000 shares in Cowichan Copper and options to buy 600,000 more. As a result, the company went into operation, got over its difficulties, and its shares earlier this year were selling on the market at around $1, compared with the previous year's low of 40 cents. This shows a 60 cents gain in the common shares of Cowichan Copper, and the Aetna Investment Corporation had an option for 600,000 of them.
Between the end of January and the end of August, Aetna Investment Corporation, to the knowledge of its directors and those on the inside, quietly began to sell its entire holdings of 675,000 Cowichan Copper shares. They got rid of them gently on the market. When they
November 10, 1966

had got rid of all the stock which they held, and after the people on the inside who were in the know had made this killing, they then announced they would not make any further advances or loans to Cowichan Copper Company. The stock of Cowichan Copper Company dropped down to 16 cents. In the result, the Aetna Investment Corporation, by manoeuvring, juggling and with complete disinterest for the rights of other shareholders in the company, came out with a $300,000 stock market profit. This meant that the widows, the elderly people and the small investors who had put money into the company on the strength of the relationship between Aetna Investment and Cowichan Copper Company were the ones who suffered.
That is an indication of some of the things that are done by investment companies, insurance companies, trust companies, loan companies, companies which come to this House of Commons and ask us to give them the stamp of approval to conduct their business affairs. This is sometimes the kind of business that they conduct.
Regardless of what one thinks about the free enterprise system, Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is not fair or just. Therefore, I hope that, as a result of this type of discussion that we are having on this bill, and of debate on other bills which will come before us, parliament will undertake to write into this kind of bill guarantees such as those being contemplated by the Ontario government, which would ensure that those on the inside of these investment companies disclose to their shareholders what is being done with their shareholdings. This would give those shareholders the same right to make a profit as the people on the inside, those on the board of directors, the people managing the corporation who are in a position to juggle things to suit themselves.
As long as insurance companies come before this house and ask us to give them a licence to conduct their business, I submit we should impose conditions upon them. I do not think we will be able to plug all the loopholes because I am sure that some sharp-eyed character or some legal eagle attached to a company would find some way to do some underhanded work in order to come out ahead of the game. However, we should plug as far as we can any loopholes which permit companies, who receive approval from this parliament to conduct their business affairs, to behave in this way. We must ensure that they conduct their business on the basis, first of all,
Private Bills
that their prime responsibility is to Canada and to Canadians, and second, that their responsibility is to see that the shareholders are given equal treatment in the operations of the company.
I am not singling out the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company; this happens to be the bill before the house at the moment. However, there is another bill before us on the order paper in which we will be interested, as I am sure will be the hon. member for High Park. This is Bill No. S-4 to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada. Offhand, I do not know whether there is any relationship between Aetna Casualty Company and the Aetna Investment Corporation which pulled this scurvy deal with Cowichan Copper Company; but if there is a connection you can bet your bottom dollar that Aetna Casualty Company will become a casualty in this house, because it will not get a licence to operate its business. I say that only because both companies happen to have the name "Aetna", and usually there is some connection between companies with the same name.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Chairman, may I just intervene to inform the hon. member that Aetna Casualty Company of Canada has no connection whatever with Aetna Investment Corporation. Aetna Life Insurance Company is one of the oldest, strongest and most highly respected life insurance companies carrying on business on this continent and elsewhere in the world. Aetna Casualty Company, when incorporated, will be a subsidiary company of Aetna Life Insurance Company.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says there is no connection. I suggest that the company had better change its name so that there is no confusion about this in anyone's mind. However, that can be dealt with subsequently.
There are only two minutes left, Mr. Chairman, and I do not want to prevent the passage of this particular bill. On the surface, even though scant information was given to the committee-merely a one paragraph explanation which we could have gleaned from reading the bill itself-there appears to be nothing about which one could specifically complain as far as this company is concerned. I simply use this opportunity to plead with hon. members who are interested in these matters to think in terms of writing in some guarantees so that these companies are compelled to act in a responsible way.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
November 10, 1966
Interim Supply Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. The house will resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.

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



[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $371,999,867.43, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament except Items for Citizenship and Immigration, Defence Production, Forestry, Industry, Legislation, National Revenue, Post Office, Privy Council and Veterans Affairs, already provided for in Appropriation Act No. 6, 1966, and except Agriculture Item 35, Atomic Energy Item 5, Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Finance Item 15, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 40 and 70, Transport Item 103, and Loans, Investments and Advances Items L40, L75 and L80, for which no proportion is granted-$309,794,765.50;
(b) an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Public Works Item 65 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,600,000.00;
(c) an additional two-twelfths of the total amounts of National Defence Item 35. Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 20 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates-$3,175,900.00;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L30 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates-$9,166,-666.67;
(e)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (a) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a and Transport Items 102a and 103a, for which no proportion is granted -$26,276,101.92;
(f)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amounts of External Affairs Item 35a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L22a (Schedule
D)	of the said Supplementary Estimates-$11,304,-250.00;
(g) an additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Secretary of State Item 40a (Schedule
E)	of the said Supplementary Estimates-$713,-266.67;
(h)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amounts of Finance Item 15a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40a (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$4,716,666.67;

(i)	one-twelfth of the total amount of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Loans, Investments and Advances Item L32b, for which no proportion is granted-$2,252,250.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
["Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister called it ten o'clock and I think we should observe the rules.\nProgress reported."]
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; house in committee of supply, interim supply.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, at six
o'clock I was referring to the adverse circumstances under which our Canadian independent and co-operative milk processing plants, cheese factories and creameries are now forced to operate, and the cost-price squeeze in which they are situated. On the other side of the picture, operating in Ontario we have four giant operators which are American owned-Bordens, Dominion Dairies, Pet Milk and Carnation Milk. These giant companies have variegated business interests. Besides dairy products they all handle a host of other food and household products. Their tremendous financial stature will allow them to weather any storm pertaining to milk processing and any adversity that may take place in production and in markets. I warn the Minister of Agriculture and the government that these American giants may be willing to roll along with an adverse situation which is untenable to their smaller Canadian competitors to the point where the latter go bankrupt and have to go out of business. Then, with all competition annihilated, God help the Canadian milk producer and farmer and his kinsmen, the Canadian consumer of milk products. This adverse situation now faced by the small Canadian-owned independent and co-operative milk processors is a federal problem.
The former Conservative administration had planned a national dairy commission to direct all areas of milk production, processing and marketing. This government has promised a dairy commission. But nothing has been done. What is the delay? What impedes this measure? I ask the minister that. Many small independent plants have been obliged to close. It is said that the world is hungry. That is true. Therefore we need more cheese for export. We need more milk powder for export. Moreover, see how ridiculous we look, with Canada having to import butter. What an impasse we have arrived at. We need more butter. We need more processors and the
November 10, 1966

processing of more tonnage of dairy products, not less. The long promised dairy commission could be a factor in bringing this about. It could direct our national processing operation and manage, channel and, yes, price our national exports. This commission must be permanent. This commission must be nonpolitical. This commission must be made up of men who know the dairy industry and the interprovincial and international nature of its trade operations. I ask the Minister of Agriculture again, when can Canada expect to gain the services of such a body? I say the sooner the better.
I make one more point for the producer and processor of milk. Many people are of the opinion that milk in general is overpriced. This is not so. It always has been the lowest price food having regard to protein content value. The general ratings are as follows for protein: milk is rated at 2.40; fish is rated at 2.70; vegetables at 4.00 and meat-steak, that is-at 5.17.
Milk has long been underpriced. It is far cheaper than any man-made beverage and it is a staple necessity on our way of life. Let us see that the whole industry, especially the independent Canadian milk processors, retain their right to exist and prosper.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make. I had prepared a speech on unemployment insurance, but I had no idea the debate on interim supply would last so long. I will, therefore, only touch on the subject lightly.
The people of my riding have been very disappointed to learn that the unemployment office in the area will be closed down.
The decision was taken at the top level of the administration. We learned about it in the press. We lost our unemployment insurance office. When people in the area have something to straighten out with the unemployment insurance office, they will have to travel 100 miles to meet with the officers. There may be a good side to it because those officers will not be so busy. There will be fewer visits to their office. Now that this is done, will it be for better or for worse? Time will tell. But I know that this government will have to shoulder the responsibility, for it authorized the move. And only time will tell whether the bureaucrats were right in taking such action.
I had already received, just like the government, a petition protesting against this move.
Interim Supply
But now everything is done and we must grudgingly bear the consequences.
What surprised me, in connection with the speeches we are hearing, is the turn over some days on a particular subject affecting the Department of National Defence, namely the unification of the three armed forces.
Mr. Chairman, what surprised me to a lesser degree is that, as they have always done, Conservatives keep on playing politics, delaying needlessly the business of the house. It is always the same story. Conservatives cry out during this debate on National Defence policy: back down, reverse your decisions, and every time it is for the same purpose, namely to accuse the government and then blame them for having backed down on their decisions, for having taken one step ahead, then one step backwards, and constantly chopping and changing.
I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) for maintaining his positions and demanding that the bill be dealt with according to normal procedure. We all know that the bill must undergo second reading before committee consideration takes place. At least this is what I gather from my four years' experience sitting in this house. And the Conservatives want to force the hon. minister to depart from regular procedure, so that they can then blame him for having done so.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Well, in that regard the minister deserves congratulations. In order to excuse their actions, the Conservatives invent all kinds of reasons, each one as contradictory as the other. We have an example in the speech given this afternoon by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees). In fact, he accused the minister of misinforming the public. Can you imagine that? Since the minister put out his white paper, the public is said to be misinformed. Not only that, we are told, "We know nothing about the bill." Should he not know at least as much as the public at large? And again, to oppose unification, he says the change of uniform is going to demoralize our soldiers. What childishness.
Mr. Chairman, it is often said that it is not the cowl that makes the monk and I think this is true in the army. Courage is not in the pair of pants, but in the soldier's soul and heart. For our part, we are for unification, and we estimate that it will be good and efficient and that it will save this country some money. These days, all countries try to unify for

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
greater efficiency, and it is better for a country to have only one authority instead of three quarrelling about priority.


