1966-11-03

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of the standing committee on transport and communications-Mr. Macaluso.
Eighth report of the standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Hales.
Third report of the special joint committee on divorce-Mr. Cameron (High Park).


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to fulfil its commitment to place a bill relating to hate propaganda on the order paper this week. However, I understand that there is no objection to this commitment being fulfilled by having the measure introduced in the other place early next week where it will be proceeded with forthwith. I am also informed that there will be a proposal to refer the measure to a joint committee of this house and the other place.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) is a welcome one. We must preserve and maintain democratic principles within our country, principles without which freedom would no longer exist.
Liberty is not licence. Too many have taken advantage of their belief that it is,-to undermine and destroy by direct attack, imputation, defamation and the like, the reputation of people in a group. I think it is a very good idea to have the study of this bill begun in the other place so that the fullest use may be made of that place. At the same time, through the joint committee of the two houses we will be able to bring about legislation which, while protecting the people of any one race from dangerous propaganda, will at the same time maintain a basic principle, namely the right of freedom of speech.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I greet with pleasure the announcement that this legislation will be placed on the order paper, and if it is likely to be proceeded with more expeditiously in the other place, then we have no objection. We pay the members of the other place, and we have no objection to getting them to do some work.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Remember, they are a group too.


David Lewis: I hope the legislation is based on the very exhaustive report and recommendations made by the committee headed by Professor Cohen. If it is, I am quite certain it will not infringe on any of the freedoms all of us want to protect. I hope there will be a committee set up, and that it will be a joint committee so that we will not have to repeat committee procedure in this house.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we have given our agreement to the legislation which has led to the statement just made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). I believe it will be good to have this legislation referred to the other place, particularly since provision is going to be made for a joint committee in order that full discussion can take place on this very important matter.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



RETURN OF WHEAT BOARD TO JURISDICTION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether a determination has been made by the government to return the Canadian Wheat Board to the Department of Agriculture from which it was removed in 1963 when it was transferred from one department to another?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to make a statement on this matter perhaps tomorrow. I should like to remind my right hon. friend, however, that the Canadian Wheat Board has been under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for many years before 1963 and for many years after.

November 3, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I think the Prime Minister had better get his facts correct. He is not quite correct. It was under the Minister of Trade and Commerce prior to 1960 but not prior to 1963. I should like to ask him now whether he is prepared to confirm what the Minister of Finance said yesterday in Regina. He said that he might not much longer be responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and that an announcement would be made in that connection. Is that statement correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I said, I hope to be able to make an announcement on this matter tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: We know now, anyhow.



BOXING-POSSIBLE DISCONTINUATION OF GRANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he received any communication from the National Amateur Boxing Association protesting the fact that the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport is going to discontinue its grant to that organization? In view of the fact that amateur boxing is more closely supervised and has a lower rate of injury than most other competitive sports, would the minister ask the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport whether it would reconsider this matter or at least give the National Amateur Boxing Association an opportunity to appear before the council to state its case.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Norfolk gave me notice of a similar question. In reply I want to say that at its meeting in Ottawa on October 28 and 29 the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport recommended that future grants be not made to boxing so long as it is carried on under existing rules governing that sport. The council's position was taken as a result of a study, and consideration of the dangers to health which it felt could be suffered from boxing. The council did indicate it would be prepared to reconsider its recommendation if and when the rules governing boxing are changed to remove the dangers felt to be inherent in this sport.

All the recommendations made by the national advisory council at its last meeting, including the one in respect of boxing, are now being considered and decisions will be reached as soon as possible on these points. In the meantime I agree with the suggestion that it would be a worth-while idea for Mr. Decarie, who has been spokesman for the boxing people at the council, to have further discussion on this matter.



GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The hon. minister is no doubt aware of the situation prevailing in northwestern Quebec, where authorities are presently faced with the possibility of a strike in the gold mines at Yal d'Or and Malartic.
Has the hon. minister recently had or initiated talks with officials of the Quebec department of mines, in view of improving the situation in the gold mines, so as to enable the companies to pay better wages to their employees, so that a strike may be avoided?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is taken up whenever I meet with a member of the provincial cabinet.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I know that the matter is discussed whenever he meets with provincial authorities, but can he tell the house whether any conclusion has been arrived at, so that this area may be spared a disastrous strike?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I promise to forward a copy of today's Hansard to the hon. minister of labour for the province of Quebec.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister with some hesitation because I have already asked it about a dozen times in the last six months. In view of
November 3, 1966

persistent reports of security leaks, and today's report concerning coastal charts and maps, and in view of other reports referring to subversive activity of foreign trawlers off our coasts, when does the Prime Minister expect to appoint the royal commission on security which he has promised?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I expect that royal commission to be appointed next week, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR DETAIL CONCERNING INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY GIVEN TO FOREIGN POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister say whether or not the maps involved in this security investigation deal with the coastal waters in the particular areas referred to in the expurgated testimony of Admiral Landymore to the effect that electronic spying devices are being used by Russian trawlers?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister will permit me to reply to this question. I am not in a position to add anything to the answer I have already given in respect of this matter, and I am sincerely of the belief that the right hon. gentleman's sense of justice will support the position I have taken in this regard.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly justice always supports an act of justice, Mr. Speaker, but the amount of information that has been given or leaked out should be available to parliament. I am simply asking whether or not the maps in question relate to the particular areas which Admiral Landymore said were subject to electronic espionage on the part of the U.S.S.R.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I cannot go beyond the answer I have given and I still believe the right hon. gentleman's sense of justice will support my position, that I ought not give an answer until the investigation is complete.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I sent written notice of my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I know he is a very busy man, and I gave him verbal, supplementary notice in the elevator.
Inquiries of the Ministry
My question is based on conversations I had quite recently with some very good friends of mine in Quebec. In view of the statement by Mr. C. H. Millard, who is a member of the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions, that he "deplores the cynical and irresponsible actions of men like Paul Hall and Hal C. Banks, who undermine the good name of unionism and defraud hard working and trusting workers", would the minister inform the house why Mr. Paul Hall is allowed to enter Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to see whether Mr. Hall falls into the prohibited entry classes under the law. Perhaps I will be able to give the hon. member a report on this matter tomorrow.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to direct to the Solicitor General in the absence of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice said in the house some time ago that the government were contemplating laying another charge against Hal Banks so that he could be brought back into Canada to stand trial and be incarcerated again, and the only hold-up was in getting the papers from the Supreme Court of Canada. Has that matter been cleared away, and will the charge now be laid so that justice may be done? The Solicitor General has talked about justice today.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the whole of the premise upon which the hon. member bases his question. I do concede that an answer was given in this house, I believe by myself, that an investigation was being made into the activities of the S.I.U. I believe I reported that the matter had been discussed with officials of the province of Quebec and it was determined that the report did not warrant any further proceedings being taken, and that there were consultations in progress with the appropriate authorities of the province of Ontario. These consultations are continuing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand from the minister's answer that the investigation as far as Hal Banks is concerned is at an end and no further charges will be laid?

November 3, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pennell: I do not think that interpretation can be placed upon my answer, Mr. Speaker. If I may sum up what I said, an investigation was conducted; the report, in so far as it related to the authorities of the province of Ontario, has been discussed with them, and that discussion is continuing. In so far as it related to the authorities of the province of Quebec, it has been decided that the facts do not warrant any further proceedings being taken.



WHEAT-SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA THROUGH CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. During the forthcoming visit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the U.S.S.R., I wonder whether he would make a point of informing the Soviet authorities of the considerable savings which are available to them by accepting the shipment of their purchases of Canadian wheat through the port of Churchill?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister in a position to -


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There seems to be some confusion. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs wish to reply at this time to the question asked by the hon. member for Churchill?


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: He has now had time to think.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that when I am in Moscow the port of Churchill will be very much in my mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Starr:: At least it will give you something to talk about when you are over there.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister [Mr. Woolliams.l
in a position to advise the house of the findings of his departmental audit in connection with the Studebaker-Volkswagen deal; and if not, when will he be able to do so?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: In connection with this particular matter my department is at the present time in consultation with the Department of Justice concerning matters arising out of the investigation of the transactions previously referred to by my hon. friend. The report was received by my department on October 6, and they are in consultation with the Department of Justice in this regard.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Further to his numerous studies, since October 7, and to his recent week-end visit to Jacques Cartier bridge, and in view of the huge bottlenecks caused by the extensive work being carried out on the approaches to Victoria bridge, would the minister agree to remove tolls on Champlain bridge on a temporary basis?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet been able to reach that conclusion.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Can he tell us whether the Canadian coat of arms has been removed from any vehicles that carry mail in Victoria or any other part of Canada or from any receptacle which holds the mail?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Louis Chatterton: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, has the Postmaster General carried out an investigation to see whether or not this was so?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It is not so to my
knowledge, but if the hon. member has any complaints in regard to this matter I would be pleased to make inquiries.
November 3, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
HEALTH AND WELFARE	WATER RESOURCES



MEDICARE-COMPLETION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the concern in some quarters about the fact that the two day break in dealing with medicare has now become nine days, can the minister assure the house that the government intends this legislation to be completed during the present session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer to the hon. member's question is yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether we will get back to it soon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: It is up to the hon. member.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. I am sure we are all very glad to see him back in the house after his illness and I trust that he is fully recovered.
May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he is in the position today to reply to the question put to him some days ago regarding a potential winter works program at Cape Breton Highlands National Park which he very kindly said he would be glad to look into. I am pursuing this question because of letters I received today from the clergy and school teachers in the area of Ingonish where there are approximately 90 people on welfare at present. The situation is serious.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. One of the first things I did when I came into my office this morning was to make inquiries into this very important matter. The three ministers concerned have been discussing it and I hope one of them will be making a statement very shortly.



POSSIBLE ACTION FOLLOWING CONFERENCE ON POLLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Are arrangements being made at the policy making level of ministers or government departments to follow up the conference on pollution which is terminating tomorrow?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but before doing that we thought we would await the results of the conference.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if any tentative or proposed date is now being discussed for such a policy meeting?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not to my knowledge.



DONALD REPORT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT ACTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister, and in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the minister said he would forward the question. May I repeat the question and ask whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can answer it now? I should like to know when the house is likely to hear of any decision made by the government as to its intentions and policies arising out of the Donald report, particularly with respect to the promise made a year ago with regard to certain grants, and the opening of the Lingan mine?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second point, we have already decided we would honour this commitment. With respect to the overall policy, it is still being studied by the cabinet and will be announced in a few days.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It has already been said that the government will honour the commitment. Does that mean the government has decided to open the mine at Lingan and, if so, when will steps be taken to start the work there?

November 3, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I used the word "honour" deliberately. We have made this commitment, and to honour it means to select the best possible way of helping the people of Cape Breton, the people of Nova Scotia, and indirectly all the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: This is Liberal honour.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs is about to leave on a trip to the U.S.S.R., carrying with him the good wishes of all of us, I would ask him whether during the course of his discussions with the leaders of that country he will impress upon them on behalf of the people of Canada that the U.S.S.R. should carry out its pledged word under the United Nations charter and assure to captive countries-the Ukraine, the Baltic states and the like-the right of self-determination?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vil-leneuve.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister that question representing the people of Canada. Will he do that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I thank my right hon. friend for his good wishes in respect of the assignment that I am undertaking on behalf of the government and the people of Canada. My right hon. friend may be assured that all questions which concern the Canadian people in the bilateral relations between our two countries will be discussed during the talks that I will be having with Mr. Gromyko and others.
Likewise we will be concerned in these discussions on behalf of Canada with matters before the United Nations, and with what we feel the international commission in Viet Nam might do. My right hon. friend's question obviously will be one which will be very much in our minds.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give the house the assurance that in the interpretation of any communications that pass between him and the Russian representatives there will be those acquainted with English, Russian, French and also "Martinese"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to assure my right hon. friend that the talks that I will have are talks which the government believes are of great importance at this time to Canada's relations with the other countries in the United Nations. They are also of importance in respect of Canada's concern about the development of certain situations in the world.
The Canadian government will be the last among the NATO group whose foreign minister has recently visited the Soviet union. I know that not only do we have the good wishes of my right hon. friend but that he will also understand the extent to which on the orders of the day it is possible, seriously and responsibly, to deal with such an important matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to assure the minister of the good wishes, of all of us, and I also wanted to be sure that the Russians would understand him, which is something which we in this house cannot do in so many of his replies.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister of external affairs. Since the Soviet authorities are no doubt not mind readers, will the minister speak what is in his mind and ask those authorities whether they will consider giving the people who are now behind the Iron Curtain under that regime the right of self-determination?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have answered that question already, Mr. Speaker, in the way in which it should be answered on the orders of the day, and in respect of a matter involving such great importance. I should have thought, if I may say so, that the reply that I gave would have been understood even by my hon. friend.


Michael Starr: It meant nothing.


John George Diefenbaker: It was simply evasion.



DISCUSSION OF NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF CHINA WITH SOVIET OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, whilst he is in Russia, he will be discussing the nuclear capability of China, and particularly its implications both for the U.S.S.R. and for the western world?