Mr. Habel:: Who will spend the most money?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: On the economical aspect, all Canadians are astounded at the thought that one quarter of the national budget is poured into national defence, or should I say, into international defence, because our soldiers serve internationally more than nationally. If we can cut expenses, if the minister of defence is successful through this transformation, in reducing the military budget by 30 to 40 per cent, we shall say: Good for you, sir, you made a good move.
We regret that the debate on interim supply had to turn out this way, and we are very surprised to see the Conservatives carry on such a filibuster, which reminds us of the one they carried on concerning the flag. Our Canadian flag still rankles in their minds, and they do not want to swallow our Canadian defence policy. Every time the word "royal" is removed, they have a cerebral thrombosis.
I say to the minister, be a good doctor, and if you have decided on the operation, carry it out, and if your government had to impose closure in the flag debate, let it use the same means today, because we have no right to let the people suffer because of a few sentimental tories. Thousands of civil servants are waiting for their pay cheques, and it is your duty to do them justice. The Conservatives say: the interest of the country is at stake. According to what I saw on those days, I am more and more convinced that only a few private interests are involved, and they are the real cause of the fight carried on by the Conservatives.
As time goes on, the more I read the article written by Marcel Pepin in the newspaper Le Droit, the more I find that he is not that mad. If the Conservatives carry on for a few days, and if certain persons continue to sit in the public galleries, I will conclude that Mr. Pepin is right from beginning to end.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Pepin wrote in Le Droit an article which has been placed in the official record of the house on October 20. As can be seen on page 8890, right-hand column, Mr. Pepin wrote the following:
Certain retired admirals have vowed that the navy would remain what it has always been, that is, British and Protestant. The Conservative, outburst of passion, against Mr. Paul Hellyer, Minister of National Defence, is the work of two retired admirals who have not swallowed the appointment of General Jean-V. Allard as head of the integrated forces, with full authority over the navy.

That explanation was given to us by no other than an English-speaking military man, well aware of the situation.
The two rebels are Hear Admiral William Landy-more, dismissed by Mr. Hellyer for insubordination, and his predecessor, Admiral Brock.
The latter directed from the public gallery the attack of the Conservative member Terry Nugent against the hon. Mr. Hellyer, Wednesday.
I remember, Mr. Chairman, that before being elected to this house, I once sat in the public galleries. As I knew nothing of the rules, I was taking notes in a note-book. At one moment, an attendant, a constable warned me that one could not take notes in the public galleries. I understood that the rules were very strict. One is not entitled to take notes or to circulate newspapers, as far as I could see.
Now I was saying to myself, while sitting here in my seat: No doubt the newspapermen are having a great deal of fun-with all the stir going on up there.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that you cannot have one law for the rich and another for the poor. If I was not allowed to take notes in the gallery at that time, it is not any more permissible for someone else to do so to-day, whether he is a government pensioner or not. He is not allowed to take notes and communicate with this assembly.
I believe it to be my duty to point out what I saw to the house. That is why, on reading that article, I told myself that journalists are not all blind, all nitwits. And Mr. Marcel Pepin continues:
Not only did he make signs to the member, but he also sent him messages during the debate. Witnesses have stated that Admiral Brock, who has been retired for three years, made a negative sign when Mr. Hellyer called on Mr. Nugent to put his seat at stake by making a speciflc charge of improper conduct.
Our informant maintains that half a dozen superior navy officers have been plotting at the Chester Club in Halifax since the appointment of General Allard.
The Chester Club, a classical WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant), style institution, groups retired admirals or other officers of the navy whose mission it is to keep the navy British in character.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I say that if occult forces are to continue leading this government, it is far from ready to assume its responsibilities. I say also that the opposition is going along with those occult forces and that we must expose them. We have been elected to work for the people and we must not allow those occult forces, whatever they are called, to influence
November 10, 1966

the decisions of parliamentarians. I will now resume reading the article:
The appointment of General Allard and the replacement of Rear Admiral Landymore by Rear Admiral O'Brien, an Irish Catholic, has angered the defenders of the bastion.
The counter-revolution finally reached the House of Commons. Messrs. Landymore and Brock have been haunting the corridors of parliament for the last two days-
From October 20, but that continued until today.
-and they spend their evenings with Conservative members of parliament, engaged in perfecting a strategy to make the government retreat.
Even if it is sometimes painful to change at a single stroke the spirit of a body as closed as the Royal Canadian Navy, the Department of National Defence is quite determined to win the battle.
Heretofore, no French Canadian could make his way in the navy, but nobody ever decreed that the naval defence of this country was the exclusive privilege of Anglo-Saxons, explained our informant.
It is not by voting resolutions recognizing the equality between the two groups that Canada will come out of the current crisis uninjured, but by crushing reactionary forces in facts. We in the Defence Department are ready to do our part", concluded our informant.
Mr. Chairman, I read that article to refresh the memory of the house and to show where we stand in the discussion. We would like to add, for the information of the minister, that the time has come for Canada to become itself, to become Canadian, to assume its responsibilities and refuse to be led by its officials.
As I said, it hurts to cut the umbilical cord but the government has to do it, without heeding the complaints; a vote must be taken and the house will then be able to put an end to this senseless discussion.
If I tried to raise the screen behind which might be hidden the true reasons of this discussion, which has been raging far too long, it is only to inform the general public and show the true side of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It is also to get the opposition to take part more frankly in the administration of the country's business. I hope it will understand, once and for all.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, earlier in this debate the Minister of National Defence forcefully asked us, "Do you want to hold up the cheques for civil servants and other government payments?" We have certainly no desire to do that, and that is my answer to him.
This whole debate seems to have centred around national defence. I do not pose as an
Interim. Supply
expert in any shape or form on national defence but there are some aspects of the question that affect the country as a whole. Even as a member from the prairies, and completely ignorant of the over-all aspect of national defence, I wonder why it is that the first to suffer is the navy.
We have tremendously long coast lines in Canada on both our Atlantic and Pacific shores and along what some of us still think of as the old northwest passage. In peacetime or in wartime our naval ships can be of great service to us. Even aside from their defence role, from the point of view of oceanography there is a part for them to play in exploration, and in this connection I point out what another country has achieved by using submarines for exploration work.


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


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is he aware that the navy is getting a larger percentage of the defence budget now than it did under the previous government? Is he aware that it has been getting more money in absolute terms for at least five years than it did during the previous five years and is getting a larger share of the research and development budget than the other forces combined?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Yes, Mr. Minister, I am aware of this but, as I said, I do not pose as an expert on this subject. What worries me is the reduction in naval personnel and in the number of ships that are in service. The cost is not the answer. Everything costs more these days.
I am quite aware of the increased cost figure but what is more serious is the decrease in personnel and equipment. I do not know how one describes the equipment of the navy, but I use the word "bottoms". The last place that a cut should be made, whether in wartime or in peacetime, is the navy. It is the cut in personnel and equipment, the cut in what I call bottoms, that is worrying the Canadian people and disturbs me.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
I have had some association with the army and to a small extent with the air force. I appreciate their problems. There is a real problem in the air force relating particularly to pilots. I should like to compliment the minister on his efforts to do something about that problem. I think perhaps he has, but much more needs to be done.

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
We on this side of the house have been accused of holding up civil service payments. In the press we have been tabbed as having a great rift in our party. It is alleged that despite the great rift in our party the official opposition continues to hold up the debate. I do not feel there is any great rift. The very fact that we are here trying to do something which is very important to this country at least, we feel it is-shows that there is no great rift. We are one great happy family on this side of the house. There may be a little rift in our family, political family if you wish, but what family does not have a little rift? Anyone who says there never is a rift must be speaking a little less than the truth or must belong to a different political party.
I went home over the week end. Naturally questions were put to me. I was asked, "What is ah this about? You are representing us in Ottawa. What is the answer?" Quite frankly, I must say that I could not give them any answer. How can we as members of parliament have an answer for our constituents? We are here as $18,000 a year men representing constituents and when we are asked by them to give them an answer we are unable to. What is the policy? The minister says he will tell us about it after it is approved. That is really what he is saying. He informs us he will tell us what the real policy is after we have approved it.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: During the debate on second reading.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: After it has been approved to that point.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: During that debate.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: You may understand parliamentary procedure a little better than I do. I am quite sure you do. But in attempting to describe the situation to the people I represent when they ask me what it is all about I say that I do not know but that maybe after second reading we will find out. That, however, is too late. This is the procedure being followed by the government and the minister. Frankly and honestly may I say that I have great respect for the Minister of National Defence, and he is aware of this. I really hate to take part in this debate but I must, because when I am unable to answer the questions put to me by my constituents I feel it is my duty, in spite of what the minister says, to try to do something about it.

I should like to say a word or two about holding up payments. Earlier the minister said, "Do you want to be guilty of holding up payments?". I certainly do not want to be guilty of holding up payments. As a matter of fact my daughter is a civil servant working here in Ottawa. I will not tell you in what department. She is a very sincere young lady. She works in a building with 1,000 others. I have spoken to her, I have spoken to another friend, not a political one, in another department, and I have spoken to still another friend in a different department. I am not so sure that they are blaming the opposition. I rather had the impression as a matter of fact that they are blaming the government because over such a simple matter surely it would not be asking too much for the minister to call the committee again to review some of the evidence in a detailed manner. This is my opinion.
I hear we may be faced with an election. Well, all of us have been through elections. To me the threat of an election is a club; it is blackmail. I listened to the hon. member who spoke before me. I do not quite agree with him. I think he made a very eloquent and emotional speech but in my opinion it was ineffective because I hope we can do better than having emotional and eloquent speeches. I appeal again to the minister. I am sure he can do what we are asking. I recall one particular night in 1963 when the minister spoke on a supply motion. As found on page 3437 of Hansard, the minister had this to say:
We particularly welcome the opportunity to express the view that the government has failed to give a clear statement of policy respecting Canada's national defence.
Last evening X put on the record some of the factual material relating to our present defence dilemma, which should have been put on the record by the government.
I respect those words of the minister and I think they should be some sort of a guideline in this defence debate. I am not going to speak any more about the defence but I do hope the minister will consider our plea. I do not think that this time the opposition is going to take the blame that some of those on the other side of the house think we will. We are not going to be blamed for this situation and the minister should pay attention to that fact. Let me ask the minister to reconsider his statement in that regard because under the circumstances he should not make statements of a flat and categorical nature.
November 10, 1966

[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
Our forces are being rapidly depleted. We are going to be in a difficult situation if we continue to follow this trend and find ourselves in the position of having to supply a force for peace-keeping or take part in a conflict such as the Korean war. Our forces are deteriorating and this is not something that should happen in Canada.
It is my understanding that financial institutions in Ottawa and across the country are willing to lend money to civil servants on an interest-free basis in order that they may get by for two or three days while parliament makes up its mind. This indicates to me that they are in favour of straightening out the situation regarding our defence forces. There is a principle involved and I think we must face up to that principle.
As I said earlier, we are sitting here receiving big salaries and we must provide answers to the questions asked by our constituents. Let me make a final plea to the minister to send the bill to a committee for study before second reading. If everything is fine and there is nothing to hide no harm will be done. I have enough faith in the minister to believe that he will come up with an answer so that parliament can get on with its regular business. I hope that as a western member of this house I can go back and truthfully inform my constituents that what we finally decide to do is the right thing.
Let me refer to another important subject. In my area of Alberta there are about one and a half million bushels of wheat lying on the ground exposed to the elements. We have had snow, rain and freezing weather and this grain is rapidly decreasing in grade and value. In Lethbridge there is a government-owned elevator with a capacity of 1,500,000 bushels. It is only about one-fifth full. Could some arrangement be made whereby this elevator could be leased to a company and designated as a delivery point so that this tremendous amount of very valuable wheat could be placed under cover for the winter?
The minister has suggested that this would not be economical because it would cost 6 cents more per bushel to deliver it to this point. Even though it might cost an extra 6 would pay the extra cost themselves provided the elevator was designated as a delivery point. Even though it might cost an extra six cents a bushel to follow this plan it would be of benefit because the grain would be in better condition for delivery to the lakehead or
Interim Supply
Vancouver. It would also be of benefit because the farmers would then have some money and would not have to pay the high interest charged on the money they must borrow to meet expenses. This is reasonable when you consider the squeeze between the cost of production and the market price. Let me ask the minister to reconsider his position because thousands of bushels of grain are lying outside unprotected and we are rapidly approaching the dead of winter.
One of my seatmates has asked me to suggest that the government consider leasing this elevator space. That is what I said earlier and I repeat that suggestion. It could be leased to companies other than grain companies such as a trucking company or a farming company. Why should this available space not be used, particularly when we have the best quality of grain in the world? Millions of bushels of grain are lying on the ground in piles and deteriorating while the government facility is not being used. I appreciate the fact that there must be extra space in the elevator for drying, cleaning and mixing the grain, but I make a particular plea to the Minister of Agriculture to consider this matter seriously. I compliment the government for having placed the Wheat Board under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. This is why I am making this plea to him.
[DOT]	(7:50 p.m.)
There are several other matters I should like to mention. I should like to say a few words about the treatment of our Canadian Indians. I should also like to say something about the policy of the national parks commission. I feel very strongly about these subjects but because we are accused of holding up the debate and holding up the cheques of the civil servants I will not speak any longer. I do not think we should be accused in this way because I think the government is responsible for the situation. I have faith in the minister and I think he will see the light and resolve this dilemma.
I mentioned the national parks policy but all I will say is that I take keen exception to the so-called new parks policy having to do with leasing. The government is going to take over property at the expiration of the lease and a board will compensate the former owners of that property. To me this smacks of socialism. I think this should be an election issue. The people of Canada should have the right to say whether or not this is what they want. I want to be on record as saying

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
that I do not agree with such socialist measures. In fact I do not agree with socialism at all because I am not a socialist. What really concerns me is that this policy has not emanated from the minister. It arose in a branch of a federal government. This type of creeping socialism coming from the bottom does not give the people of Canada any choice to voice their opinion. I think this is going too far. I thank hon. members for their attention and I also thank the minister for listening to my words.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the chance to speak in this debate and I congratulate the Minister of National Defence for giving the armed services a really good shake-up. They have needed it for years. However, I do not agree with the way it was done. After all, I grew up in an area where we had all majors and no privates. There were admirals, air commodores and majors, but no privates. It was rather rough going for someone who suddenly became a private. Basically this is what is wrong with the minister. Mr. Chairman, I ask for your advice on what is accepted language in the house. Can I say that I think he is an arrogant bastard? I am asking you for advice, Mr. Chairman. Well, I withdraw it, but frankly I think he is wrong and I will explain in what way he is wrong. We all have to live in this country and the minister cannot sit there and tell us all to get lost, because it will not work. We belong to this country. I am taking part in this debate simply because I woke up this morning very tired and I opened the Globe and Mail and found that it said that the opposition is holding up the civil servants' pay cheques. This is nonsense. However, there is a point I wish to make, namely, that the House of Commons has control of the purse strings and men have lost their heads over this principle.
Let us face the facts. We are not holding up the pay cheques. We are exercising our right as members of the House of Commons to control the purse strings of the nation. If the members of the fourth estate knew what I think of them, they could never print it. When the Korean war broke out we had nothing. It took us ten months to get into action. In the second world war we could not act because we had nothing, and now we are right back where we started. Let us be honest and say to the Yanks, "You are our umbrella". Why should we waste money, waste lives, and worry? After all, we know

they are going to move in on us anyway but, so help me God, I do not want it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to extend the debate, but I would like to read to the house a telegram received by me this morning, like all party leaders, from Mr. Claude Edwards, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I insist on reading the telegram to make it abundantly clear that we do not want, under any circumstances, to hold up civil servants' pay cheques. They will not be able to cash them today, because the banks are closed, but at least they may do so Monday morning.
Now, Mr. Edwards sent me a telegram-[DOT] this time using my right Christian name "Real"-
e (8:00 p.m.)

The first merger convention of the public servants of Canada demands that the delegates of the people of Canada in the House of Commons show the same unity as we are showing and the same desire to reach just objectives as the delegates here have. We are now the united voice of the employees of the government and we demand that you expedite the supply bill so that the public servants, who cannot afford the luxury of manipulative politics, may be paid today.

That means today, Mr. Chairman, but today is not enough, and then there is a "stop".

We bring to your attention the fact these public servants cannot afford to underwrite your continuing delays and demand that you take immediate action to find ways and means to pay these salaries. We do not presume to direct how but to direct only that you get on with your responsibilities to the public servants.
Claude Edwards
President
Public Service Alliance of Canada

Mr. Chairman, if the civil servants were not paid today, November 10, 1966, it is entirely due to the Progressive Conservative party of the House of Commons in Ottawa. Do you clearly understand what I am saying now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Because they filibustered to prevent the interim supply now before the house from being passed. Mr. Chairman, I will say more. The Conservatives are trying
November 10, 1966

to pose as martyrs in the present circumstances; trying to make us believe that they have a lot of sympathy for our veterans, for the members of our armed forces, for our officers in the three services, which are to be unified into a single Canadian army. I have been watching them over the last three or four days, watching what is going on in the gallery in front of them, watching them sending and getting little pieces of paper to know what to say or what not to say.
Mr. Chairman, I say and repeat that it is not up to a former member of the armed forces of Canada, a former admiral or someone who at one time was very powerful in the Canadian army or the air force or in Canadian aeronautics to try and play politics here and prevent Canada from going ahead. And the Conservatives, who are playing that game now, are not working in the best interests of the Canadian people but are indulging in petty politics against which we are fighting with all our strength throughout Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: And I wonder, Mr. Chairman, what our people from the province of Quebec, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal), and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), are doing aboard that Conservative ship where they are trying to bring down the whole of Canada to the level of a party which is shrinking right now.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a Liberal, far from it. But I think, for instance, that we must be fair, that we must give credit where credit is due. If, today, the federal civil servants are not paid, it is not due to the Ralliement Creditiste, the Liberals, the Social crediters the members of the N.D.P., but to the Conservatives who still want to resort to a filibuster tonight and again Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: And now the Conservatives say: It is simple, we are ready to pass interim supply, but the minister must agree to refer the whole matter of unification of the forces to the committee. Bill No. C-243, which has not been accepted yet on second reading, will give all hon. members, without exception, the opportunity to deal with the unification of the three Canadian services.
Interim Supply
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said this yesterday, and again today at noon; we know it and the Conservative members know it too: they will be free in committee to discuss Bill No. C-243 as long as they wish. At that time, if they wish, they can filibuster the bill. But why prevent Canadian civil servants from being paid at this time?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is the minister who is stopping them.


David Réal Caouette: I understand. I am full of admiration for the former minister of the former government which will never again be back in office and I fully sympathize with him.


Mr. More:: You had better look after yourself at the next election.


David Réal Caouette: Never mind me. Look after your own self first. You had better keep quiet.

Mr. Chairman, when I hear the former minister say to me that it depends on the present Minister of National Defence if___


Jay Waldo Monteith: All he has to do is be reasonable.


David Réal Caouette: That is exactly what I, not a Liberal, but as a Creditiste, ask the hon. member: to be reasonable. And I ask the members of his party to be reasonable, so that the civil servants may be paid as soon as possible. And if they are not paid tonight, the blame lies with the Conservatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: And the hon. member knows very well that Bill No. C-243 gives him free scope to deal with the unification of the three Canadian forces. He knows that. Why then maintain this attitude and try to create for himself an image when all, without exception, are destroying themselves in the eyes of the Canadian people.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I wanted to say in that connection.
But I still wonder why our own people, like the hon. members for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot,

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
whom I see over there, tor Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, for Charlevoix, who is not here, and another for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), tolerate that position taken by the Conservative party, and afterwards speak highly of the merits, the good intentions of that party which prevents federal civil servants from being paid today.
Mr. Chairman, some may accuse the minister of being arrogant-maybe he is; that is his problem-but when the minister says, for instance, that Bill No. C-243 will be considered in committee and that everyone without exception will be able to make their suggestions, amendments, subamendments, motions, etc., then I maintain that the Minister of National Def ence is right, that he does not have to yield to the threats of the Conservative opposition. Let him keep the reins; he is the minister. It is neither a Conservative, nor myself, but himself who is minister, who has his responsibilities. As for us, we have the right to call him to order, to blame him or to congratulate him, we will have the right to blame him in connection with Bill No. C-243.
The Conservatives are not penalizing the minister, even though we have been sitting here for four or five days; it is not the minister who is penalized tonight, at 8.15; it is the federal civil servants in the various departments.
National defence is not involved here, but the federal employees.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Jay Waldo Monteith: It certainly is.