November 3, 1966


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend, who has had great experience as minister of national defence, will appreciate that in the discussion of problems that face the United Nations, indeed that face all the nations of the world, this is one of the subjects which would be bound to be considered.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE POSSIBILITY OF IMPOSITION OF NEW TAXES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Two days ago I heard the minister say that following the federal-provincial conference on tax sharing, from now on the government in Ottawa will have to pay an additional amount of $350 million and will then have to levy further taxes in Canada because the provinces will not assume that responsibility. Can the minister tell us exactly how, in his opinion, the federal government will increase taxes to meet the requirements of the provinces, which he failed to say on television?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member's question is obviously too comprehensive and cannot be put at this time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour, with respect to the appointment of Mr. Quinlan, who is a lawyer, as vice chairman of the Canadian Labour Relations Board.
Can the minister tell us whether, concerning appointment, he took into consideration the representations made by the C.N.T.U. and F.Q.W. to the effect that the officials of the Canada Labour Relations Board should be bilingual?


Mr. Speaker:: That question is not acceptable. The hon. member asks for information regarding an accomplished fact, and I do not think that this is in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I admit it is a question about an
Inquiries of the Ministry accomplished fact, concerning an appointment, but I only wish to know whether the minister has taken into consideration, for this appointment, the representations made by the C.N.T.U. and the F.Q.W. to the effect that authorities of the Canada Labour Relations Board should be bilingual.


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


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we entitled to insist upon bilingualism in any department, and do we have to resort to the order paper to request that bilingualism be respected even in the federal Labour Relations Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no point of order. I said to the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that his question is not urgent and that it could be placed on the order paper. If he feels that there is some urgency, which I do not see, he can discuss it later, and that is indeed what he did by asking that the question be debated on the adjournment motion.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, again on a point of order. I think that the question has been quite urgent for a century. Now, in 1966, this is a matter which should be accepted, and the hon. minister should be allowed to answer this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already given my opinion on that matter.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Labour arising from the displeasure of the C.N.T.U. and thousands of Canadians.
In the future, when the time comes to appoint the members of the C.L.R.B., will the hon. minister consider appointing bilingual members, in order to do away with the interpretation system currently used?


Mr. Speaker:: The question now put by the hon. member is perhaps different from that previously asked by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and perhaps it might be useful for the hon. minister to answer it.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I think that if the hon. member would look at recent appointments to the Canada Labour Relations Board he would find that bilingual qualities have been one of those receiving paramount consideration.

November 3, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC BUILDINGS



DESIGNATION IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention to place the words "Edifice Federal" on all public buildings in Canada even if these buildings are in parts of Canada where the people are English speaking? If so when, and under whose authority, was this procedure authorized?


Mr. Speaker:: I realize that the question is of some importance but in view of the ruling I have just made on the previous question it might be a little embarrassing to accept it at this time. I suggest that the hon. member should either put the question on the order paper, or if it is urgent he could give notice of it and I will see that it is called as soon as possible on the adjournment debate.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
SPRINGHILL JUNCTION, N.S„-REMOVAL FROM SCHEDULE
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister been contacted over the removal of Springhill Junction from the Canadian National Railways train schedule so far as "The Scotian" No. 11 is concerned? If not, will he contact the management of the C.N.R. and obtain a report on this action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I invite the hon. member to place his question on the order paper.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I should like to ask the minister whether he has received petitions from the Junior Boards of Trade of Quebec city and Riviere du Loup as to the permanent berth of the Grande Hermine replica and, if so, does he intend to accede to these requests?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is very much along the lines of one asked previously by the hon. member. It is not extremely urgent and I think it might be placed on the order paper.


James Russell Keays: Would the minister, then, answer this question, which I ask because of our deep concern for the safety of the ship? Can he inform us whether there is likely to be any difficulty about floating it to Montreal? [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question, with respect to that of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays).
Would the minister tell us why the boat has to be towed to Montreal; could he not find a pilot or a captain who would agree to bring the boat to Montreal?



FAILURE OF TELEPHONE OPERATORS TO SPEAK BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour concerning the telephone service of the House of Commons where we feel there is a lack of bilingualism.
Why do we tolerate, as concerns telephone service, persons who still answer: "I am sorry, I cannot speak French", when nobody ever says in French: "Je regrette, mais je ne parle pas l'anglais"? Why does the Minister of Labour tolerate such a situation in the House of Commons?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The staff of the House of Commons is not my responsibility but I can assure the hon. member that if he calls the office of the Minister of Labour he will get a reply in French or English as circumstances require.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) expressing government policy when she said recently that it was not necessary to be bilingual in order to occupy the position of president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
November 3, 1966

Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I do not recall the Secretary of State having made that statement. I would have to consult with her before I could deal with the question.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to look into this matter and give an answer later?



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is now in a position to give a more precise answer to my question of Tuesday last, which he said he would look into? Have any agreements been signed between Ottawa and any of the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan?
Kon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare): The answer is no. No agreements have yet been signed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell us the reason for the delay?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For the past period,
officials of my department have been consulting with officials of the provinces with respect to regulations under the Canada Assistance Plan.
This process of consultation is about concluded, and I hope within a reasonable time to present regulations to the governor in council for approval or otherwise. Following that, it will be possible to sign agreements with the provinces. I would point out that many of the items under the plan are shareable with the provinces back to last April.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would intercede on behalf of young Canadians and help get some action in the matter of a centennial youth parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think I can add anything to what was said by the Secretary of State some days ago.
I believe this matter is being looked into.
Inquiries of the Ministry



HISTORIC SITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Rosetown-Biggar):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house and the nation whether arrangements have now been completed to preserve the Indian shrine known as Mistaseni which lies in the path of the rising waters of the South Saskatchewan river?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: I believe I told the house earlier that P.F.R.A. officials were trying to make some satisfactory arrangements with the local committee-arrangements which will be within the bounds of reasonable expenditure. I believe P.F.R.A. suggested some time ago that a portion of this stone should be saved. Earlier in the year this suggestion was not, I believe, satisfactory to the local committee but I understand the committee is now considering this proposal.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he would allay the concern of so many Canadians who are wondering, since his recent trip to France, how they are going to keep him down on the farm now that he's seen Paree?


John James Greene: I like both.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture can now tell us what the name of the Saskatchewan dam will be? Will it be known as the Diefenbaker dam or as the Gardiner dam?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: My
question is intended for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you asked me to place it on the order paper, but I have since found out that by the time I could get an answer it would be too late. May I ask the Minister of Transport whether he is making any representations to keep trains numbers 2 and 4 running between Sherbrooke and Quebec city, since they are the only passenger trains on that line?

November 3, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I expect to see the president of the Canadian Pacific Railways tomorrow and I will draw the hon. gentleman's representations to his attention.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Has the minister been consulted with regard to substantial lay-offs which have taken place and are taking place at Enamel and Heating at Amherst as a result of a lack of overhaul and repair orders from his department? If so, what action is being taken to rectify the situation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: have no information of recent lay-offs at Enamel and Heating at Amherst. When I do, I will look into the situation right away.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: May I take this opportunity to answer questions raised by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) concerning shipbuilding subsidies in relation to the rate of processing? Since January 1, 1966, 32 applications have been received. Twelve of these have been completed and 20 are still outstanding. Of the 20 outstanding, 19 have been received since September.
The hon. member also inquired whether a letter had gone out from the Department of Industry advising those interested in trawler construction for the fishing industry that there may be some change in the regulations after August 1, 1967. In July, a letter was addressed to those who had inquired, advising them that should there be a change in subsidy rates for fishing vessels such a change would not occur before January 1, 1967.
Since that time, in order to provide greater certainty to those who are planning trawler building programs, it is our intention that the subsidy rate applicable at the time of contract on these steel fishing trawlers completed within two years of the contract between the shipbuilder and the ship owner would apply. The present rate of subsidy is 50 per cent.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the question put to the Minister of Industry by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse), may I ask the minister has he decided what the future subsidy will be, in view of the 50 per cent which he said will apply for two years from the time of the signing of the contract?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision to change the present rate of subsidy.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is he now in a position to answer my question of November 1 with respect to the availability of C.M.H.C. loans, and can he say whether any guide lines have been set?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the first part of the question a day or two ago. With regard to the second part, I can say there were no printed guide lines, but there were a series of meetings at which regional supervisors were present. There was one meeting held I believe the day after I made the announcement in late July, and there have been three or four other meetings since, at which the matter was fully discussed and a course of action agreed upon. This is something on which I could give further enlightenment when the National Housing Act amendment bill comes before the house, rather than on orders of the day.


David Vaughan Pugh: As a supplementary question, were these meetings in closed session, or has the department given publicity on the matter to builders and private persons proposing to build, so that they may have the same information?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, these were closed meetings of officials of C.M.H.C. for the working out of a program for equitable distribution of the funds between the ten provinces of Canada, and the officials have been meeting regularly to discuss developments. The only printed notification that went out to the builders was the one contained in the release to which reference was made in this house the other day.
November 3, 1966



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government house leader. In the orderly conduct of business can he inform us when we may expect the resolution regarding old age security pensions to appear on the order paper?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It
will be placed on the order paper as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether, at the time the agreement was arrived at for the establishment of direct air service from Montreal to Moscow, any undertaking was given, or any impression left that Air Canada would have a monopoly respecting direct flights from North America to Moscow for a particular length of time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


John Angus MacLean: As a supplementary question can the minister say whether the economic feasibility of this service was predicated on the assumption that Air Canada would in fact have a monopoly of direct connections from North America to Moscow for a period of time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think that since that matter was a decision made by the management of Air Canada, who assured us that in their opinion it was economically feasible, this would not be a question that I would be competent to answer, at any rate, without referring it to the management, and I shall bring the matter to their attention.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the question which in his absence yesterday I directed to the Acting
Interim Supply
Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) been brought to his attention, since the Acting Prime Minister said it would receive the Prime Minister's active and immediate consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether my hon. friend would repeat the question?


Michael Starr: Evidently it has not been
brought to the Prime Minister's attention. I asked whether the Prime Minister would give strong consideration to setting up a prices review board, in view of the high prices presently burdening the Canadian people?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already been giving consideration to that matter, along with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and others of my colleagues.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $371,999,867.43, being the aggregate of-(a) one-twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Items for Citizenship and Immigration, Defence Production, Forestry, Industry, Legislation, National Revenue, Post Office, Privy Council and Veterans Affairs, already provided for in Appropriation Act No. 6, 1966, and 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;
[Stage Direction]
November 3, 1986
Interim Supply
(g)	an additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Secretary of State Item 40a (Schedule E) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$713,266.67:
(h)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amounts of Finance Item 15a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40a (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$4,716,666.67;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total amount of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Loans, Investments and Advances Item L32b, for which no proportion is granted-$2,252,250.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
['Agreed.', '\nThe house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.']
Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, at the close of my remarks last night a discussion had arisen between myself and the leader of the N.D.P. concerning price reductions consequent upon the looping of the Trans-Canada pipe line through the United States. The hon. member asked me to substantiate my figures, and this I will do in a moment.
But before I do that I should like to mention that I had raised the question of who was on which side in this battle, so I would like to ask permission of the committee to include in Hansard a list of all those who are opposing the application of Trans-Canada before the United States Federal Power Commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the source of this list?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is a list of names of those people who have intervened before the federal power commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of thing one would normally read in the course of a speech. We agree to table documents from official sources, but if this is just part of the hon. member's speech he should take the time to read the list.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I would think that if a list of persons opposing that application is going to be filed, then certainly at the same time there ought to be filed a list of the persons who are supporting the application, so that hon. members may have full information.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, apparently there is not unanimous agreement. It is not that serious, so I will just read some of the names and let the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam measure who his allies are in this fight of his.

Those who are opposing the efforts of this Canadian company to move western Canadian gas into eastern Canadian markets include the Consumers Power Company of Michigan, the United States coal industry, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, four or five companies from Iowa, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Trunk Line), the State of Texas, and the Texas Railroad commission. There are a lot of others who do not want to see this market in Ontario and Quebec get into the hands of western Canadian producers but want to move back into it themselves, just as they wanted to do some years ago. The full list can be obtained by reading the federal power commission reports.
During the next election, Mr. Chairman, when I go to public meetings attended by the N.D.P. I can just visualize them singing "The Yellow Rose of Texas"-instead of our national anthem, because in this particular fight they are on the side of the Texas buccaneers.