David Réal Caouette: Some, I think, but not all.

Several departments are involved, and various federal employees are not paid tonight, through no fault of the Department of National Defence, but because of the Conservative filibuster.
I would, therefore, like the newspapermen to print this: the Conservatives are systematically blocking the payment of federal employees' wages.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: And those of the armed forces.


David Réal Caouette: And, naturally, those of the armed forces, since the armed forces are paid by the federal government. But I do not admire the Conservatives at all for exchanging their views on the air, between themselves

and the gallery opposite, where they appear to be taking their orders from an ex-admiral, a retired admiral.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Such procedure is inconceivable, Mr. Chairman. Since when does a minister accept that an army officer, an admiral or a general, shall dictate the policy of the Canadian army? This is a government responsibility, a responsibility of Parliament, and even if there are smiles displayed in high places, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the supreme authority in Canada is not exadmiral Brock, but the Ottawa parliament. Here lies the authority in Canada.
I can hear some people whispering, but the facts remain the same. The supreme authority in Canada is parliament. And when parliament determines any policy, the army people must accept it; otherwise, we would get ourselves into a situation such as we have seen in Europe, Asia, and some African countries. And we blame those people for having been misled by army people. Are we going to meet with the same fate? Mr. Chairman, I object to that. And as long as I am a member of parliament, as long as I am a member of the Canadian parliament, I shall oppose any defiance of the authority of parliament by a few individuals, either army, navy or air force people. The legislation passed by parliament must be accepted.
Mr. Chairman, those are the comments I had to make. I have just received a note from the future Conservative leader, the admiral.


Mr. McCleave:: He was out fighting for you many times.


David Réal Caouette: Who?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The admiral.


David Réal Caouette: I am always fighting for my country, my friend, for your information. And I do not need a lesson about that either.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Would the hon. member for Villeneuve allow the hon. member for Bosthern to ask him a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
[English}


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve if he would not agree that parliament has not yet decided the question of national defence policy?
November 10, 1966


David Réal Caouette: That is quite true.

But I would like to point out to the hon.
member that Bill No. C-243 is precisely the one to which he is now referring. Does the hon. member need to filibuster the passage of interim supply to enable him to discuss Bill No. C-243 which has not yet been submitted to the house for consideration?


Mr. Nugeni:: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the hon. member not agree that it would be helpful if he had some facts before voting on that bill?


David Réal Caouette: Which bill?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The military bill.


David Réal Caouette: Is that Bill No. C-243?

Mr. Chairman, Bill No. C-243 has not yet been discussed. The member should wait until the discussion and the vote on the said bill and then-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I ask the hon. gentleman, do you not have to have facts so that you can discuss this question? A discussion does not give you facts. Do you not want facts to be able to discuss it properly?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, has the hon. member any facts concerning the army, to block the payment of salaries to federal civil servants? Has he those facts, now? And yet they have been blocking those payments for a week, when we are sure that Bill No. C-243 will be considered in committee. We could always block it on third reading, if we are not satisfied with it. We could always ask for a vote or move amendments. Surely, the hon. member is aware of the fact that we can move amendments.


Mr. Boulanger:: He asks questions and he finds that funny.


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, it is a fact. An hon. member points out to me that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) asks questions and finds that funny.
Interim Supply
Mr. Chairman, a while ago I referred to the note that I have just received: "Future Conservative leader"; signed "the admiral"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: What admiral is it? I do not know. The note may come from a Conservative corner, because they all look like admirals tonight. Admirals.
Mr. Chairman, all I am asking the Conservatives-not as true-blue Conservatives, but as reasonable members who think before they act, instead of acting before they think- is that interim supply be passed. When Bill No. C-243 is considered-this does not mean we agree with every provision it contains- we shall have every opportunity to discuss the bill, to vote for or against it. Just as the Conservatives, we shall be free to discuss every section of the bill in committee. Why then maintain this filabuster to prevent the passage of interim supply?
Mr. Chairman, both sides of the house may try to play politics with this. The Liberals will say: the Conservatives blocked our efforts; and the Conservatives will say: this was the only opportunity we had to discuss unification of the three armed services in Canada. On both counts, the Conservatives and the Liberals are lying. The truth is that we must pass interim supply; then Bill No. C-243 will enable us to discuss unification of our three armed forces, and then the bill dealing with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will also come up for consideration, and we will have to decide whether the main line will run through my good friend's city, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


David Lewis: There will be no bill.


David Réal Caouette: There will certainly be a resolution.


David Lewis: No.


David Réal Caouette: The French text of the agreement reached in this regard was tabled this afternoon, and the hon. member will have the opportunity to read it.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we must assume our responsibilities, as members of Parliament, and we must be concerned about those who are presently in need of their salary to live on, to meet their obligations, and to be respected as citizens should in our country, Canada.
9814	COMMONS
Interim Supply


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I am truly sorry that I find myself having to take part in this debate once again.


An hon. Member:: So are we.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hon. members opposite apparently think this is a light matter and they can laugh about it. As far as I know, not one of them has stood up in recent days to take part in this debate. But they think it is a laughing matter and they joke. They laugh, these trained seals sitting on whatever brains they may have, if they have any at all.
As I said, I am truly sorry I have to take part in this debate again. I find myself deeply concerned about this situation. Members opposite can make fun of an hon. member of this house who is concerned about Canada's welfare. I am proud and pleased that my conscience is so disturbed that I must rise again in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We on this side have been accused of just about everything. We are preventing civil servants from receiving their pay. We are trying to break down a proud future leader of the Liberal party. As another example of Tory vindictiveness we are accused of trying to cripple a young man with a great political future. Nothing is farther from my mind. What I am most concerned about is a principle which all of us in this country cherish-democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What is the western alliance fighting for in Viet Nam? It is fighting for democracy, the principle for which men fought and died in the first and second world wars. We find ourselves in this very situation here in the House of Commons; yet members opposite laugh and joke. They think it is all a hoax. I say to them: sit there and joke all evening. Sit there and joke all day Monday. Sit there and laugh all day Tuesday. Sit there and make fun of me and of fellow members while the western alliance and the free world-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You will not be here Monday or Tuesday.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will be here Monday and I will be here Tuesday.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Dief will never make it, then.

DEBATES	November 10, 196G


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am so concerned I may even make a fourth speech. I am so concerned I may even make a fifth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There they sit. They laugh and joke even while men die in Viet Nam and Canadians risk their lives in Cyprus. Why do men risk their lives? Is it for democracy? I should like to think it is. That is what we Canadians are fighting for tonight. They may laugh at me but I will go ahead and say why I believe democracy is in question tonight.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: After I have had my 30 minutes. The minister might well use 30 minutes after I am through to explain her concern for democracy. She can ask me any question she likes. She can tell me what men are dying for in Viet Nam and why men are risking their lives in Cyprus. She can tell me why men have flown through all kinds of peril to the Congo.


David Réal Caouette: What about the civil servants?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear the hon. member for Villeneuve talking. I should like him to read what the hon. member for Megantic, a member of his own party, had to say. It is to be found at page 9564 of Hansard. I have so many things to say that I do not believe I will have enough time to read it. But I suggest as prescribed reading for the hon. member for Villeneuve that he should turn to page 9564 of Hansard of November 4 and see what the hon. member for Megantic, a member of his own party had to say. I thought he outlined the position in which Canada finds itself and in which his party finds itself very well. And if I have any time left before my thirty minutes are over I will read it to the hon. member.


David Réal Caouette: What about the civil service?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will deal with the civil service before I am through. What are the facts behind the present debate? I feel so concerned, Mr. Chairman, that I must express my opinion about the way in which these facts strike me.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: They obviously have not struck you.
November 10, 1966


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What is the attitude of the government? They laugh more and more about democracy. What did the minister say when the hon. member for Kamloops was speaking the other day? "They have no right to attack me", he said. He told the committee that he should not be subjected to this drastic examination. What did he say at five o'clock? "I am above all this. I am the great white father guiding this nation toward an unprecedented position in world affairs through a united, integrated or amalgamated armed service."
I pleaded with the minister the other day. I pleaded with the minister yesterday. I pointed out that he alone could save the civil service and I hoped that he would rise and say in a meek voice: "I will place this bill before the committee. I have nothing to hide."


An hon. Member:: Yes, but he is not a hypocrite.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, history will judge us all.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Let us look at the attitude of this Liberal government since it took office. What did it do two years ago? You remember the big club it tried to wield over the heads of the opposition one particular Easter when they made us sit on Good Friday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They said, "Pass this and this and this, or you shall not get an Easter holiday." Where was their arrogance then? It was very much to the forefront. One year ago before the summer holidays they again said, "Pass this and this and this before the summer holidays," and we went on into the middle of July. But finally the heat got them and they allowed us a couple of breaks. It was the same story last summer.
What are the Liberals doing now, Mr. Chairman? Look at the agenda. There are five most important pieces of legislation on it, including defence unification, the transportation bill, medicare, and proposed legislation for senior citizens who are waiting, waiting, waiting in anticipation of the government's announcement with regard to their pensions. Then there is the Bank Act. The Liberals are the high interest rate boys. They voted for that not too long ago. They want all of these five important pieces of legislation passed, and they will be saying to us again, "Pass this and this or you will have no Christmas holiday."
Interim Supply
I am quite prepared to stay right here and even sit on Christmas day. They made us sit on Good Friday and I am prepared to sit even on Christmas day if they, the arrogant ones who believe they alone have the right to rule, are going to push us and try to ram everything down our throats through blackmail or through any other method or means they might use. I believe strongly in democracy. I am prepared to see that democracy will rule our country.
In case, Mr. Chairman, you and others think that I have gone too far in this regard, let me ask, what have we done to co-operate?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone over there says "nothing." Just hold on. I remember the transportation legislation of two years ago, Bill C-120, which proposed a drastic departure in transportation policy. We said we did not want to debate it until we knew more about it and asked that it be sent to committee. It went to committee, was examined in committee and the government, through wise use of democracy, decided not to reintroduce the bill afterwards. I commend the government for the generous attitude it took then, and we co-operated. We assisted in committee.
What is the attitude on the present transportation bill? What is the attitude of the official opposition which, according to the press and radio, is supposed to be filibustering everything?