Mr. Peters:: And what did you do for the
Texas buccaneers?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Our record in this matter is clear. We are the ones who set up the national energy royal commission and the National Energy Board, which has the responsibility of protecting Canadian interests. It is a court of record, and this document surely indicates how ambitious they are in protecting the Canadian interests, to the extent-


William Arnold Peters: To the extent that we have to wait for the report of the United States energy board.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -to the extent that every member of the N.D.P. keeps interrupting every remark I make. I know how senstive people are when they know they are on the wrong side of an issue. I never thought the day would come when the members of the N.D.P. would be on the side of the big boys in Texas.
Mr. Chairman, the leader of the New Democratic Party asked whether I could substantiate the statement I made that I thought the price reduction consequent upon the looping through the United States would be in the neighbourhood of 10 to 15 per cent. The Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, under the National Energy Board Act, is a common carrier and has to deal with 11 different zones. I am going to take one zone as one example. I will take the example of the zone around the Sarnia area. You could call it, based on the
November 3, 196G

central point of that area, the storage wells at Dawn. I am using the figures on file with the National Energy Board which are available if anyone wishes to see them. Taking the figures of the National Energy Board, for the first three year period the price at Dawn, the storage wells near Sarnia, is 43 cents per
1,000	cubic feet. After three years the price per 1,000 cubic feet will be 45 cents. This is under the northern line route. Conditional on the new looping line being built through the United States the price will range from 39.15 cents-


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it the wish of hon. members that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle be granted unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was stating that the new contracts, conditionally on the line being built, will range from 39.15 cents to 40.85 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. The mean average of those two prices is 40 cents, and I will call the new price conditional on the new line 40 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. Compared to the previous price this is a difference of 5 cents per 1,000 cubic feet for gas on a firm basis. Then there is an interruptible price of 36 cents m.c.f. In these industrial areas of southwestern Ontario this is very vital because the consumption of much of this gas is on an uninterruptible basis. Let us assume the average price in this zone is 38 cents which is half way between 36 cents and 40 cents. Therefore, on the basis of the cost factor for this one zone we can see that the wholesale price will be down, on the average, about 5 to 7 cents a thousand.
This means that the manufacturers in the whole area served by Union Gas have an opportunity to have reduced prices within this range, and it also means that those who heat their homes in this area would have an opportunity for reduced prices within this range. Under the National Energy Board Act the National Energy Board is required to see that every other zone is not discriminated against. So, these prices will apply back through the whole system, to Toronto, to London, to Sudbury, to the lakehead, to Kenora, to Manitoba and to Saskatchewan. This provision results from the application of the common carrier principle. These figures I
Interim Supply
have quoted would indicate that if you applied the same price reduction to the new line there would be a decrease in cost of 12J per cent, using 40 cents as the base. If you take the 7 cents, there is a 16 i per cent reduction.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the hon. member a question. Has his attention been drawn to page 9386 of Hansard where the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated that in respect of any contracts which already have been in operation in northern Ontario, there is an average reduction of 3 cents.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is exactly what I am saying. Under the National Energy Board Act, if there is any reduction in any zone served by this common carrier, the energy board is required to see that the reduction is backed up along the line. It is only natural that the price will back up in varying degrees almost to Saskatchewan. I am simply saying that the figure I quoted for the Dawn area will affect tne people around Windsor and around Toronto where the greatest reduction will take place, but that some reduction will also flow to the people in northern Ontario immediately. I think I have answered the question of the leader of the New Democratic Party. In other words, there is going to be a wholesale price reduction of, say, 10 to 15 per cent depending on the base figure. If we do not build the south loop and cannot supply the gas to southwestern Ontario and to the Hamilton-Toronto area, then these companies there will have no other source of supply except the United States, because this northern line cannot be built in 1967 when the gas is needed. Once new contracts are signed with the United States pipe lines for three or five years, then we are hooked to those contracts. The Americans will be back into our market. Our consumers will have to pay a higher price, because there is a 3 cent tariff on 1,000 cubic feet. This hits right at the Canadian domestic user.
This strikes also at the Canadian manufacturing companies who are in mortal competition for survival with the American competitors. Our price will be forced higher than the prices of the United States competitors. I simply say that, to me, this is not Canadi-anism. If we take the economic and sensible approach, that gas price will go down 10 or 15 per cent and we will be below the United States manufacturing cost. Then, our industries would have what they always have been fighting for, lower costs. This is the exercise

November 3, 1965
Interim Supply
that we in western Canada have been carrying on for nearly 10 years. In the west we have subsidized the consumers of gas in Ontario and Quebec to build up a market. We are still going to subsidize them under these new prices. We are doing it in the hope that we can give the carriers a chance to compete in the markets with their big competitors in the United States. The F.P.C. protects their people. Why should the Canadian government be the one that rides on the backs of the Canadian companies? This Canadian company is not perfect. In my judgment, in many ways, the company has been very stupid in its behavior, but it is the only true Canadian company we have; it is 92 per cent owned by Canadians now. We had to buy back the shares the hard way.
I am saying simply that I am not against opportunities for employment for those in Windsor, London, Waterloo, Hamilton, Toronto, Oshawa, Ottawa and Montreal. I am not against the nickel workers in Sudbury or the steel workers in Sault Ste. Marie.
Now I should like to put on the record the arguments, pro and con, concerning the pipe line. The arguments against building the loop through the United States are easy to explain. First, it is argued that the line should be in Canada because of the tremendous value of the construction work to the hard pressed people of northern Ontario. The construction work on the pipe line from 1956 on was a great boon to the part time workers of northern Ontario who exist through seasonal employment in the logging industry, seasonal work in the mines, and so on. The question is whether the construction should start now or in three years from now. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is any secret that the second line would have to be built anyway because the demand is growing very fast.
The second argument is that certain of the municipalities in the thinly populated areas of northern Ontario rely principally on the assessments in respect of the pipe line to pay their municipal expenses. I do not blame those councillors and reeves for demanding that the line start in 1967 rather than in 1970. I can see their point. I was born and raised there, and I know the desperate task they have to keep going.
That, however, does not meet the real question. The real problem is to decide what is best for the people in all parts of Canada. It is clear now that if we build the Southern loop next year we can supply gas more cheaply to the people in the north.

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We must get this gas out to the industries. The pulp mills want gas now and the mining: companies want gas now. This gas can be given to them now only if we agree to this loop to the south. We cannot give it to them immediately if we wait three years for this line to the north to be built.
Let me go on to the next argument, and this one has not really been raised in this house. One of the real fears we have, as Conservatives, is that as a result of building this line through the United States we may lose control of this gas. I well remember what happened in 1942 when the United States finally found out there was a war going on and joined in. They cut off the electricity entering Canada and forced Ontario industries to go into a "brown-out." I recall the campaign of that great Conservative leader of the province, George Drew, who wanted hydro development in Ontario so the province would never again suffer a similar brown-out because a foreign country cut off a source of energy.
Because of that fact, I believe this parliament has a right to discuss this matter of control. Under the contract with this Great Lakes company not only does the Canadian company hold 50 per cent of the shares, it has a management agreement under which it controls management. If the F.P.C. should use the power given to it to cut off the flow of gas coming into Canada, it would not mean the same thing as the cutting off of energy meant in 1942, because in this case we put the energy in at the one end and we could simply cut it off there. In that even, the United States would not be cutting off anything.
The greatest argument against United States interference with the flow is a simple one. This year hundreds of millions of cubic feet of gas will flow from Alberta and British Columbia into California and seven northern states. Would the F.P.C. cut off 170 million odd cubic feet of gas going into the market area of Michigan and Wisconsin at the risk of losing hundreds of millions of cubic feet flowing into California and those northern states? It would not be sensible to think that the United States would do that. That country is rapidly becoming a deficit country in resources and energy. It surely will not fool around with that type of thing. I suggest that the question of control can never be finally answered because we do not know what the United States might do. However the common
-November 3, 1966

sense of the situation suggests that that type of interference is over.
In the original contracts, 90 per cent of this gas was to come through to eastern Canada and 10 per cent was to be dropped off in the west. I was not worried at that time because I knew about the tremendous volume that was going from Alberta and British Columbia to California and the northwestern states. Everything was in balance. We are no longer dependent. We have a main line through the north and in three years we will start the construction of a second main line or the "twinning" in the north. This southern looping arrangement will take advantage of the economics of having storage facilities as well as volume flow.
I think I have dealt with these arguments fairly. I now wish to present another argument which has been discussed. All parties were for the northern route in 1954 and again in 1956. We won that battle. We succeeded in getting a line built through the north. As a result of the passing of the National Energy Board Act in 1959 we put control under a tough-minded board.
My only criticism of the actions of that board is that it failed to properly forecast future markets, and warn us of the danger that we would not have enough gas to meet the demands. Apparently it did not require the company to carry out its obligations. The board could have watched the actions of this company more closely.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the hon. member for a moment to say that the National Energy Board maintains that it can prove it anticipated the developing need for gas and informed the company.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It should have started this twinning in northern Ontario three years ago.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All I can say is that if the energy board informed the company, it was lax in not telling the government that the company was not carrying out its obligations.
I have no brief for this company because I feel it should have known ahead of time of this anticipated demand and taken action to ensure we would not be in this position of having to adopt a crash program. I do not think things of this kind should be rushed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sure the hon. member wants to remind this house that the company had a certain amount of difficulty in the United States before putting this project into being.
Interim Supply


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have been pretty hard on the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company, but, I know the whole situation was awkward. I know the company is having a great deal of difficulty, because of the big Texas giants, in obtaining this market. The overall picture is that there are southern and central United States gas fields. We have gas fields in British Columbia and Alberta. Both these interests are fighting for the same market. We are fighting American interests, for this eastern market, and the government has to make sure that our best interests are protected. I simply point out that the National Energy Board has been particularly tough in favour of our interests. I am glad to say that we have some guarantee that our public interests are being protected.
Let me refer to arguments for the southern loop. I do not think there is any reason why we, as Canadians, cannot today look at the situation from the point of view of Canada's interests. The Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company is now a Canadian company, being 92 per cent owned by Canadians. As the Borden royal commission pointed out in volume I of its report, Canadian interests bought out United States interests in this company. It is now a Canadian company and we must support it, as miserable as we may think it is.
Another argument for the southern loop is that it would be cheaper and would provide cheaper gas in eastern Canadian centres to the extent of 10 per cent to 15 per cent. It would also be quicker to build in that we could get gas to storage in less than a year as compared to a minimum of three years by the northern route.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I hope I am not abusing the committee's time by answering these questions.


Murdo William Martin: When the hon. member refers to the speed and economy of the southern line, is he talking about building a line in the south as compared to building a new line across the north, or twinning the present line across the north?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know there must be a second line through the north. What I am saying is that the company was not confident enough about future needs to build a bigger line at the beginning. The line in the north should have been much bigger. In the meantime we have built up a gas market and we

November 3, 1968
Interim Supply
do not want United States encroachment. The present emergency must be met now. The arguments for the southern route are that it can be built quicker and cheaper. To get lower costs there are two basic, fundamental principles that must be remembered; volume and load factor. Lower cost will enable us to put gas into our industrial areas and reduce the cost of gas in the north. We will then be able to compete efficiently with our United States competitors.
If we can do this we will create more jobs and have a trade advantage over the United States. We will also help the domestic home owner. Another reason in favour of the southern route is that we can move quickly and stop United States penetration into Canadian markets. Seventy per cent of our total Canadian energy market lies between Windsor and Quebec. This market is of great value to the interests in Texas as well as those in Alberta. We must support the Canadian interests in serving this market.
The western Canadian interests in Alberta subsidized the creation of this market over a period of ten years, and they are prepared to continue this subsidization. However, they want in return an opportunity to eventually get a fair price for their products.
Another reason for supporting the southern route is that it will make gas available in the north immediately and that area is desperate for gas because of the growth in the Timmins, Cochrane and western Quebec areas where there are pulp mills and mining industries. These demands are far greater than anyone might have expected.
The only way we can serve this rapidly growing area is by getting gas into the southern areas, which is the premium market, and thereby free more gas from the northern line. If the southern loop is built, one must not forget that gas will then be three cents cheaper in the north, and this surely is of some advantage to the mining industry and the pulp mills.
Another reason for supporting the southern route is that, for the first time, gas will be made available to the city of Sault Ste. Marie which is one of our great steel cities. It has not been served by gas, but this will give it a chance to get Canadian gas at an advantageous price, having in mind the provisions of the National Energy Board Act guaranteeing non discrimination in prices. In this way they would get cheaper gas than areas further toward the centres of Ontario and Quebec.

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Fifth, the southern loop would make possible and more feasible the installation of pipe lines from Montreal to Quebec city. I know this question has been discussed for many years, but with the present price structure it is not feasible or economical to build a line around the south shore of the city of Montreal to Three Rivers and Quebec and one line around the north shore. However, this new price structure would make it possible for the government of Quebec to deal with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, or whatever distributing agency is set up, on the basis of a price which would give them a chance of being in a profit position in the next few years.
In this respect, I make a special plea for the people who live on the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence beyond Montreal. They have a right to the development that will come from the economic and efficient use of natural gas. Not only would the cost of heating their homes be reduced but the provision of gas would benefit the light industries in these areas, which would mean so much in raising the standard of living of their people. This is something we could do that would help our country to develop more equally. I enter a strong plea for the people between the cities of Montreal and Quebec.
Sixth, it would help find a market for western producers. As was illustrated in the speech of the hon. member for Bow River, our supplies have escalated, and I know they will continue to escalate. The ratio of gas exported to our capacity to produce is growing smaller all the time. We would like to expand our markets and keep our exploration going. I will not say any more about that aspect of the matter, Mr. Chairman. We hope that if this market builds up we in the west will some day obtain a fair price for our gas.
The seventh point-and this is the most important one-is that this loop would fit in with a long range energy policy for Canada. A good energy policy for Canada should have these three principles: First, the supply of energy in Canada should be available to Canadians first for as long ahead as we can see. Whether we look to the year 2000 or 2100, the first principle should be security of supply for any type of development that occurs in the next 100 or 150 years. We can make this possible. The second principle of energy policy should be that our Canadian energy should be cheaper in Canada than it is to our competitors anywhere in North
November 3, 1966

America. We have so much of this energy, but if we are not careful it will pour south and not only will Canadians not have a chance to get it back but if some is fed back from the United States we will pay more for it.
So the first two principles are, availability of gas to Canadians first and, second, cheaper gas for Canadians. The third principle has not been put into effect as yet, but I hope that one day we will have in power a government that will put it into effect. We should utilize the east-west connections. This would provide the mechanisms cheaper gas and cheaper energy. We should use the mechanisms we have set up to bargain with the United States in order to obtain a higher return for all the energy exported from this country. In this connection, we should use our bargaining power as a Federal government and not leave the bargaining to the provinces or the private Canadian companies producing energy. I believe the Canadian interest demands that we take a national interest in bargaining for our energy, and the National Energy Board Act provides the machinery whereby we can carry out this bargaining.
The three principles are clear. First, availability of supply to Canadians first and, second, always at a reduced cost to Canadians. Then, we should use the bargaining power of the nation to make sure that our competitors always pay more for energy if we export it. This principle applies not only to gas. We have the main line for gas in Canada now. We eventually must have a main line for oil in Canada. We have to make our deal with Venezuela, not with the Texas Railroad Commission which now determines who buys and sells in what markets around the world. We acted independently in 1960-61 with regard to a national oil policy. It is time to review that policy, not in the sense of selfish nationalism but to make sure that Canadians not only gain access to their own product but obtain it at a cheaper rate than our competitors pay. When we bargain with another country we must bargain from strength.
Another form of energy which we must safeguard is electricity. In September, 1959, the then Prime Minister announced that we had to work toward a national transmission power grid. I believe this announcement was made at Kitimat. This is what our party has done in this field. Oil, gas and electricity are forms of energy. There must be east-west
Interim Supply
connections for them. Only then can we develop the lines to the north and south safely. The east-west connections must be developed in order that Canadians may gain access to these forms of energy first, at a lower cost, and in order to provide us with bargaining power. In the past the bargaining is usually carried out by the provinces or those companies which own the energy.
I place these principles in regard to a long range energy policy before the committee, because if I have any quarrel with the minister it is that he has not yet had time or has not yet seen fit to put before the nation his concept of a national energy policy. We should like to know where we are going in this connection. We should like to know the thinking of the National Energy Board and the government in reference to these resources, so that parliament may deal with these questions.
I am grateful to the committee for extending my time. I should now like to place before the committee a brief summary of my points. We have today the great gas areas in the central and southern United States. We have the great gas provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and the Territories. These areas are engaged in a struggle, through the private companies, to gain control of the markets in California and the central and eastern part of this continent. We know this is a struggle between powerful giants. There are many such giants in the United States -Tennessee, Panhandle, El Paso, among others. In Canada we have really only one giant selling eastward, namely, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Regardless of what we think about this company, we have no choice as Canadians but to back the Canadian giant in this fight, particularly for a Canadian market. That is the first thing I say in summary, Mr. Chairman.
Those in the east should know that we in the west have gladly subsidized the building up of markets in Ontario by accepting a much lower price for sales into this province than we could obtain by selling to the south. We have done this willingly as Canadians, and are prepared to continue doing it; but we would like to see this problem handled economically. We know that if we could get the price down in Ontario and Quebec, the volume of sales would climb dramatically. This would mean a lower cost per unit. Then perhaps we could lower the price still more and obtain a better return in the west at the same time.

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
I know that this whole program is ordinarily left to the National Energy Board. Last March I rose in the house in chagrin because this Canadian company, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, endeavouring to bring Canadian gas into Canada, had to have its application approved by the F.P.C. I know that under United States law due process of law must be applied to every pipe line moving through the United States. But this was Canadian gas which would be going to Canada. I thought, as the Borden commission recommended, our government should have gone to the United States government and said: This is really a matter of border accommodation. Let one of our representatives on the National Energy Board sit with your F.P.C. to watch the proceedings; and when we have an application for one of your operations to come through our country, you can send one of your people up here to watch our operations. But do not make this Canadian company go through the tremendously expensive and detailed battle with these powerful American giants, which battle will go on for months, when we desperately need this gas in eastern Canada.
The Minister of Finance did not see any loss of Canadian sovereignty. I can understand that when we move gas from one part of Canada to another, and as a courtesy also move it through the United States, we have to go through the long procedure which the United States authorities require, naturally, to protect their interests. But this was a Canadian matter. If the United States authority objected to 10 per cent of the gas being dropped off, it could have been cut to 5 per cent of whatever amount was needed to satisfy the people in the area through which the line ran.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
They have no moral right to interfere with Canadian business. Technically this is not an infringement of our sovereignty but in a moral sense and in a neighbourly sense it is. On this issue I do not blame those members for bringing briefs here from their counsellors in the north who want construction to start this year instead of in 1970. I do not blame them for backing up that stand, but I ask them to look at those with whom they are standing. I would not want to be caught standing with the opponents of Canada on this issue.
I would also ask them to look at the price of this project. Surely this is a serious consideration in view of the high prices that now

prevail. People are paying high prices to keep their families in the cities and it is our responsibility to make it possible for them to do so. This applies to everyone, to the working people, to clerks in stores and to everyone else. Whenever Canada is pressured by high prices, as it is today, surely we should support every move to reduce those prices.
Mr. Chairman, I have a suspicion that this whole row in Canada did not develop in support of the Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line's opposition to this movement of gas to eastern from western Canada. I know that Panhandle wishes to return to our market in a big way.
I think the whole battle started because a group of politicians were fighting over one seat, and they thought they could have the local battle moved right into the federal parliament. But surely the interests of Canadians are more important than the fortunes of the Liberal or NDP parties in some northern constituency. Everybody knows the seat to which I am referring.
I think the government has been weak. I do not think the government's first statement was thought out very well and whoever wrote it deserves the criticism it received from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The minister will never be able to explain it away.


An hon. Member:: But he did.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I do not even want to start discussing this subject. I believe in peace, order and good government. I have exposed the government's shallowness of judgement. I thought it had enough criticism from the leader of the New Democratic Party. When he began to question the minister the latter must have realized he had no answer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You quoted it yourself.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In September I listed the eight points on which I thought the government should change its mind. I congratulate the government for changing its mind, but I do not congratulate it for being so weak. Although it realized what the issue was, it got us into this whole mess. This type of decision should be under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board because political pressures should not be allowed to decide the future of this country.
Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with some feeling on this subject because I am convinced that somebody should speak for the consumers of Ontario and Quebec. I am speaking also for the many Canadians who
November 3, 1966

want jobs in the future. Once we achieve a lower price structure for energy than the one in the United States we will have a competitive advantage, and it will mean more jobs for Canadians. Above all I think I am speaking for the people of northern Ontario who, first of all, want cheaper gas and more gas now. They do not really want to wait three years for gas and pay higher prices now and later. I am a Canadian first and foremost. I have tried to bring out all of the facts. I hope that, on that basis, this southern loop will be supported.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the hon. member a question before he sits down? He has made a number of prophecies regarding gas being brought in by the northern line and how long it will take. Would he like to make a prophecy as to when he thinks a decision will be made by the national energy board in the United States on whether or not they can sell gas to the United States through that line?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think that is the crux of the reason I am pleading so hard. The F.P.C. has had this application before them for over a year. Now it is being held in abeyance because the opposition to this scheme sees this debate in the house as a chance to bring in arguments which would hold it up for another year. If we do not have that gas in the next few months, United States pipe lines can move right in tomorrow and supply the market. You cannot blame them for trying to out-deal us. This must be clear to the F.P.C. Surely, if the government went to the F.P.C. and said: "Would you please expedite this matter", they would throw out these extraneous applications which were brought in by the competitors to this route and come to some conclusion. I would not even begin to say when a United States court of law will hand down a decision. I would hope they could do it by December or January of this year.


William Arnold Peters: We could build a line in the north much sooner. It would take much longer to get a decision from the United States.


Mr. Choquelte:: Mr. Chairman, if I
may, I would like to deal with a matter entirely different from what has been discussed during examination of interim supply. In fact, I would like to call the attention of the house to the matter of railway crossings 23033-600
Interim Supply
which is daily becoming a matter of national urgency, in view of the numerous tragedies which occur everywhere and the terrible calamities which have struck our people, particularly during the last few weeks.
There is no doubt that highway safety, as a whole, is a major concern of all authorities, of all specialized organizations in that field, and the danger that railway crossings represent is a distressing and alarming part of the highway safety problem.
Over the past 15 years, that is between 1950 and 1965 inclusive, car-train collisions at railway crossings have been responsible for 2,694 deaths in Canada. In the province of Quebec, more specifically, there were 617 fatal accidents due to collisions between trains and motor vehicles.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This percentage may not be very large compared to the countless tragedies taking place on our highways, but it is nevertheless quite an alarming figure which calls for special attention, I am sure, from the authorities concerned. That is the reason for my short intervention this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to outline this alarming situation by taking my stand on undeniable figures, and not by complaining, which is so characteristic of the province of Quebec. There is one thing which strikes one's imagination when one reads the annual report of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada for the year ending on December 31, 1965. We can see-and I do not want to be accused of being a secessionist, or one who insists persistently on Quebec's rights-that figures are eloquent and prompt us to say categorically that Quebec has not been given its fair share of the grade crossing fund.
Mr. Chairman, as a basic remark, may I point out that safety signals placed at grade crossings are installed under the grade crossing fund, to which the Board of Transport Commissioners, or the federal government, as you wish, contributes 80 per cent. As can be seen on page 37 of the board's report, Ontario received since 1909, when the grade crossing fund was set up, the amount of $54,195,379.99. On the other hand, the province of Quebec received $15,506,565.96. Ontario and Quebec account for 34.5 per cent and 28.9 per cent respectively of the total population of Canada. There is a discrimination there, if we consider that Ontario received $54 million and more since 1909 while Quebec received $15,506,000 only.

November 3, 1966
Interim, Supply
We are justified in concluding from these figures that the province of Quebec did not get its fair share. There is an explanation to this. When it is necessary to provide protection at grade crossings, the Board of Transport Commissioners, through the grade crossing fund, pays 80 per cent of the cost, whether it be for signal fights, an underpass, an overpass or some other protective device. On the other hand, the railways must contribute 15 per cent and the local authorities, either the province or the municipality must contribute 5 per cent of the cost in the case of signal fights, and 7.5 per cent in the case of an underpass or an overpass. The maximum amount the Board of Transport Commissioners is allowed to spend for the construction of an underpass and an overpass is $500,000. When it comes to building very expensive works, which sometimes result in expenditures of more than $1 or $2 millions, it happens that the municipalities cannot afford to spend more than a definite amount and that is the reason why those municipalities which cannot afford to spend the necessary amount to meet the required condition of 5 or 7.5 per cent do not ask for adequate protection. Therefore, no request having been made, the railway grade crossing fund is not called upon to contribute to the cost of the facilities which should be built but are not because the municipality, the local authority concerned, is too poor to assume its share of the necessary contribution under the present act.
Therefore, concluding that Quebec did not get its fair share, an improvement is called for, an amendment to the act is needed. At the present time, three authorities are called upon to contribute: the railways, the provincial or municipal authorities and the Board of Transport Commissioners.
When a matter as urgent as the security and life of others is concerned, an administrative simplification is needed, on the one hand, and a single authority should be called upon, if not to decide unilaterally, at least to contribute as a single source of income in the expenditures resulting from the construction of the said protective system. That is the problem which arises and that is the reason why Quebec did not get its fair share from the railway grade crossing fund.
I therefore, call upon the authorities to study that very urgent problem and thus prevent those mass killings which we have to deplore so often. I am thinking in particular of the frightening tragedy at Dorion; I am

also thinking of the tragedy at Val Alain, in the riding of Lotbiniere; I have in mind also the recent tragedy which happened at Mont-magny the day before yesterday when a train was going at the allowed speed of 50 or 60 miles an hour in a city where there are no signal lights. One has the right then to sound the alarm and say that there is a very urgent problem which must be solved as efficiently as possible.
There are some possible solutions; a great number of solutions have been proposed. I would like to mention, for instance, what some safety organizations recommended, that is the compulsory stopping of all cars at level crossing where there are signs only. There are several level crossings where there are signs and, to prove it, I am using the statistics for 1965. In the province of Quebec, out of 33 deaths due to accidents at level crossings, 23 took place where there were signs only. That is certainly conclusive evidence that mere signs do not give adequate protection.
In the province of Quebec, in 1965, out of 153 people injured in accidents at level crossings, 85 were injured where there were signs only. Signs are not an adequate protection. They just say "Railway Crossings", and quite often drivers see them but do not stop. For the information of those who complain that French signs are put up on federal buildings in the Catholic and French speaking province of Quebec, I point out that only the words "Railway Crossing" appear. And not a single French Canadian member has complained fanatically, as some hon. members opposite have done because a sign saying: "Edifice Federal" was put up on a federal building in a supposedly bilingual country. There is no fanaticism on the government side, Mr. Chairman; we want to respect both languages.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We are proud, we are pleased that English is used in Quebec. But we should also like to see some French in the English speaking provinces, so that the bilingual character of our country might be respected.
Enough of that digression, and back to the heart of the matter. I was enumerating the main solutions which have been suggested. There should be a compulsory stop for all automobiles and a warning signal equipped with a light, in such a way that drivers would have to stop and look.
Second, and I insist on this point, all road signs should be removed and replaced if
November 3, 1966

possible, by warning lights. Now, installation of those lights might run into exorbitant expenses; according to the experts, this might cost $40,000, $45,000 or even $50,000.
There are 30,000 grade crossings in Canada. If the figures are accurate, Mr. Chairman, at 20,000, that is, two thirds of them, there are only signs. I have here the figures for the province of Quebec only. Total grade crossings in Quebec: 3,483; signs, 2,040, almost two thirds; flashing signals, 829; overpasses and underpasses, 448; gates, 68. That is the protection given in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Maiheson:: Shame.