An hon. Member:: Right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone over there says "right." Just hear me out.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I think we had better have a little order on the other side of the chamber and let the hon. member make his speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I like the assistance being given me on this side but I do not really mind the interjections. If they want to expose to me and the nation how little they care, let them go ahead. I want the nation to know.
We co-operated on the transportation bill. We gave up the resolution stage on Bill C-231, a debate which could have carried on for several days. In order to facilitate the business of the house we graciously said to the Minister of Transport, "We will give up the resolution stage. If you have a bill drafted, present it. We will facilitate you by allowing

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
it to go to committee immediately." I personally thought it should have gone to committee before second reading, but hon. members were in such a co-operative mood we decided to have second reading and then send it to committee.
We have bent backwards to co-operate with the government. On this present occasion we have put forward three, in fact four choices. On Wednesday I pleaded with the Minister of National Defence. I like the minister. I like his executive assistant.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He gave you some Chinese food the other night.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I like the minister-


Robert Jardine McCleave: How about the Chinese food?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I pleaded with the minister on Wednesday. I said, "You alone can stand up and say 'I have had enough, I will send it to committee."
The hon. member for Peace River made two very good suggestions. The first one was that the department of defence estimates be called and that they be sent to committee. What was wrong with that? The arrogant pride of the Minister of National Defence would not let him agree. His party members, through a false feeling of honour, thought they must protect him and they rallied around and said, "Don't accept that." The Prime Minister ruled the suggestion out immediately and never even considered it.
Today we made another suggestion, to split the supply motion in two and pay the civil servants. We said, "Pay the civil servants their money, and pay the contractors their money." We pleaded with the Prime Minister. We begged. We were co-operative. We did our best, and it hurts that they never even considered it. They said no, no, no. Arrogant, arrogant, arrogant, arrogant, I say to them. They do not care about the civil servants, about democracy, about Canada, this nation of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The fourth suggestion, which was put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops a few days ago, was that the Prime Minister should consult with the ten men the hon. member for Kamloops named on November 3. The hon. member for Leeds has always impressed me with his serious study of any problem, and I know of his particular friendship with the Prime Minister. I ask him

tonight to have the Prime Minister consult with the ten men named by the hon. member for Kamloops. Let the Prime Minister consult with them over the week end. If they say that this bill should be approved in principle, then I suppose the Prime Minister would be justified in his stand. But these are all experienced men who have spent some 30 years in the services. Can we disregard men with their degree of experience? We must consider them as experts whether we like them or not. I do not even know them but they are experts.
I understand that eight of the ten are in Ottawa so there would be no difficulty getting hold of them over the week end. Again I say to the hon. member for Leeds, have the Prime Minister consult with these distinguished servicemen who were prepared to fight and die for Canada during their long careers in the services. If these men tell the Prime Minister that unification is a grave departure from the normal course, then let the Prime Minister reconsider his attitude and refer the defence estimates to committee.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Nobody will lose face over such a step. We will immediately pass interim supply and the civil servants will be paid. Everyone will be happy and content. We Conservatives will be able to go to our convention and enjoy ourselves, as one does at all conventions where one meets friends. Let me read the names of the ten persons: Lieutenant General R. W. Moncel, Lieutenant General F. J. Fleury, Vice Admiral K. L. Dyer, Air Marshal C. L. Annis, Rear Admiral W. A. Landymore, who would not be available and whom I do not expect the Prime Minister would wish to speak to particularly, Rear Admiral M. G. Stirling, Rear Admiral R. P. Welland, Lieutenant Geoffry Walsh, Rear Admiral J. V. Brock and Vice Admiral H. S. Rayner. They are the ten whom the hon. member for Kamloops named the other night.


An hon. Member:: Do they belong to your party?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: All I say is, let us
solve the impasse in which parliament finds itself because of the arrogant position the government has taken. I am not asking them to lose face. Follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River and send the estimates back to the committee. Nobody will lose face over that. I know that pride has ruined
November 10, 1966

many a man. I do not think pride alone should ruin the young and enterprising Minister of National Defence. I have given him a way out.
All the papers across Canada are speaking of arrogance. What does the Ottawa Journal say about integration and unification? The minister knows well. Up until last week the Ottawa Journal stoutly defended the minister's stand. What does it say now? Let me read from the Ottawa Journal of November 8 under the heading, "That Defence Bill-Let's Get At It":
Once again parliament and the country are obliged to suffer not so much because of the policy but because of the arrogant methods of a Liberal government.
It goes on to quote what the minister said when he introduced his bill:
"Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the amalgamation of the navy, army and air force into a single service and will provide the flexibility to enable Canada to meet in the most effective manner the military requirements of the future."
I especially emphasize these words:
"It will also establish Canada as the unquestionable leader in the field of military organization."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is the arrogant Minister of National Defence. He says that if this bill is passed Canada will unquestionably be away ahead of the rest of the world. The editorial goes on to say:
The key word there is "details." Before going into "details," the opposition would understandably have liked to have some basic reasons why the government is set on unification.
This is what the country is asking and what we are asking. Everybody over there claps their hands. Have they been concerned about the details? Have they been given the basic reasons?


An hon. Member:: We have the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The bill does not give the basic reasons. Let me continue to read:
There is widespread country demand for such explanation, Mr. Hellyer seems only to say "Give me your approval of the bill now and I'll tell you later why we are doing it."
We used to think that the Liberals under Hon. C. D. Howe were arrogant but they cannot compare with the Liberals of today. Let us look at the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, November 9, 1966. This is an editorial comment headed "Unnecessary Trouble": 23033-621
Interim Supply
Defence Minister Paul Hellyer has gone through a severe testing in the past few days of the debate on interim supply. But it is a testing which he could have avoided.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I plead with the minister to cease it now. The article goes on to say:
And as the debate dragged on this week and up to yesterday, it was beginning to become clear just how unreasonable his initial stand was.
"How unreasonable his initial stand was." It continues:
In fact, if Mr. Hellyer has as much faith in the measure as he appears to have, he should welcome the referral, not try to block it.
What is the justification? If I believe in any given situation that I am right, then I am prepared to let my cause be examined by anybody; I have nothing to hide. But right from the very time that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona raised this issue, who has tried to conceal facts? The Minister of National Defence. As the Montreal Gazette points out, if the minister has as much faith in the measure as he appears to have, he should welcome a referral-we agree-and not block it. We give him three "outs".
Let us look at the Globe and Mail of November 9, 1966. I could quote from papers from all across Canada. The editorial is headed, "Speak Up", and reads:
An example of the new freedom to be found in the Canadian armed forces is contained in a notice which appeared recently on the bulletin boards at Camp Borden-
I do not have too much time left. The notice states that they may be interviewed by newspapermen and that they are at liberty to talk to the press. The editorial continues:
There was just one trifling condition: "It is contrary to existing regulations to make public statements criticizing Department of National Defence policy." It should make for a great sampling.
It is contrary to existing regulations to say anything which is contrary to defence policy. So there would be a great sampling there. Let us look at the Hamilton Spectator of November 9, 1966. It says:
It is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
It is referring to the Conservative opposition to the bill.
Thanks largely to the increasing arrogance of Defence Minister Paul Hellyer and the apparent disinterest in his handiwork-

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
This should go well with the backbenchers on the other side.
-on the part of most of his cabinet colleagues-
The change I would make here would be a reference to back-benchers rather than cabinet colleagues. I always have been a backbencher but I believe I have played a part in what my party has done. I urge the backbenchers opposite to rise and play your part. Do not be trained seals all your lives. The article continues:
-the unification proposals are little understood throughout the country. One thing is clear, though, and that is that a great many senior officers and men are extremely unhappy with it, and morale in the services has declined.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I could quote the whole editorial but I am trying to save time. Let us look at what was said in the Calgary Herald a few days ago:
Facts and figures are quite different from policy. Surely there should be no inhibition on civil servants against providing members of parliament with pertinent facts and figures upon which policy is to be based. Government, it is true, has the job of initiating policy. But parliament, surely, is the body which has the right to make the final decision.
I notice the hon. member for Leeds is paying close attention to these words and I wish to thank him for doing so because he occupies a preferential position so far as the Prime Minister is concerned.
The article then continues:
If parliament is only to get the information the government wants it to have, how can it be expected to make decisions which take into account all the facts and figures and information which apply to situations under review?
The papers are suggesting: Give parliament the facts and figures and the right to examine them. That is all we are suggesting because in this democracy we cherish the right to examine the facts and figures. Let me read from a statement made by Admiral Rayner which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of November 9, 1966. This man was in the service for 36 years so he must be considered by everyone to be an expert. He is reported as having said:
I am firmly convinced that a single service would be less effective in defending our country and cooperating with our allies than the three services we have today.
Then he is reported as having said:
Instead the changes necessitated by integration have been pushed through in bullheaded fashion with a lack of understanding of the rights of the individual.
That is a cherished right in any democracy. We must always have regard for the rights of
[Mr. Homer (Acadia). 1
the individual at all times. The onus is upon the minister to break the impasse in which parliament finds itself.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to have another five minutes, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member's request to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: There is not unanimous consent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I regret that very much because now I may have to make another speech.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak for only a few minutes to bring something I have just discovered to the attention of the committee. I was in France with the standing committee on veterans affairs when certain appropriation bills were passed last July. The hon. gentleman who just spoke said something about splitting the estimates. If I read the legislation correctly, we have already split the estimates by passing two appropriation bills which were assented to on July 11. I should like to ask the appropriate minister to explain this situation.
In looking up the acts I find that chapter 29 was assented to on July 11, 1966, and it says:
This act may be cited as the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1966.
It provides for the payment of the estimates of nine or ten different departments. The first paragraph of the schedule states:
Based on the main estimates, 1966-67. The amount hereby granted is $825,462,241.67, being the total of the amounts of the items in the said estimates, as contained in this schedule, less the amount voted on account of the said items of the Appropriation Act No. 3, 1966 and the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1966.
This provided for the payment of the full estimates of the departments mentioned to the end of the year. Then I find that in chapter 30 there is another act cited as Appropriation Act No. 7, 1966, which was assented to on July 11, 1966. It provides for partial payment of the estimates of certain departments to the extent of four-twelfths in the case of one department, three-twelfths in the case of another, seven-twelfths in the case of another and so on.
November 10, 1966



The first paragraph of schedule A states in part:
Based on the main estimates, 1966-67. The amount hereby granted is-
Then it lists amounts to the extent of four-twelfths, three-twelfths and so on. This means that the estimates of nine or ten departments have been passed and that employees of these departments were paid today. Employees of other departments were not paid. Let me ask two questions, because this situation will cause some concern among civil servants, those who were paid and those who were not.
I should like to ask the appropriate minister to give an explanation for this legislation which seems to be a departure from our usual practice in passing Appropriation Acts. Can the minister explain the reason behind these two bills, one which provides for all the estimates of certain departments to the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 1967, and the other which provides for three-twelfths, four-twelfths and so on of various other departments? I ask because this seems to be an unusal procedure and because it will cause certain concern and perhaps friction among civil servants, those who have been paid and the others who have to await the will of parliament.