Auguste Choquette: In agreement with the member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) who has always understood the problems of Quebec, I say "shame" too, Mr. Chairman. Let us, therefore, remove that cause of shame which has often resulted in such unfortunate tragedies that often make the headlines in the papers.
Another solution: a reasonable speed limit for trains. It is certainly excessive when trains, in a municipality such as Dorion or Montmagny, are authorized to travel at 50 or 60 miles per hour. A car driver travelling at such a speed in a town like Montmagny would not only be charged with dangerous driving if arrested after killing someone, but would also be charged with criminal negligence.
Railway companies have full and complete control over the railway, no matter where it is located. Trains can pass. They are above humanitarian principles, so to speak. They do not have to worry, the road is there. The trains can travel at the legal speeds of 60, 70, 80 miles per hour, and nobody will stop them.
Mr. Chairman, that is deplorable. In such a case, strict legislation is a must. There must be established a reasonable limit to force trains to slow down at those perilous places, that is grade crossings.
Another solution is to install rotary lights on locomotives. That would not be so expensive. But there is no doubt that a rotary light on a locomotive would get the driver's attention.
I would not want to appear too partial. I have had the opportunity to know a person whose proposed solution was convex mirrors. I have referred to that in the house in the past.
Interim Supply
Again, sir, this solution is not expensive. Convex mirrors gives a view in both directions, so that one can see approaching trains.
To the traffic lights, we can add the convex mirrors; to the traffic lights and the convex mirrors, we can add the rotating lights. Maximum safety is required in those places.
Coming back to what I said earlier, administrative simplification will make it possible for a single authority to decide, or at least to pay in that regard. Those are tentative solutions upon which we must insist and I believe that if only one authority paid for the installation of protection systems, Quebec could get back what it has lost since 1909, namely the amount which normally it would have received from the railway grade crossing fund.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I believe that those few solutions, which I wanted to offer in all humility, if considered in depth, since the problem is urgent, could avoid several of those tragedies.
I should also like to emphasize that the grade crossing fund provides at the present time an inadequate amount: $15 million a year. I am not speaking for Quebec only but for Canada as a whole, $15 million a year.
When one thinks of all the highway safety campaigns. Some even advocate setting up a royal inquiry on highway safety. Such inquiries are unnecessary. We already have too many at the present time. And whom do they benefit? The lawyers, in most cases, and practical solutions do not come as fast as we would like them to. I am not afraid to say so, because I know that it is true. I know that this pleases the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette), I know that he would be in favour. There are some practical solutions ready made, which could be implemented. And since the railway crossing problem is part and parcel of the overall problem of highway safety, therefore let us not lose any time and consider all those solutions provided by safety organizations and let us implement them without delay. There is no need to wait for the result of inquiries. In Dorion, the inquiry will show that there was an accident with casualties. But what we want is a solution which can be applied at once. All those solutions have been clearly and expressly suggested, so that the authorities when contacted should be aware of them already.
I want to say it again, because it is beyond1 question and it has been proven in the report of the commission on transportation, since

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
Quebec did not get its share, if we apply all the solutions offered from all sides, Quebec will be in a position to get back the moneys it did not receive and in doing so, we shall have greatly served the humanitarian cause.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, during the discussion on estimates, I wish to deal with two subjects: national defence and the recent federal-provincial conference.
Over the past few days, several speakers have referred to differences of opinion which have come about between certain officers in our armed forces and the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer).
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I,	for one, agree with the statements of the hon. Minister of National Defence and the hon. Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) in connection with the reasons for integrating our three armed services and in respect of the feelings of resentment between the hon. minister and certain officers in the armed forces.
I accept, Mr. Chairman, these statements made by persons in authority here, in this house, because I feel that governmental and popular authority should supersede our armed forces and their officers. As a matter of fact, these people must serve our population. It would be unfortunate if here, either through weakness or carelessness, we let it become an accepted fact in this country, as has been the case in a number of countries, in Latin America and in Eastern countries, for instance, where the army and its superior officers constantly stood up to the government in office and took advantage of specific crises, economic or otherwise, to take over administrative authority.
Well, I commend the hon. minister's firmness in this matter, and I wish to assure him he has my support. On the other hand, I wish to remind him that the government should consider reducing even more the national defence budget. In the estimates brought before the house by the hon. Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) some time in March 1966, again we see that the budget for national defence is too high considering the size of our country.
Indeed, out of every dollar spent on administration, 19 cents go towards national defence, 14 cents towards the public debt charges-it is fantastic that we should have to pay 14 cents out of every dollar for the national debt-and only 6 cents to the

provincial and municipal administrations. Glancing at the budgets for national defence throughout the years, we see that, in 1938, it amounted to $34,432,023; in 1941, during the war, to $1,339,674,152; in 1965, to $1,535,634,697; in 1966, to $1,561,385,193; and, for 1967, climbing even higher, it reaches $1,572,690,000.
We note that, in peacetime, our expenditures for national defence increase constantly and that they even exceed those for 1941 when Canada was at war.
I understand that the minister pointed out in his presentation that he had reduced by
23,000	the number of personnel in the armed services, thus saving the country $150 million. But what the minister saves in a way, he does not save for the treasury but spends in his department, in other areas, for equipment.
Canada becomes involved in all sorts of military undertakings. The government buys airplanes or experiments with some war devices. Now, these often prove unsuccessful and lead to waste. More often than not, when this equipment is fully developed, it is already outdated by newer material which is more advanced and more precise. The government should take a second look at its policy respecting national defence. It ought to cut public expenditures in order to use those savings for the well-being of the Canadian people.
Mr. Chairman, there is no reason to spend so much money in peace time: $1,572,690,000 in 1967. I believe that we should reduce the present budget of the Department of National Defence by at least 40 per cent, while taking into account the real contribution of Canada on the world scene.
I know very well that Canada is a member of various international organizations, and that it is the neighbour of the United States, but thousands of Canadians are of the opinion that we should limit our activities outside Canada, especially in the military field.
I cannot accept the statement made by the Associate Minister of National Defence, which is to be found on page 9396 of this session's official report, in which he pointed out with emphasis that we had armed forces in Cyprus, the Negev desert, West Germany and that we were defending Canada by having Canadian forces in those countries. Personally, I am not convinced that by moving our Canadian forces in such numbers outside Canada, we are defending Canada directly. On the contrary, if we are there, it is because of questionable ties.
November 3, 1966

Canada directly. On the contrary, if we are there, it is because of questionable political ties.
I would appreciate it very much if the hon. minister and the government considered, from now on, reducing our expenditures abroad. All the money we could thus save. With a billion-dollar budget, Canada would be able to meet all its obligations according to its capacities and ear-mark such savings for high-priority problems concerning the whole Canadian people. Such high-priority problems are related to poverty in Canada, to the economic and political fields. Numerous investigations for some years have shown that millions of Canadian people are living in poverty.
Now, the government should save more money by reducing the expenditures of the Department of National Defence. In spite of all requests made by several hon. members, the government still refuses to increase old age pensions immediately to $100 at least, without a means test. Mr. Chairman, this is essential and meets the needs of our older citizens, and it is also a patriotic gesture towards them.
The money saved could be well spent on relieving the poverty of many Canadian families, for example by increasing family allowances and veterans allowances.
It is all very well for the Department of National Defence to undertake, often impulsively, so many fruitless experiments with military equipment, but it should save money in order to provide better pensions for those who fought in the last world war and came back disabled. These Canadians deserve better treatment from the Canadian government.
With these savings, I think that the Canadian government could fulfil its responsibilities by helping all these people more. Charity begins at home. Charity properly practised should first consist in raising the standard of living of the people of this country.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Another high-priority problem, which the government should endeavour to settle and for which could profitably be used the savings made with respect to national defence, is related to the economic field: price increase and inflation. We do not have enough time this afternoon to dwell on those questions, but those are the facts. We see more and more in the main Canadian cities, thousands of housewives grouped together to protest against supermarkets, and this is the most
Interim Supply
direct way of protesting against price increases. And what is the government doing about this alarming problem? It barely admits that there is some inflation. The government sees that productivity in Canada is not increasing as fast as prices, since price increases exceed by 3 per cent our productivity increase. Now, a vast and prosperous country like Canada should urge our government to increase our productivity and, in my opinion, the best way to do it would be to prompt our industries to hand over more money to the provinces so as to enable them, within their respective territory, to provide assistance at every economic and industrial level and thus spend more money in the field of scientific and industrial research.
Another high-priority problem is to be found in the political field, and I wish to refer briefly to the recent federal-provincial conference. As I said earlier, in the latest estimates of March 1966, only 6 cents out of every dollar have been allocated to the payments made to the provinces; following the slight increase offered to the provinces during the last federal-provincial conference, Ottawa's contribution to the provinces will perhaps reach 7 or 7.5 cents for every dollar spent. That is still not enough. The last federal-provincial conference showed that the provinces and municipalities will be increasingly short of money and that in 1972, their deficit will reach almost $2 billion, whereas the federal government will probably have a $1 billion surplus.
In spite of all those findings and figures divulged to the ministers of the crown by the tax structure committee, in spite of all the pressing and increasing needs of provinces and municipalities, the present government missed the finest opportunity to create harmony in the country, to be fair and to share out equitably the fiscal fields in Canada, so as to enable all institutions which will be faced with more problems within the next five years, to meet their obligations.
At this federal-provincial conference, the spirit and the letter of the 1867 constitution continued to be repudiated as regards adult education, assistance to higher education, research, culture, tax sharing, on the basis of needs, and the obligations of the provinces. Ottawa ignores the real principles of federalism, in its federal-provincial conferences. This government refuses to create a parliamentary committee to modernize our Canadian constitution in accordance with the problems of

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
1966-67. This government simply holds federal provincial conferences from time to time where it takes autocratic attitudes which are highly inconsistent with the application of true federalism.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the principles of true federalism include the following ten features: independent equal governments; a clear-cut division of taxation powers; a balance between the different governments; the supremacy of the constitution; the objectivity of the courts; the expression of freedom and security; a pluralist concept of the common good; the bringing together of ethnic groups rather than their unification; residual powers left to the provinces and a Senate to which provinces could also appoint members.
Those are the true principles of federalism. This government refuses to tackle the issue, to enable us, as legislators, in this house and in the other place, to define the Canadian responsibilities according to the principles of a true federalism.
On the contrary, even at that last federal-provincial conference, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) maintained an unbending attitude. He could see, as well as all the Canadian people, as all the provincial ministers, the increasing provincial and municipal responsibilities and needs and in spte of such bare facts, the Minister of Finance adopted an utterly miserly and adamant position; thereby, and with the support of his government, he has increased tensions in Canada, which prevent the achievement of national understanding and unity in the full sense of the word.
Even though the ministers of this government may talk sometimes, with respect to that federal-provincial conference, about a new federalism, a democratic federalism, as the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) called it, I say that such a term is being ridiculously used and that, on the contrary, the position assumed by this government and its reluctance to try and understand the problems with which this country, the provinces and the municipalities are faced, are making of this federalism one that is not new here in Ottawa, one that I would call an autocratic federalism.
I must say I am also disappointed in the attitude of the hon. ministers in the present government who come from my province. They knew this was an excellent opportunity to assert themselves, especially in view of their number within the Liberal party; but,

once again, we witnessed silence, resignation and submissiveness. In acting like this, the hon. ministers who come from my province certainly did not fulfill the aspirations of Quebec, to which province they will have to answer at the next national election.
Even the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said this week to the Richelieu Club of Cap de la Madeleine that our province and its leaders were not politically mature and only engaged in taken struggles. This statement is indeed regrettable, Mr. Chairman. I also deplore the fact that the hon. members from the province of Quebec, because of their appointment to Ottawa, accuse the government of Quebec and its leaders, whoever they may be, of being politically immature, whereas we know that for a 100 years-and I say this without political partisanship, whether under Mercier, Gouin, Taschereau, Duplessis, Sauve, Lesage or Johnson-while the premiers have accepted the terms of the confederation pact of 1867, the leaders of the province of Quebec have always shown themselves to be politically mature and honest by adhering to the terms of the confederation pact of 1867.
And when I see the hon. members for the province of Quebec here, in this house and elsewhere, accusing the Quebec leaders of lacking in maturity, I feel that they are the ones who lack maturity, who apply themselves to acting the old dotards and quitters in the face of problems.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I remember how, in 1964, for instance, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche tried to explain that federal aid in the form of student loans was constitutional because the federal government was already making farm loans, when we know that, by virtue of Section 95 of the constitution, agriculture is both a federal and provincial responsibility, but that, under the same section, education, for instance, falls strictly under provincial jurisdiction.
We also had, at that time, the hon. Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) who, at a banquet in his riding, declared that if his government introduced such a measure, he would vote against it. A measure was introduced while the hon. minister was absent from the house and he did not commit himself. We see that he has been able to climb the ladder since.
Mr. Chairman, we also have the hon. members for Mount Royal and Hochelaga (Messrs.
November 3, 1966