George James McIlraith: The explanation for this departure in procedure in July is very simple. It has been found in recent years that it has taken long periods of time to consider the estimates in committee. It had always been our practice to pass an appropriation bill only when all the estimates had been considered and examined in detail by the committee of the whole house. The eight or ten departmental estimates which were examined in detail by the standing committee, under the new procedure this year, and by the committee of the whole house were finally confirmed in an appropriation bill without waiting until all the other departmental estimates had been considered.
The usual practice of taking one or two months interim supply, as the case may be, applicable to the other departmental estimates was followed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think I will deal kindly with the Minister of National Defence but I would reserve the right to do otherwise. The word at the back of the curtain, and we might as well have it out in the open, is that the attempts of the house leaders to come to some agreement to solve the impasse with which we are faced have failed. In
Interim Supply
short, the collision course continues. At the opening of the sitting this afternoon the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam offered what I thought was a good suggestion, that the party leaders, not the house leaders, get together to resolve the situation in which we find ourselves. This would mean the right hon. Prime Minister, the right hon. gentleman who was the former prime minister, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the hon. member for Villeneuve, and the hon. member for Red Deer.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think a large part of the responsibility for solving the affairs of this house naturally rests on the leadership which should be given by the Prime Minister of this country. I do not intend to allow him to abdicate his responsibilities by his failure to show up here on a day that has become a day of crisis. The hon. member on the other side who is now moving out of the chamber was elected as long ago as 1940 and there are members on this side who have been here a long time who will recall the days when the Prime Minister of this country was Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King. The name of Mr. King is not particularly revered in the party to which I belong but the fact is that Mr. King never got himself in really great difficulties in parliament. One of the reasons for that was that he did his house work in the House of Commons.
He was present here when the chips were down and when important issues were at stake. He did his best by speaking to this and that backbencher, by understanding the mood of the house and living with it. I think he did remarkably well. The present Prime Minister graces us with his presence during the question period and then disappears. Most of the time he does not come back again. I will not forget his failure to be in the house this evening and I will not allow the record of this parliament to let this fact go unnoted. He is abdicating his responsibility.
An hon. Membsr: What about your leader?
Another hon. Memberr Which one?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I will speak in a moment on the burning issue of the moment but now I wish to turn to some thoughtful remarks which were made here the other day regarding the committee system. I think something should be put on the record about our committee system. If members totalled up the work week most of them would find that they spend 13 hours a day, either in

November 10, 1986
Interim Supply
their offices or in the house, on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. On the two other days of the week, Wednesday and Friday, they spend 9 hours a day either in their offices, in this chamber, or in committees. Assuming that members work from 9 a.m. until 10.30 or 11 p.m. on three days of the week and from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. on the other days, the total adds up to 57 hours a week. In addition, most of us spend time over week ends flying back and forth between the house and our constituencies in order to hold meetings with our constituents. This adds up to a considerable amount of time, especially in view of the very large number of committees we have to attend. I would say that in theory committees are splendid devices.
I will forgo the obvious remarks about calling the devil from the deep and will welcome the Prime Minister of the country to the House of Commons. I suppose it is only fair that somebody should send out for the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. members for Villeneuve and Red Deer, for in their presence we may yet survive this evening.
As I said, committees are splendid devices. I think it is much more satisfying for a member to work in a committee than in the House of Commons. I do not say this with disrespect to the house but I think more can be achieved in a committee than in this chamber. I concede that the committees are doing important work and from that point of view I do not think that any of the committees is unnecessary. Nevertheless it often happens that committees cannot commence their work because of the lack of a quorum. It happens frequently that witnesses come from long distances to attend committee meetings and give evidence but have to wait 15 or 20 minutes while the assistants to the party whips try to round up the necessary quorum. It has often happened to members that they are called upon to attend more than one committee meeting at the same time so they simply have a tick mark placed beside their names which is sufficient to give one committee its quorum while they attend another. At the start of the year the committee system seemed to be working well and appeared in theory, to be a good experiment, but as we are reaching the end of the year and nerves are becoming frazzled we should consider a new approach to the committee system.
I think that the Minister of Public Works, who is also the house leader, could do a useful job for us by sounding out his fellow house

leaders and starting a study of this matter. I would not want them to form a committee after having pointed out the difficulties into which the committee system has run, but at least they could start the ball rolling and prepare a better system for next year.
As everybody knows, frequently we come under fire from the ladies and gentlemen of the press gallery for our failure to have more than 20 or 25 members in the House of Commons and for the delay in committee meetings starting. And yet they too are only human. It is true, they are human. They are here in numbers now, but frequently it happens that they too do not have a quorum in their gallery. We have sat here often and have only seen one brave soul reporting for the Canadian Press.
Another point I should like to make concerns the housing and construction situation in this country which is becoming very serious. When I go home over the week end I hear prospective home owners crying out because they are not able to obtain money from C.M.H.C. or from traditional lenders. I know of the concern of the Minister of Labour in this regard and I think housing should never become a political issue. I hope he is pressing for a greater supply of money to the home builders of this country.
I should now like to exercise my eloquence by echoing the tough speech delivered rather well by the hon. member for Acadia the other day. Something happened to him this evening. Perhaps he has changed his mind. However, my remarks will be delivered in a constructive mood because if we are reaching the point of no return I would like in the years ahead to be able to live with what I said in this house as recorded in Hansard when those words will only be a reminiscence.
However, before I do so, may I be permitted a comment in fun. Some time ago an hon. member rose in this house during the study of the national defence estimates and delivered the following statement. I will ask hon. members to guess who said this:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
He Is coming here and asking tor millions of dollars to be expended and he refuses to give this committee the information to which it is entitled. We demand of him now to give us some answers, or else he will be called upon to reckon before the Canadian people.
Who said that, Mr. Chairman? It was the present Minister of National Defence. Those words are recorded at page 2003 of Hansard for March 20, 1962.
November 10, 1966

I notice that the Prime Minister is now with us but that the Minister of National Defence has departed. Some hon. member has sent me a note asking what significance there is in all this, but I am afraid I cannot answer. Perhaps we will find out later.
Now to the matter at hand. I put this question seriously to the Prime Minister. After all, he does have a fearful responsibility in this matter. Is it better that national defence policy in this country be the work of one party or that it be the work of all parties? Is it better that it be the work of one man or of a couple of men, or is it better that it be the work of as many men as possible?
In February two years ago the Minister of Transport of that time submitted very important legislation affecting the Railway Act to a committee of this house without it first having received second reading. As we all know, this is the argument now being used to explain the present course of action by the opposition. It was submitted to committee so as to try to get the best possible consensus on the matter, and opinions were heard from all over Canada.
Although I was not a member at the time, I suppose members gave their opinions, but in the result the bill never did come back to the house from the committee. However, the government was able to take all of the submissions and the views of the members and bring in a new piece of legislation which is now, after second reading, before a committee for study and we hope it will be passed in a short while.
This action was taken by the Minister of Transport who no one can say is a shrinking violet in the political sense. He is a man of very great political astuteness. He took this course to try to get a very important piece of economic and transportation legislation as much away from the cockpit or bullring as possible and to have as much party support as possible. I think that his tactics will succeed and that he is to be commended for following that course.
When the legislation is passed, admittedly the Minister of Transport at some time or other will say what a splendid thing he did, and more power to him. We all try to get ourselves in that position. But every last member of the House of Commons will also be able to say that a very significant role was played by all parties in this house and that this piece of legislation was a credit to parliament as a whole.
This is the plea I make to the Prime Minister and also to the Minister of National
Interim Supply
Defence who has now returned to the house. Would it not be better that national defence policy be the handiwork of all parties if possible? If the Minister of National Defence has come up with a certain program, admittedly unique but something that will stand the test, then nothing on earth will ever knock that program down before a committee, whether the bill is before it after second reading or whether the committee studies it before second reading.
You cannot steal a good idea from a man if it is a good idea. He has nothing to be afraid of if he firmly believes in his ideas and knows that nobody else's ideas will work. He will be able to persuade us that he is right in the normal atmosphere of a committee where we can get at the facts and palaver back and forth much more than we can in this Colosseum of a place. So I make that point.
Should we not be formulating our defence policy before such a committee? Whether we should have unification, amalgamation, or come what may, should not our defence policy have some regard to what the Department of External Affairs has in mind or even some of our domestic departments? Perhaps we should hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this question, and the Prime Minister might also set forth his views as to what he would like to see accomplished by our national defence policy. If we had that sort of approach I believe we would be able to come up with something we could live with, something that would be acceptable from one end of the defence spectrum to the other, from the top, retired echelons down to the bottom serving privates.
During the course of heated debate in this house attacks have been made upon this, that or the other retired officer. These men were good enough to serve our country well and to be given top positions in the Department of National Defence. What has turned them into such dunces overnight? Nothing has. They are as good men now as they were then. But they left or had to leave the forces because of their disagreements with the Minister of National Defence. I think we cheapen ourselves here when we attack these men recklessly, and I am going to say a little more about this in winding up my speech.
One of the points made by the minister was that the views presented against unification or amalgamation are the views of the upper ranks only, but this is not so. I suppose there are about 12,000 men and women in the naval families in Halifax. My colleague and I hear