Trudeau and Pelletier) who seldom speak up on important matters in the house but who at numerous banquets in Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere, claim that the province of Quebec should not have a special status, although we can quote about ten sections in the Canadian constitution of 1867 which provide a special status to the province of Quebec.
For instance, as far as the appointment of judges of the superior court are concerned, it is stipulated that they must be chosen among the members of the bar of the province of Quebec. Moreover, it is also provided that the central government, with the nine English speaking provinces, can standardize all English legislation in the country while, according to a clause in the constitution, this cannot be done as far as Quebec civil laws are concerned.
Those are the criteria of the special status. But despite these constitutional provisions, we see that the Quebec members, instead of assuming their responsibilities in this house, instead of displaying political maturity, are sitting here as defeatists and renegades, as it were. I submit those are the people who do the most wrong to Canada and the province of Quebec, and I deplore that situation. I say in this house how much I would like these members to take part in the debate on such important matters, so that we may have the opportunity to reply to their learned arguments. Such opportunity is not given to us very often since they are well known for their silence.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, I want to congratulate the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) for having raised such an important matter this afternoon. I see that the hon. member pats himself on the back. That is real autonomy. Yes, indeed, with regard to that question of grade crossings, he was right in saying that the province of Quebec had not received its just share of this fund, and the same thing applies to many other fields.
And this is also a fact as far as the construction of railroads is concerned. The province of Quebec has never been favoured and has never received its just share because it has only 11 per cent, I believe, of Canadian railroads.
I agree with the suggestions made by the hon. member to simplify the administration so as to accelerate the elimination of grade crossings, the removal of signs and the enforcement of a speed limit. On the other
Interim Supply
hand, I think that the public should be encouraged to be more careful.
On a recent Montreal-Sherbrooke trip, I asked the train conductor for permission to go on board the engine precisely in order to study this question of railway crossings and to see how automobile drivers behaved. And I listened to the comments of the train conductor, the engineer, the brakeman, in this regard. It is fantastic the way the public forgets about the most basic safety rules. Drivers often see the train coming, but think they have time to cross the tracks. It sometimes happens that, once on the tracks, the driver makes a wrong move or the motor fails and the car stalls, and that terrible collision occurs.
Several railway crossings are equipped with gates which block half the entrance to the railway crossing area on each side. Well, a great many drivers go around these gates just as the train is approaching the crossing.
I feel it would be advisable to urge the Canadian people to be careful, to play it safe, and not just blame the railway employees for these accidents. These people are doing a great job, but they cannot perform miracles when the train is speeding on at 50 or 60 miles per hour and they come across careless drivers such as those I described a while ago. Those drivers who carelessly attempt to cross the tracks under such circumstances are the only ones to blame.


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to have an opportunity to make some contribution to this debate on interim supply. Before I touch upon the main subjects with which I shall deal in my speech, let me say that it is surprising to find only one minister in this house to hear what hon. members have to say about these unquestionably important subjects and the supply situation. The government has now passed its period of grace in so far as supply is concerned and must get this motion through or face a serious difficulty. For that reason, it is amazing that those ministers who should be concerned with the subjects being discussed are not in the house at this time.
There are several other things I wish to say about this government before I refer to my main topics. This government appears to be running scared. This is apparent from the

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
speeches of the members on the government side in which they alluded to gallant Canadians who have served this country well, and who cannot answer for themselves in this house. It is about time the Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who put on a disgraceful performance last night, learned that they should not in all decency vituperate against individuals such as my very long-standing friend Admiral Brock, whom I hold in the highest regard.
Let me say at this time in all fairness to Admiral Brock that he had nothing to do with the speech I am about to make.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He did not write, compile or edit what I have to say, because nobody could edit the notes that I have. Admiral Brock is entirely blameless for anything that I have to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank John William Fane: I am not as unfortunate as the minister, in that I do not have an executive assistant to write my speeches and get me into trouble. I believe that in his inner heart the minister is not in accord with all aspects of the policy he has enunciated. I am sure he would not be in accord with them if he stopped to think of the damage his actions are doing to Canada, our defence forces and perhaps even to himself. I shall return a little later to the subject of the minister, because naturally I have several things to say about the present situation in the Department of National Defence.
Many times in the past three or four years people have asked me: Why doesn't the government pack it all up and leave it to the civil servants to run the country? Of course, I have replied immediately: Well, who is running the country today? The Prime Minister is a former senior civil servant, and seven or eight of this cabinet were senior civil servants. Look at the job they are doing.
To realize what sort of job they are doing, we have only to think of the pension plan, the auto agreement-there's a dilly, if ever there was one-and the medicare plan which was put before parliament recently. The way the government has handled these matters is simply appalling. With regard to the medicare plan, about which we have heard so much recently, this was just stalling by the government because there was not other legislation ready to be brought before parliament. We were yelled at all the time for

delaying the business of the house. It was said that the government wanted to get on with the old age pension legislation; but the old age pension legislation is not ready yet.
The medicare bill was given second reading over a week ago. When we consider these things, we must ask ourselves: Where is the integrity and honesty in this government? There are 26 ministers, of whom only six, or perhaps seven, really pull their weight. The rest appear to be nothing but a bunch of sybarites who do not seem to realize that they have a responsibility to attend to the affairs of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Frank John William Fane: I wish to make a few remarks about the ministers of various departments. As I said, I wish they were here to hear them. First, I say to the minister of Indian affairs that we do not hear very much about the Indian claims commission now. We wonder why. I have not heard of it for quite a long time. I ask of this gentleman, who is also the minister of northern affairs, or northern development-I cannot keep up with the names of departments because they are changed almost every day-whether he and Minister of National Revenue could not get together and do something for the Northwest Territories.
The government says it is trying to develop northern Canada, that part of our country north of the 60th parallel. Did they ever consider that they could encourage industry to locate in this part of the country if they declared a moratorium on the collection of income tax in the area north of the 60th parallel for, say, 10 years and allowed the people there to develop the area? I believe only about $2 million are collected-perhaps the figure is even less-from that part of Canada, and with the Liberal outlook of, "What's a million?" they might go a little further and say, "What's 2 million?" This amount could then be written off in order to develop Canada's north.
I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he develop a better system of sending out cream and milk subsidy cheques. He should get busy and, while this program is in effect, make some very necessary amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He should also inquire into the legal charges in respect of processing Farm Credit Corporation loans.
November 3, 1966

To the Minister of Finance, who speaks for the Canadian Wheat Board, I say, "Why in the name of heaven do you not get busy and make some arrangements to increase the initial price of wheat?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank John William Fane: The Minister of National Health and Welfare should get busy and immediately introduce legislation providing for an increase in the old age pension. I know this problem was solved in the Toronto Star the other day, but that does not seem to be of any value in this house. The Minister of Veterans Affairs should make increases in the war veterans allowance, disability pension and other allowances.
I suggest to the Postmaster General that instead of tampering with all the symbols on mail trucks and mail bags he should get busy and try to avoid a strike of postal workers by giving them a decent wage. The wages of these workers should be increased so that they have enough money on which to live. I believe the postal workers are contemplating going on strike because their wages are not sufficient, and it is very evident that a strike could be avoided if something were done about their wage level.
Now, I come to the main point of my remarks, namely, the question of the integration and unification of our armed forces. First, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am, and have been for at least 40 years, in favour of a certain amount of integration.


Mr. Hellyer:: How much?


Frank John William Fane: Somebody asked, "How much?" I will answer that question. There should be integration from the top down to the field units.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
That is enough. After that, you just cannot integrate all the members of the three forces into one big unit and have them become efficient members of the service in which they are to serve.
However, before I go too far in that direction I want to say that I have always wondered what would happen to the Department of National Defence if we had a minister who had little or no military experience and no military background. Would such a man be able to handle the affairs of the armed forces properly? We know now what the answer to that question is. I am not finding fault with 23033-601
Interim Supply
the minister for not having gone overseas in 1939, 1940 or even 1941 because at that time he was not old enough to go on active service, just as I was not old enough in the first world war. Unfortunately I had to wait until January 1916 before I was able to get into the army because I was suffering from the same disability as the minister. However, where was the minister after 1941 or 1942? It is possible he can explain that. I have heard a lot of talk about it, and I even saw an article in the newspaper last night in which it was said that the minister was clear up to 1942. Where was he after that?
I am a little surprised at the minister- maybe I should say more than a little bit surprised. When definite and direct charges were made by the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona against his integrity and against the way he handled his job, he just sat in his seat with a supercilious smile on his face. He has not done a darn thing about it since. Time and time again he has been petitioned to call the defence committee into session. The chairman of the defence committee also has been petitioned in writing to call a meeting of the defence committee to hear the witnesses and the charges that were made against the minister. Why does the minister not do something to stop all this talk? Does he not realize that neglecting the job which he is supposed to be doing, not telling parliament what is happening in his department, and keeping information from us, will only lead to his destruction? I am sure that is something he does not wish to do. I can see, sitting as I do right across from him, that he is trying to create the image of a strong man who can sit there and take anything, no matter what happens. He hopes that some day the mantle of the Prime Minister will fall on his shoulders. This would be a sadder day for Canada than we have now.
I wonder who has something on him to make him refuse the information for which parliament is asking, and to which parliament is entitled. We, the members of parliament, are sent here by the people of Canada to look after their interests and to get information for them which they cannot get for themselves. If we cannot get it, then what happens? Are we to start a revolution or an insurrection? Why will the minister not tell us what he is doing? Why will he not tell us what he means by "unification"? I can understand integration, but I cannot understand the information with which I have been supplied so far regarding unification. Unification

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
means to me that you put all the service men into a pot or a dish, get them all mixed up together, just as if you put a bunch of oranges, lemons and some grapefruit together. They are all similar fruit. If you blend them together, what do you get? You get marmalade. You do not get anything distinctive out of that mixture. This is my interpretation of unification.
I think it is just not good enough, and we should get more infoi-mation on it. Why does the minister not call the defence committee together? Members of parliament are at him all the time, so why does he not answer us? There is no good reason for not doing so.
What in the world is this government trying to do to the armed services of Canada? Having been a member of those armed forces for a great many years I am wondering why the whole background of the finest fighting forces in the world is being destroyed? Are the armed forces of Canada being destroyed just for the sake of making Canada ineffective and making us incapable of defending our own nation? Is it done to make us dependent on the defence which can be supplied by our great neighbour to the south? That is what worries me. Is this government preparing our nation to become a sitting duck? Is it preparing us to be handed over to our great neighbour to the south on a gold platter? This government would say: "Come on and get us boys; we cannot defend ouselves". Is that what will happen?
Of course, this whole business started with the destruction of the reserve forces which were the fountain of supply for the armed forces of Canada. It was from the reserve army and from ciivlian ranks the fighting men of Canada came who made such a name for themselves in the two world wars and in Korea. These men have kept up the name of our country, so that Canada is now held in the highest regard all over the world. I cannot see why our armed forces should become only a police force for the United Nations. The United Nations does need the services of armed forces. Why should our armed forces, which as I said are the finest there are, be absolutely destroyed, with nothing left to take their place?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have not read the white paper either.


Frank John William Fane: The white paper does not explain unification.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, it does.


Frank John William Fane: It mentions unification, but does not enlarge on it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It talks about the United Nations. You should read it.


Frank John William Fane: I have read it.


Mr. Nasserden:: If the minister understood it, it would help.


Frank John William Fane: This hybrid force, as my hon. friend from Oxford remarked the other day, is not going to be able, in my opinion, to properly defend even our coastline. We have about 13 ships equipped for anti-submarine warfare and submarine detection, but I do not believe that number is adequate. A number of other ships, which used to be called frigates but I think are now described as minesweepers, are being sold for scrap.
In case anyone thinks that this disillusionment with the minister's idea of unification is only felt by the navy-former members of the navy, I had better say, because any member of any service who does not believe as the minister does is dumped pretty soon-I have before me a letter signed by two of Canada's greatest soldiers in the last war, Lieutenant General Simonds and Major General Chris Vokes. These men were not in the navy, but they have complained about unification.
I have also received letters from the Air Force Officers Association, the head of which is one T. J. MacKinnon, who does not give his rank or decorations. I have received a very voluminous brief from the Navy League of Canada signed by one Robert I. Hendy, who was a member of the commission which inquired into the reserve army a few years ago. Then, I have a letter signed by one Mr. A. Davenall Turner, who writes from Edmonton, Alberta and represents ex-servicemen from all three armed forces. I have, too, a brief from the Naval Officers of Canada which was addressed to the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. in his capacity as chairman of the standing committee on national defence, signed by Robert G. Bundy, the national president. I have a very long letter from the Tri-Service Identities Organization, known as "TRIO", which organization is headed by none other than Air Marshal W. A. Curtis, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.C., E.D. He is also a doctor of laws.
In addition to this material, I have two representations which were made by Admiral Landymore, as well as the representations that have been made, or were supposed to
November 3, 1966



have been made, by my long time triend and brother officer, Admiral Brock.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, it does not come with very good grace from some of these young fellows on the other side who speak about Admiral Brock in derogatory terms. When I decided to speak in this debate I took the trouble of looking up Admiral Brock's record, and I found that he is entitled to wear 14 medal ribbons, four of which are decorations which he was awarded personally. He was also mentioned twice in dispatches, which itself would normally mean two further decorations; so that there are six decorations which this gallant gentleman was awarded personally.
Among his decorations is the Distinguished Service Order, which is awarded for distinguished action. His distinguished Service Cross was awarded for personal bravery in the face of the enemy. He was also awarded the United States Legion of Merit, which is a rather high decoration, and he has been awarded the Canadian forces decoration. He also has the 1939-45 Star as well as all the other Stars connected with that period of service.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is a pretty poor show when some young punks barely dry behind their ears start talking in a derogatory manner about an officer who has served his country as has Admiral Brock for over 30 years.
I have before me a copy of the latest edition of "The Legionary", the issue for November, and I should like to read a few lines from it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I must inform him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Frank John William Fane: Have I permission to go ahead?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I would be pleased to inquire of the committee, if it is the hon. member's wish that I do so.