November 10, 19G6
Interim Supply
from many of them. Since servicemen are forbidden to speak out, usually it is their wives who call us or write letters to us. I can assure the minister that his statement is just not correct. There are a great number of people on the lower decks of the navy who are very concerned about the issue of unification.
The statement has also been made that the burgeoning economic situation in Canada today, is driving people from the services. This is not so either, Mr. Chairman. What is happening to these people, as they will quite frankly tell you, is that they fear what will happen to their careers. Nothing has ever been sufficiently spelled out to them to let them know where they are going so that they can look ahead five years and think what promotion they will have at that time, with added security for their wives and children. I do make that point in all sincerity.
I make this appeal to the minister. I know it will be difficult for him to do so but it would be of immense service to the country and he would get more marks for it than anybody else if he would consider the committee approach to this matter. As I say, if his ideas are as sound as he says they are, no one will ever take them away from him.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, although I am distressed about the attacks made on such people as Admiral Brock, who sits above us, or Admiral Landymore, men who were out where the action was in the North Atlantic during the second world war, you can never take the red badge of courage from a man who has earned it. No words can ever do that. All you do in trying to do so is to cut yourself down a little bit more in size and in dignity.
Would not the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence agree that it would be better to have a national defence policy hewn out by members of all parties? Perhaps some of us would disagree on various points, but at least we would be satisfied that we had been given the chance to put forward ideas as reasonable men and to have those ideas treated as reasonable men would expect them to be treated. Surely every one of us in this house has heard a thoughtful remark that has suddenly changed an opinion. That has happened to me a hundred times and I am better for it as well as for having listened to other opinions.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I suggest that the minister could accomplish much by referring this matter to the give and take of the committee system. When I have
[Mr. McCleave.l
seen the defence committee in action its members have appeared to be a really hardworking crowd. They were not being fractious or political in their views. They were trying to judge what is a paramount issue, national defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to at least part of the remarks of my hon. and genial friend from Halifax. I am sorry I missed that part which apparently was devoted to myself, but I shall have the pleasure of reading those remarks in Hansard.
I was at a luncheon today where I heard what I thought was a very amusing story which perhaps is not irrelevant to this debate, even if it may be considered irrelevant to what I am going to say. The story was told about a small factory in Great Britain with 100 employees, which under the urgings of the shop stewards and with the encouragement of management, had decided to work out a voluntary medical scheme to cover employees. They got all the workers to sign the applications but one; 99 out of 100 signed. But they could not get the hundredth signature. The hundredth man was a sturdy, rugged individualist who would have nothing to do with this collective, voluntary scheme. His fellow workers and the union leaders tried to get him to join but they failed. Finally the manager said he would try his hand and he called in the worker and he said: "Tom, why is it that you will not sign up with the other 99?" Tom said, "Why should I"? And the manager said, "Because if you do not, you will be fired tomorrow". Tom picked up a pen and signed at once and the manager said: "Now, Tom, why did you keep us waiting for two or three weeks before you signed?" And Tom said: "This is the first time the issue has been made clear to me".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There have been 91 speakers in this discussion on interim supply-at least, there were 91. I think I am the ninety fifth or ninety sixth speaker. I doubt my ability to make this issue clear for the first time to the members of the house but I shall do my best.


Michael Starr: Try.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will do my best, Mr. Chairman, to make hon. gentlemen on the other side happy by trying to persuade them to agree that the time has come to finish this debate on interim supply and get on with the business of parliament if for no other reason
November 10, 1966

than, in the language of the hon. member for Acadia, to enable hon. members opposite to go to their convention next week happy.
This is the ninth day of the debate on interim supply being requested by the government for one month. If the debate goes on much longer we shall have to introduce another request for the next month or the next two months. It is the longest interim supply debate in our history for one month's supply.


An hon. Member:: It is on an extremely important subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is most important, but it is interim supply and there are many important subjects to be debated on interim supply, not only one subject. The one subject most discussed on interim supply has already been discussed, as I hope to point out, and will be discussed again in the future. As I have said, there have been over 90 speakers in this discussion on interim supply. In this debate on interim supply-and this is not a debate specifically on defence or on the National Defence Act but a discussion on interim supply-the government has been confronted with a direct challenge. Either we abandon the normal parliamentary practice of this house and of the house at Westminster in regard to the second reading of a bill which is before the house or the supply needed to meet the government's lawful obligations will be denied.
We all recognize that the denial of supply by a majority or, if they can arrange it, by a minority of the house to a government is an established means in our parliamentary history by which the house can assure that ministries remain responsible to the house. I have no complaint about that. That has been used many times in our history and very often to good effect. It can be used, of course, to end the government or to end parliament, though I am optimistic enough to think it will not have that end in this debate. While we recognize the constitutional propriety of using interim supply for this purpose, and I do, we also, I believe, recognize that this is a sanction on the government to be employed only in an emergency situation when a ministry refuses to answer to this house for its conduct or is taking a clearly unconstitutional course. I do not believe either of those considerations apply in connection with the defence bill which has been introduced into this house.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: You missed the whole point of the debate.
Interim Supply


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let us look at the present situation in respect of this matter. The government has brought forward a bill, No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act. It is quite true that the substance, the core of this bill deals with a very important question. There is no doubt about that. It deals with the unification of the armed forces of this country so that they will be able to perform their functions better in the conditions of the future than they might be able to under the organization which has been effective in days gone by when conditions were not the same.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is correct to say that the subject matter of this bill, which is integration leading to unification, has already been referred to a committee of this house, the defence committee of this house, the first defence committee of parliament which was set up to discuss defence policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the white paper on defence was tabled quite a long time ago now, the Minister of National Defence made it clear that the passage of the motion establishing the defence committee would have the effect of seizing the committee of the contents of the white paper. Now, what were those contents in so far as unification is concerned? Are we confronting the House of Commons suddenly with this important question of unification? Are we trying to railroad it through the House of Commons without sufficient preparation?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The white paper on defence was published in March, 1964 and, as I have just said, it was referred to the defence committee. There is a paragraph in that white paper of March, 1964, nearly two and a half years ago, which deals specifically and definitely with unification.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will read the paragraph. It says:	"Following the most careful and
thoughtful consideration-


An hon. Member:: By whom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: By the government, because it is the duty and the responsibility of the government to consider these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution-

November 10, 1966
Interim Supply
Then it goes on to talk about defence policy and defence organization. It continues:
-it is the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff and a single defence staff.
Then comes this sentence:
This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
The first stage was the integration of the service headquarters under a single chief of defence staff. That required new legislation. The legislation was debated by parliament in the knowledge that integration was the first step to unification. That legislation was examined by a special defence committee and passed in July, 1964. It was discussed in this house.
Leading members of the opposition took part in the debate. They indicated they were not too happy about some aspects of integration but they did not feel strongly enough about the matter to ask for a standing vote. It was passed on division. This was the measure with respect to integration and, as the white paper indicated, it was the first step toward unification. There was no discussion about unification at that time.
On May 12, 1966, the Minister of National Defence told the defence committee, and I am reading from the evidence:
We have now reached the stage for final steps toward a single unified force as forecast in the white paper.


Malcolm MacInnis: We cannot believe him any more.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member ought to believe that, because the bill is already before the house.
On June 9, as reported at page 159, volume 7 of the evidence, the hon. member for Queens, who made what I thought was a very thoughtful contribution to this discussion the other day, asked General Fleury who was giving evidence:
Would you care to define for us what the final goal is, in simple terms?
To which the general replied:
Integration was a step toward the final goal of unification and this is a matter of policy on which obviously I am not really competent to comment.


An hon. Member:: No. He was fired for disagreeing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Later, on June 10 as reported at page 185 of volume 8 of the evidence we find the following:


Mr. Brewin:: Is it still planned eventually to arrive at a force which would be unified in practically all of these aspects?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It would be a single unified force, Mr. Brewin. In order to have a single unified force, however, legislation is required.
For the members of the house to take the position that unification is something new which is being forced upon them and that there should be a further opportunity for a committee to discuss this matter before the bill is debated seems to me to ignore the fact that the question was before the committee for a long period when there was ample opportunity to discuss the matter and to call witnesses.
The fact is that the evidence shows that in 1964-1965-and this has already been put on record in Hansard-the defence committee met 36 times after the white paper had been made public and called 41 witnesses. In 1966 it met 15 times and called 34 witnesses including serving officers, retired officers and civilians. The minister and the associate minister appeared before the committee to discuss the white paper and to be interrogated on the question of integration leading to unification 63 times. There were 2,300 pages of testimony taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is why I say that in no time in our history has more information on defence matters, including the government's proposal to integrate and unify the forces, been made available to the house either directly or through a committee on defence.
After all that, a bill was introduced into the house. The government now says this bill should be examined in conformity with the age-old British and Canadian way, that is, at second reading there should be a decision on the basis principle; then it should go to the standing committee on defence and then, if it survives those stages, it should come back for third reading. It has been made clear, and I can confirm it, that the discussion of the bill will not be delayed unnecessarily. There are a few bills which I think should be given priority-
What does the official opposition say to that? Perhaps the chief opposition whip would allow me to quote what he said the other evening as reported at page 9680 of Hansard:
I assure the minister (of defence) that this debate will conclude if he will accept the proposal that I placed before him this afternoon.
Well, that is the basic difference between us. Hon. gentlemen opposite say: "If you will do it our way, we shall let you have supply."
November 10, 1966


An hon. Member:: Exactly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has been argued on the other side that their way is best because it would take the measure which is now before the house and either refer the bill itself to the defence committee before second reading, something which I believe is unprecedented in our parliamentary history-


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT]	(9:40 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is something which can only be done by unanimous consent. That is the rule. Or else-I want to be fair to them-they have said that the subject matter of the bill should be referred to the committee before the bill receives second reading in this house.
What is proposed here, Mr. Chairman, is a radical alteration of our normal parliamentary procedure. I for one would be quite willing to consider such a course. We need not worry about radical alteration to parliamentary procedure when necessary. I for one would be willing to accept consideration of this if the subject matter of this bill had not already been given for over two years in the committee on national defence.
[DOT]	(9:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, under the American system of government-and there is a good deal to be said for the congressional system of government; I think of it more than I used to think about it-through its committees Congress shapes up legislative proposals which, when they have been enacted by Congress, are then transmitted to the executive for administration.
But in our parliamentary system Her Majesty's ministers put before parliament proposals for new legislation. The two houses test and exercise those proposals in well-established ways. In the House of Commons the major steps in the legislative process are: first reading, second reading, the committee stage, report stage and, finally, third reading. Our procedure has developed in this way over the years to assure that the house focuses its attention on the proposals put forward by Her Majesty's ministers who have the constitutional obligation which nobody else has-no one else can take on this obligation except the ministers-to put these proposals forward in the House of Commons.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I should say a word about what I consider to be a false assumption
Interim Supply
on which the opposition has been basing much of its argument. I hope he will not be embarrassed if I quote him again, but the chief opposition whip said the other day:
He-
Referring to the Minister of National Defence.
-knows very well that if he gets his bill through the house on second reading, that is the end of the matter.
Again and again, Mr. Chairman, this misinterpretation of the significance of second reading has been put forward, and we have been told repeatedly that once second reading has been given the matter is then settled. That, in my view, is not correct. The debate on the motion for second reading is one of the time-tested steps by which the house decides what the principle of the law shall be, but it is not final or conclusive. It does not make inevitable or . necessary the eventual enactment of a proposed bill.
By giving a bill its second reading-and the house can always refuse to give a bill second reading, including the defence bill, in which case it is dead-the house agrees that the principle of the bill is acceptable and that the proposal set forth in the bill should then be examined in detail in committee. Then we have the committee stage and then third reading, and it is on the motion for third reading that the house declares whether or not in its opinion, after examination of the facts and details in committee, a bill shall be accepted and passed.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no closure about that. This is the procedure that is normally followed in these matters and which I am suggesting should be followed in connection with the bill we are talking about in this debate.
There is a very conclusive paragraph on this argument that the passage of a motion for second reading is not decisive in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, which we quote so often during discussions in the house. In the 17th edition, page 523, May says:
The various stages through which a bill progresses (normally but not necessarily on separate days) are intended by the practice of parliament to provide so many opportunities not only for consideration, but also for reconsideration... .Thus an entire bill may be regarded as one question which is not settled until it is passed. And hence no objection can be taken to an amendment on any particular stage on the ground that it raises again a question decided on an earlier stage.



[Stage Direction]
November 10, 1966
Interim. Supply
So when we ask, Mr. Chairman, to follow the normal procedure of second reading on the bill we are not precluding discussion in committee and we are not precluding discussion on third reading when the bill comes back from committee.
It has been suggested, and I think it was mentioned earlier this evening, that there are precedents for submitting the substance of a bill to committee before second reading. There is at least one precedent I know, and it has been referred to on several occasions-the railway bill of February, 1965.
An hon. Member:: 1964.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it was 1965 but maybe it was 1964. I agree that the bill which was on the order paper was withdrawn from the order paper and the substance of the bill was sent to a committee. At that stage the government was prepared to state, and it did so state, that it did not have proposals on that matter on which it was so firmly convinced that it was prepared to proceed to the debate on second reading, and therefore it was moved, "that the said bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines." That motion carried and the bill disappeared from the order paper and was never returned to the order paper in that form.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, a better bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the difference between that situation and this is that we are convinced that the policy of this bill-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -we are very sincerely convinced that the policy of this bill is the right policy for Canada in connection with defence matters in the future. We are staking our existence as a government on this policy. That policy will be debated on second reading, I hope, and if the majority of the house do not agree with that policy they will have defeated the government with regard to this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the bill carries on second reading it will go to the defence committee where this matter, as I have already stated, has already been discussed, and if it carries through committee the changes that are made there will be reported back, and then on third reading the house will have a chance to decide

whether the defence bill, as and if it is amended in committee, shall become the law of the land. What can be more democratic than that, Mr. Chairman?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what we have been discussing in the interim supply debate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are concealing the facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am quite aware, Mr. Chairman, that there are very strong and sincere feelings held on the other side of the house about the inadvisability of this policy. There is no doubt about that and I respect those feelings. There will be an opportunity to declare those feelings on second reading.
We are a minority in the house on this side, and if the majority decide this is not the proper policy on second reading they can defeat the bill. But if it passes second reading it can then go to committee where the committee will hear witnesses, some of whom have already appeared there and who can reappear, and there will be an opportunity for everyone to discuss this matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Shut up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was interrupted quite often during my speech and I do this in all fairness to those on that side of the house. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence and all his supporters are so convinced they are right, why do they conceal the facts and hide the facts? Let us take it out in the open and look at it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, a committee of this house, the defence committee, that for the first time in our parliamentary history has been given the authority to discuss defence policy discussed the white paper for many months, and I have just stated that is where all these points of view could be expressed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: With tampered evidence, Mr. Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend wants to take that position he can, but it does not affect my argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now, Mr. Chairman, that is what we have been, not exclusively but
November 10, 1966

primarily, discussing in this debate and that is why this debate on interim supply has gone on for nine days. The ultimate refusal to grant interim supply could be an end of the government. It is possible to bring a government down by a continual and persistent refusal to grant supply. That is the responsibility of those who take the course on the other side of preventing the government meeting its bills. That is the responsibility of those who keep the interim supply debate going to the point where it is not possible for the government to meet its bills. That point has not been reached and therefore I do not feel unduly alarmed about the debate that has been taking place. Nor will we, Mr. Chairman, allow the threat of that ultimate result to turn us away from the course of action and the policy which we believe to be right in this matter. We believe that our course and our policy in this matter are right, and I hope we will have an opportunity before long to explain and defend that policy on the second reading of the bill. We believe, Mr. Speaker, also that interim supply, after nine days, should now be granted so that we can get on with the program before this House of Commons. If that can be done, and I hope it will be done by ten o'clock tonight-
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -it is our intention to proceed with the National Housing Act amendments. There will then be a chance to debate medicare and I hope pass that bill. After medicare we also hope to introduce the legislation to provide supplementary benefits to old age pensioners. There is also, of course, the National Defence Act itself.


Eric Alfred Winkler: When will we have the old age security resolution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: None of these things, however, can be done while we continue to debate interim supply.


Michael Starr: Then why do you not end it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend would like us to end it by abdicating our responsibility as a government and we do not propose to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then, Mr. Chairman, there is one more supply motion and there are estimates to be disposed of. All these are important priority measures. If interim supply is
Interim Supply
granted, we propose to proceed with them and continue in session here until they are disposed of.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is that a threat?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is one point I should like to mention in finishing. There is the question of the effect of the prolongation of this discussion on the holding up of salaries of civil servants. Since the opposition has not seen fit to provide interim supply for one month as requested by the government-and during the last nine days it became clear this was going to be a problem, the nature and extent of which I was not quite sure about myself-I instructed that all money votes be examined in order to determine whether or not it would be possible for the government to meet its present commitments. The commitments in this regard do not cover the estimates which have been passed, and I think that includes about 50 per cent of the commitments. That examination has been made by my colleague the President of the Treasury Board.
The President of the Treasury Board has informed me that after extensive work by his department, which he will be able to explain in detail if required, it is now possible for us to meet the mid-month civil service pay and urgent contractual obligations.


Michael Starr: You could have done it the first of the week.


An hon. Member:: You could have done it today.


Michael Starr: What poor administrators, to hold up the civil service pay.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in a kindly way-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The truth will out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -I suggest to my friends in the opposition that they now stop building up this atmosphere of crisis which may be so helpful next week and that they go to the convention happy and smiling as good Conservatives should. I say this with a real understanding of the strength and sincerity of the feeling held by those on the other side. I appeal to my friends in the opposition that we pass interim supply tonight, that we go ahead with our housing, medicare, pensions and defence legislation, that we go on with the business of government next week. The time will then come when the National Defence

November 10, 1968
Interim Supply
Act will be before this house on second reading-and I hope before the committee on national defence for consideration-when there will be every opportunity to discuss in detail this matter and give it the kind of consideration it deserves and which I submit it has been receiving for the last two years.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I have one very brief question. When may we expect the resolution in respect of the old age security pensions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think we will be able to do this early next week. I do not wish to deceive my hon. friend about times and dates. I know how much importance there is to be attached to that resolution. It is a complicated and difficult matter and we want to handle it in the proper manner. The resolution ought to be on the order paper next week.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is ten
o'clock.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, it is now two minutes to ten, and I should like to say first that I for one did not appreciate some of the humour the Prime Minister endeavoured to interject into this debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You should cultivate a sense of humour.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should also like to tell him that in his attempt to gloss over the number of meetings of the defence committee from time to time he has done a grave injustice to the house, because what he has said is not in accordance with tne facts concerning the deliberations of the committee. I say to him first that defence policy-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I thought I was going to be asked to answer a question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was not asking a question. I have taken the floor.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are many statements in the Prime Minister's speech which cannot go unchallenged. I should like to make it quite clear that he has created a false impression with regard to the work of the committee on national defence. I have been vice chairman of that committee ever since its inception. Long before many of the members were in this house the present Minister of National

Defence discussed defence policy in the estimates committee and in other special committees that were set up for that purpose.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You never let me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister discussed it within his limited ability at the time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: History, not policy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is fine; the minister can leave the chamber now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: It is ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Will the hon. gentleman sit down, please? Is the hon. gentleman rising on a question of privilege or on a point of order?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order.


Michael Starr: It is ten o'clock.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The Prime Minister called it ten o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister called it ten o'clock and I think we should observe the rules.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 6, subclause 2, I move:
That this house continue to sit this day until 12 o'clock p.m.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The Prime Minister called it ten o'clock.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It has been called ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members heard the motion which has been moved by the Minister of Public Works, that this house continue sitting this day until 12 o'clock p.m. Hon. members know the terms of this standing order and that any hon. member of this house can object if he wishes to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Object.
November 10, I960	COMMONS


Jay Waldo Monteith: The minister has gone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has been an objection. According to the standing order if all members do not wish to sit and ten members rise the motion will not be put.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
Chairman called it ten o'clock.
And more than ten members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Ten members having risen the motion will not be put.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Roger Regimbal (Argenieuil-Deux-Moniagnes):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, in the absence of the minister concerned,
DEBATES	9829
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) and his Parliamentary Secretary, it was understood that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes to wait until order is restored in the house. I am sure a good number of his colleagues are very anxious to hear him.


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the minister and of his Parliamentary Secretary, it was agreed that the discussion of this question could be put off until next Thursday, if the house finds this agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the question asked by the hon. member, which was to be debated tonight, will now stand and be considered next week?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Pursuant to section 4 of standing order No. 2, this house stands adjourned until Monday next at 2.30 o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 14, 1966