Frank John William Fane: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
23033-601J
Interim Supply


Frank John William Fane: I wish to thank the committee for the courtesy extended to me. As I was saying, I have a copy of the latest edition of "The Legionary". Even the Canadian Legion is worried about what is going to happen to the armed forces of Canada, and the dominion secretary wrote to the Prime Minister in these words;
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The members of The Royal Canadian Legion have always taken a keen interest in developments affecting Canada's defence forces. One of the purposes and objects included in our Act of Incorporation states:
. . to strive for peace, good will and friendship among all nations, at the same time advocating the maintenance by Canada of adequate and sufficient forces on land, sea and in the air for the defence of our country".
We have followed the recent trend towards integration and unification of the forces with the keen interest natural to men who have served their country in time of war, coupled with an equally natural anxiety to be certain that our forces are at all times the most effective that it is possible for our country to maintain.
It goes on to say:
Our members appreciate fully the need for both good fighting equipment and well-trained fighting men. We also know from our own experience that the best equipment in the world in the hands of servicemen with low morale and with little esprit de corps cannot produce an efficient, effective fighting force. Morale and esprit de corps cannot be purchased by money alone; they must be developed and carefully nurtured.
We have been deeply concerned-
As have we all.
-at some of the public statements which have been made lately, both by those opposing and those proposing complete unification of the Canadian forces. In spite of our best efforts to understand the situation we are compelled to say that, because of the lack of authoritative, clear-cut information and explanation we find ourselves unable at this moment to form a sound judgment on the whole question.
The article goes on to say:
The Royal Canadian Legion is not interested in the partisan politics which appear to be developing in connection with this question. We are, however, deeply concerned about the question of the state and condition of our defence forces at any given time. It appears to us that sufficient thought and planning have not been given to the important questions of tradition, morale and esprit de corps or, if so, the members of Canada's forces and the public have certainly been kept in ignorance.
The Royal Canadian Legion urges your government to make clear, without further delay, the detailed plans connected with the integration, and particularly the proposed unification, of the forces so that the judgments made by Canadian organizations and citizens will be based on frank and comprehensive official information and fact, not on rumour and supposition, as seems to be largely the case at the present time.

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
The sub-executive committee of the Legion's Dominion Executive Council at its meeting last weekend expressed grave concern over this matter and instructed that you and your government be requested to make available the necessary information as soon as possible in the interests of the security and defence of our beloved country.
To this submission, the Prime Minister replied in a letter dated September 19 which reads as follows:
Thank you for your letter of August 26th. I appreciate your concern over the recent discussion over the unification of our armed forces. I wish to make it clear that no changes in the present constitution of the armed forces can or will be instituted until parliament has had an opportunity to debate fully such proposed changes.
To this end, it is expected that the legislation necessary to carry further the reorganization of the services will be referred to the standing committee on national defence. This committee will be able to call any persons it wishes to express views on these changes. I am sure the committee will be pleased to receive any brief the Legion would like to submit and listen to your opinions on this legislation.
I wish to assure you that in all government deliberations concerning the reorganization of Canada's armed forces, we have tried to develop the best means of giving Canada a strong and efficient defence force, while at the same time we have considered as a matter of paramount importance the well-being of the men and women of the services.
That ends the quotation from the Prime Minister's letter.
Charles Lynch, writing in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday, November 2, ends his article by saying:
Now, the case for calling the committee is so strong that the reflection is squarely upon Mr. Hellyer.


An hon. Member:: Read it all into the record.


Frank John William Fane: The whole thing? It certainly gives the hon. member a real build-up.
I wonder how hon. members like the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia, who was a navy man, and the hon. member for Saint-Antoine-Westmount, who was a noted soldier in his day, feel about the unification proposals at the present time.
I wish to thank the committee for its indulgence in allowing me to continue beyond the time normally allotted to me, and to thank you also, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Davis:: In the few minutes available to me tonight, I should like to talk about resource development and the way in which our resources might best be developed in the interest of Canadians as a whole. I propose to outline a few principles which I believe we

should observe when exporting primary resources and semi-finished products to foreign countries.
I cannot resist being drawn into what I regard as a phony debate, that is, the debate between the Canadian nationalists and the continentalists. I do not think there is anyone in this house who would openly avow that he is a continentalist. We may differ in our views but I think all of us in our peculiar ways regard ourselves as Canadian nationalists, and believe we are here to promote the best interests of the country and to be as perceptive in that pursuit as we can.
My idea of a continentalist-and there are very few to be found in government circles-is one who thinks predominantly in terms of the great mass of consumers and who thinks little about the position of producers, particularly producers of raw materials. Canada will, for some time to come, be a producer of raw materials, and in this role we will have to drive the hardest possible bargain in terms of the prices for and quantity of our exports.
A good Canadian nationalist is one who, thinking over a relatively short term, five or ten years, is business-like in the best sense of the word, getting the best possible prices for his Canadian exports. He must also take a broader view; he must be statesmanlike and look into the more distant future to assess the consequences of short term arrangements and adjust them in the light of the Canadian interest in the longer term.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I have said that I believe Canadians must resist the continental approach to development. They must resist the temptation to sell both at cost and at cost plus the so-called reasonable rate of return. Instead, they must charge all that the export market will bear. They must make a handsome profit on their Canadian operations and not be content to make merely a reasonable rate of return on purely resource extractive processes.
In lots of ways Canada's natural resources are unique in quality, in cost, in extent and in location. They should, therefore, in the return on them, reflect that degree of uniqueness that we have in this country, and this return should go primarily to Canadians. It should not be reduced by corporate decision making, or government regulations aimed at serving the public convenience and necessity, for example of consumers in other countries, and notably consumers in the United States.
November 3, 1966

Canada is long on resources, but she is short on such things as money, manpower and markets. This is why we have to specialize and concentrate upon the development of those resources which can be exploited cheaply in terms of men and machines, and why we export many of our materials in a relatively raw state rather than consume them at home.
Our resource industries are essentially our bread and butter industries. They are the industries that can be expected at all times to pay their own way. In fact they pay well, and they should pay well. The average wage is higher than that paid in most other Canadian industries. The take home pay is better and the tax yield is better. This is as it should be, for it is in this resource industry category that Canadians should receive their greatest returns if they are to profit from the exploitation of their natural heritage.
Exports are desirable. Indeed, they are often essential. They help to cut down our engineering and administrative costs. They help to reduce our transportation costs. Lower average costs in Canada can be of great benefit to Canadians as consumers and as manufacturers, and as home owners as well.
Export markets also help us to build larger and more efficient processing plants, plants from which we can also divert our own requirements. Newsprint is a good example; so are our pulp mills, our metal refineries and our fish packing plants.
Processing, however, presents Canadians with a problem. It has been a problem because we would not always sell, or could not always sell, at a profit all of the by-products of our processing plants. With greater industrialization at home, this difficulty is being partially overcome. But we are still faced with discriminatory action on the part of importing countries, and particularly on the part of the United States. The United States, for instance, places a graduated tariff on our exports. The tariff rises with the degree of manufacture or processing of our goods. It rises from zero to 30 per cent or 40 per cent. The more highly processed the goods are, the higher the duty they have to pay when they move across the international boundary line.
The more highly manufactured our exports are, the more highly processed they are, the more man hours they contain per pound, per ton or per cubic foot of product, the more duty they pay entering the United States. This barrier, or sequence of barriers, is designed
Interim Supply
to keep us in the traditional role of a hewer of wood and drawer of water. It is designed to make the United States, and not Canada, the workshop of the North American continent.
Obviously the major objective of any Canadian resource development policy must be to remove and break down these barriers, and to give us access to the larger and more remunerative markets on this continent and throughout the rest of the world.
Freer trade in semi-processed products, therefore, must be our aim. It has been a Canadian objective in the past, but we have not been determined enough about it. With our primary or extractive industries providing fewer jobs and with the prices of primary products tending to decline, further processing must be one of the principal objectives of any Canadian trade policy which has the nation's economic well being at heart.
This brings us to the knotty question of pricing itself. Export prices are not always set as a result of the free interplay of supply and demand. They are not always determined in an impersonal way in the market place. Instead, they are often set as a result of administrative decision making between subsidiary and parent, for example between Canadian branch plant and United States head office.
Big companies which dominate a given field can have things pretty well their own way. Of course, they must cover their costs in Canada, but this is not the same thing as declaring a substantial profit in Canada. There is little to prevent a subsidiary in this country from selling to its United States parent at cost. It covers its costs but declares a minimum profit in this country. Minimum profits mean minimum taxes, and if no shares are sold in the Canadian operation to Canadians then the personal income tax yield, as well as the corporation income tax yield to Canadians, are less than they would be if the Canadian exporter and the United States importer were separate companies.
I do not wish to imply that this is the norm. Pricing at cost is not the general practice between Canadian subsidiaries exporting, and the United States parent companies importing Canadian raw materials into the United States. Nor should I imply that administrative decisions along these lines are necessarily on the increase. But the opportunity is there, and this practice has certainly-existed in the past.

November 3, 19G6
Interim Supply
Canadians would therefore do well to keep asking the Department of National Revenue to investigate what appears on the surface to be unprofitable operations in Canada. The department may then find on closer examination-and I suggest examination in close consultation with expert advisers hi competent technical departments like the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-that some foreign owned companies may be able to declare higher profits and pay more taxes in Canada.
What constitutes the proper surplus oi profit in Canada is difficult to say. Ideally ar export sale should be made at arms length The seller should sell at the highest price he can get, but the buyer can only buy if the price is right. The latter, that is, the higher price, must be less than any alternative price open to the importer. Of course, these alternatives cannot always be known to us, but as Canadians and as exporters we should always try to charge all that the market will bear.
Normally we could leave this to businessmen, be they employees of foreign owned subsidiaries or not. But a better knowledge of raw material markets and raw material pricing procedures is essential in Canadian government circles if we are to profit from resource development in this country. In other words, federal officials, who are technically competent, officials with a knowledge of industry, and officials with a knowledge of markets and market opportunities, should be taking a closer look at export prices, especially where long term contracts and captive Canadian operations are concerned.
For example, Mr. Chairman, let us consider the National Energy Board, electricity and natural gas. The sale of these commodities is regulated because they are essential goods and because the utilities which sell them are essentially monopolistic in character. In the United States they have a term for the service they provide. There the power utilities and gas companies must build their lines and price their products in such a way as to serve "the public convenience and necessity". This means, among other things, that they must price their products at cost plus a modest or reasonable rate of return, only sufficient to raise the necessary capital but no more. Certainly the profits should not be exceptional, no more than average or sufficient to keep the power moving and the gas flowing.
Unfortunately for Canada as an exporting nation, this idea of minimizing profits has spread across the international boundary line.

It is applied to export sales as well as to domestic consumption. It is applied to Canadian operations even when they are selling all of their output to the United States. One may ask why? The answer is because this is the way that the regulatory authorities direct the power and gas utilities to do things in the United States. There, government intervention is justified on the grounds that it protects the interest of the consumer. The United States consumer is king. All of the activities of the producer and the transporter must be regulated with this end in view.
The Canadian consumer should be protected from monopolistic practices and exceptional profits in much the same way, but the same type of thinking should not be allowed to prevail so far as exports are concerned. Canadians engaged in exporting electricity and natural gas should charge all that the market will bear. They should not charge prices which merely reflect costs, or costs plus a minimum reasonable rate of return, so-called.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
They must charge what the resource really is worth. To price our exports at cost and not charge what the market will bear is to act as if the border does not exist. It means adopting a continental approach to resource development. It is to act as if every Canadian resource belongs to Americans as well as Canadians. It is to abandon the unique position which we should enjoy in this connection. It is to adopt the relatively spineless philosophy of share and share alike. It is to share our Canadian resources with the United States when the United States is not prepared to share its market for certain semi and highly processed goods with us.
Canadians have a bargaining position to maintain, I submit. The uniqueness of our resources should be reflected in our export prices. We must more than cover our costs, and we must have access to United States markets for by-products and up-graded or highly manufactured materials. Then, and only' then, will we be able to develop our resources in a manner which involves the employment opportunities that Canadian industries should generate.
No precise formula, no simple criteria, will fit every case. But, whether it be water which we may never export at all, or whether it applies to commodities which we should like to export in greater quantities such as apples or wheat, a few general principles still might be laid down. These principles should always
November 3, 1966

be observed. They represent the minimum conditions for export. An export proposal which meets these general conditions might then be said to be in the national interest.
The first condition is that Canada must assess its own requirements not only for five, 10 or 25 years ahead, but sometimes for many decades to come. Second, Canada should earmark for export only that amount of the resource which is clearly surplus to the nation's ultimate national, regional and local requirements.
Third, Canada should charge the foreign importing firm or agency a price for the resource which is not only in excess of its cost of supply but which also bears a close relationship to the cost which the importing firm or agency would otherwise have had to pay had it had to rely exclusively on its own requirements or go elsewhere for a source of supply.
Fourth, Canada should never enter into an international contract which results in a lower delivered price for the resource to the importing area as compared to the delivered price of the same resource in adjoining areas in this country. In other words, there always should be a price advantage to the Canadian consumer on the Canadian side. The fifth condition is that Canada must provide for or envisage the eventual repatriation to Canada of these export flows.
Now, I should like to run briefly over the latest Trans-Canada Pipe Line agreement. Canada has assessed its own requirement. Our National Energy Board has decided that Canada already has a supply of natural gas, at least a 25 year supply, to look after our foreseeable Canadian requirements. A surplus, in fact, is deemed to exist. Canada has earmarked for export that amount, which is surplus to our 25 year national, regional and local requirement. This is being done with a cushion left so that if there are errors in our forecasts we are still well covered insofar as our future requirements are concerned, so that that which is exported is readily managed within the sum total of our available supplies.
Canada should charge the foreign importing firm or agency a price which reflects all that the traffic will bear. In reading the report of the National Energy Board it is their opinion, and it is the opinion in the evidence submitted by the interveners that the price charged for western Canadian gas to be exported by the Great Lakes pipe line is competitive. This is their opinion and there
Interim, Supply
is no expert opinion to the contrary. I should underline the fact that we need more information. We need always to be sure that we are charging a competitive price and are not letting the resource go for less than the importer will pay.
Finally, Canada never should enter into an international contract or agreement at a lower delivered price for the resource to the importing firm or agency in one area as compared to the delivered price for the same resource in an adjoining area in Canada. As I understand it there will be a price advantage to Canadians north of the great lakes as opposed to purchases south of the great lakes. My understanding is that the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines rate schedules always have been such that the border prices are higher than the prices charged to a utility in Canada nearby. This applies in Manitoba, the Winnipeg delivered price being lower than it is at Emerson where Canadian gas is exported to the United States.
We have had situations in this country, which now happily are coming to an end, where the delivered price in Canada has been higher than the border price. We have had for a period of some years situations where it has been possible for United States consumers of Canadian gas to get natural gas at prices lower than those charged to Canadians just over the border on our side of the line.
In passing I should like to refer to a statement made recently by the chairman of Westcoast Transmission Company, Mr. Frank McMahon. In the Vancouver Sun of October 13, 1966 he is reported as saying that West-coast-referring to the gas pipe line which runs from northern British Columbia down across that province and out near Vancouver into the Seattle, Portland, Spokane area-as a company never made a reasonable rate of return. He also goes on to say that the wellhead prices back in the Peace River area of British Columbia were also depressed. There is a long history to this.
Essentially United States gas was given first priority in the Pacific north west by the United States authorities. The Canadian pipe line company, in order to get into that market at all, to serve British Columbia consumers, had to accept a price of 22 cents per 1,000 cubic feet at the international boundary line, a few miles from Vancouver. For a few years at Huntingdon the price was 22 cents and the price to the distributor in British Columbia
November 3, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion was 32 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. This was an anomalous situation. To a degree this situation still obtains. We must not allow decisions of a regulatory body in the United States- decisions dictated by a concern to protect the public convenience and the necessity of consumers in the United States-to strike back at Canadian interests by depressing wellhead prices and the profitability of a pipe line in Canada. Certainly it reduces the incentive to look for gas in the more northern parts of this country.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); old age security-abolition of means test in proposed pension increase; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow); penitentiaries-reported charges against administration of women's prison; the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays); fisheries- removal of office from Gaspe to Quebec City.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, private bills and public bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the acting house leader would join with the rest of us in the suggestion that we break for a short period of time for dinner.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I find that proposal inviting, and the government is prepared to suspend the debate until seven o'clock.


Michael Starr: We are in agreement, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the house also agree that we now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



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

$3,175,900.00;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L30 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates-$9,166,-666.67;
(e)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (a) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a and Transport Items 102a and 103a, for which no proportion is granted -$26,276,101.92;
(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, such is the "cabbages and kings" nature of the discussion we have been having on this interim supply motion that we have been able to talk today about pipe lines, admirals and level crossings. Another item we can talk about concerns northern affairs and it is my hope to put a few observations on record in this regard.\nWe have heard a good deal in the last few days about the fruits of integration. I suggest seriously that whatever value integration may have for the armed services it might well be given a try in the area of northern affairs. I was one of the members of the committee on northern affairs who visited the Arctic and the Northwest Territories this summer. We saw an area there which is about half the size of the United States and 23033-603J\nBusiness of the House\ncarries a population equal to that of a good sized city, between 40,000 and 50,000. The bases we visited there are for the most part administrative outposts in which 2,000 or\n3,000\tpeople at the most are living. They are usually civil servants. It is no criticism of them to say that they spend a large part of their time looking after one another. Of course, they are also concerned with looking after and helping the native people in the areas in which they are located.\nWhat struck me about the efforts being made in these administrative outposts was the fact that in the communities one found so many different departments of government at work-Northern Affairs, Transport, Justice, Health and Welfare, and, of course, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. My feeling was, and it remains with me, that we could do a better job in some of these areas if we set up an integrated service or a unified service under which, instead of this variety of services under different headings, we could carry out a unified operation. I believe better results would more quickly be obtained at less expense if there were an integrated task force to deal with the problems of the north.\nI should like to say something about education. There is a great need for a stepped-up program, particularly of adult education. In some northern areas we found a situation where natives who had been living all their lives until recently in tents or igloos are now learning to live in houses while their children go to schools and try to assimilate the knowledge taught to children in the south. A great deal of progress has been made in the north in the field of education but more remains to be done, particularly with regard to adult education. May I call it ten o\'clock?\nProgress reported.']
Herman Maxwell Batten: Pursuant to the unanimous consent of the house I do now leave the chair.



[Stage Direction]
November 3, 1966

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in committee of supply; interim supply. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, when I called it six o'clock I was talking about our problems of exporting raw materials, and more particularly about our receiving an adequate return for those raw materials. This applies to natural gas because we have not done as well in regard to natural gas, on the west coast at least, as we might have done.
We have had in this country, and I think quite properly, a policy in respect of natural gas to the effect that we must look after Canadian requirements first, and Canadian requirements, in large part at least, are the requirements of southern Ontario and Quebec. In other words, our major markets for energy are in the central provinces.
One of our great problems is the distance from our principal and lowest cost sources of supply of energy to these major markets. When the trans-Canada gas pipe line was built it was by far the longest natural gas pipe line in the world, and it still is. It was then roughly twice the length of the longest line in the world and is still by far the longest anywhere on the face of the globe. This distance is spanned by an efficient pipe line which is now being looped. But it is spanned because, among other things, a lower well-head price is being accepted for natural gas than could be charged for this commodity in British Columbia, Alberta, and to a lesser extent in Saskatchewan, had similar quantities of the gas been permitted to flow southward down the west coast of the United States as far as California and into the United States middle west.
Certainly the oil and gas industries in western Canada, the provinces dependent upon the revenues derived from those industries, and those employed by them, have been affected by our national policy, which I think has been the right one. But when we are looking at alternative routes for bringing gas
2,000	to 2,500 miles from western Canada to Toronto and Montreal, I think we must also look at the economics of transportation. The cheapest and most efficient route is obviously the one to be preferred. It is to be preferred at least to the extent that it will allow the producer in the field to maximize his return
Interim Supply
and at the other end to minimize the cost of energy, in this case natural gas, to the consumer. These factors have to be borne in mind and weighed in the context that we want to keep our major transportation facilities, in so far as possible, under Canadian jurisdiction and under Canadian control.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Now I should like to deal very briefly with the pamphlet which was distributed to many hon. members by the Canadian Lakehead Industrial Commission. They outlined the arguments in favour of international routing of the new Trans-Canada line and the arguments against it. On the second page we find the advantages of a line south of the great lakes listed as follows: First, construction costs would be lower, resulting in lower delivered prices of gas in southern Ontario. The lower delivered prices are reflected in the fact that the contracts with the distributors are between three to four cents lower than these distributing companies would have to pay to Trans-Canada had it followed the all Canadian route. This is the evidence which those distributing companies presented to the National Energy Board.
The second advantage is that it would be possible to complete the entire project more rapidly. I do not think this is contested in view of the fact that Trans-Canada has completed much of the engineering and has much of its steel already ordered. The third advantage is that the export of natural gas to the United States would be facilitated. Clearly a line which runs south of the great lakes is more directly accessible to the major markets in the United States middle west. The transportation distance from the fields in Alberta is shorter, the cost of movement is lower and the export prices are better. Fourth, financing would be easier. I think it is easier partly because of lower interest rates in the United States. Fifth, Trans-Canada had given a firm contractual commitment to start looping its 30-inch line north of the lakes by 1970. Sixth, there would be safety and protection of continuous service by building another line, this time an international line, to eastern Canada.
I should like to add two additional advantages: One is that the international route passes through and is more directly connected with the major storage fields in Michigan and southern Ontario, and this is an economic advantage and a definite operational advantage, to the trans-Canada pipe line system and to consumers at the eastern end of the

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
line. The other is that the international line would serve Sault Ste. Marie. In other words, the industries of that area as well as the home owners in Sault Ste. Marie would have natural gas. They would not have this benefit had the line north of the lakes merely been looped.
In all fairness I should also list the disadvantages of the United States route as enumerated by the Canadian Lakehead Industrial Commission. The first disadvantage, and I think it is a significant one, is that the initial economic loss to Canada of the expenditure on wages and materials which would have gone into the looping of an all-Canadian line, now to be spent on the line south of the great lakes and, let us assume, principally in the form of purchases from U.S. steel mills, would be enormous. I think this downgrades the impact of a more economic route on the search for gas in western Canada and the results of somewhat cheaper fuel in eastern Canada. This is the way better economics usually shows up, not in terms of greater capital outlays because greater capital outlays by themselves are no virtue; in fact, they are an indication of wastefulness. What we want is Canadian gas moved to markets in Canada at the lowest possible capital cost, and I suggest that the economics of the international route shows up in this way. It will speed up the search for gas in the west and it will encourage greater industrial development in the east as well as accelerated activity in the whole country.
Second, Canada would lose the economic benefits accruing from operation and maintenance for all time of the international portion of the Trans-Canada line. As anyone who is familiar with modern pipe lines is fully aware, they are highly automated. There is a small operating requirement and maintenance is low. So we are talking about very small sums of money relative to the capital investment involved and relative to the income from the sale of gas at the eastern end of the trans-Canada pipe line. Third, Canada would lose the personal and corporate taxes on construction, operation and maintenance. This is true. Again, however, the better economics of the international line do have compensating effects, both in the west where the gas is fed to the line and in the east in the form of lower prices to consumers. Fourth, Canada would not collect the 50 per cent corporation tax on the major part of the profitable operation lying within the United States. This is

true. Fifth, Canada would not have complete control over a tremendously important but not unlimited resource-natural gas.


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


John (Jack) Davis: I have a few more comments left, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Go ahead.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I agree to permitting the hon. member to continue. We were generous to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle but I would hope that in the future when we agree to extend the time we will also put a limit on it.


Maurice Rinfret: Is there unanimous agreement to permit the hon. member to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: I thank the house for permitting me to continue.
In conclusion I wish to answer several questions which have been put to the minister. He has given me his notes and in his absence I will endeavour to reply to those questions on the basis of those notes.
To cover the other two points which are critical of the international routing for the trans-Canada line, the sixth disadvantage is that there would be no assurance of adequate supplies of natural gas for development in this country. Canada is increasingly in the position of a supplier of natural gas not only to its own markets but also to the United States. It is in a strong position to control not only the conditions but also the quantities flowing out of the country. I cannot conceive of the United States, through an agency like the United States Federal Power Commission or in any other way, interrupting flows, endeavouring to frustrate a development of this type, thereby jeopardizing other situations in which it is the importing country and in which the United States owns the industry which is heavily dependent on Canada as its main source of supply.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the F.P.C. have the power to set the rates for Canadian gas sold in the United States and could those rates be lower than the rates in Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: I think the National Energy Board of Canada has the last word. It controls the export permit, it controls the price
November 3, 1966

at which natural gas leaves Canada and, subject to complaints being registered by the consumers in Canada, it also has the power to set import prices. Therefore it really controls prices at both ends of this international loop; in other words, it can dictate the terms. I realize that the United States Federal Power Commission has certain regulatory powers that apply to corporate operations in the U.S. But it cannot override the export price from Canada or the price at which this gas is allowed back into Canada at the eastern end of the line.
I would now like to answer briefly several questions asked by hon. members. The first one appears on page 9386 of Hansard. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked a question concerning transmission costs. The National Energy Board in its report of August, 1966, page 5-34, estimated that there would be an average saving in the cost of transmission via the Great Lakes or international route compared with the northern Ontario or all-Canadian route of 1.7 cents per
1,000	cubic feet over the first five years, and an average of 0.3 cents per 1,000 cubic feet over ten years.
On page 9386 of Hansard the minister, in referring to the saving of 3 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, was referring to the contract which has been signed between Trans-Canada and the Consumers Gas Company. I believe it is 4 cents between Trans-Canada and Union Natural Gas and 2.5 to 4.2 cents with Quebec Natural Gas. So that the negotiations between the distributors in eastern Canada and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines indicate a saving, at least to the distributors, of between 2.5 and 4.2 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.
On page 9463 of Hansard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, in questioning the availability of gas to northern Ontario, quoted a statement prepared by the Fort William-Port Arthur and District Labour Council. The council brief quoted the president of Twin City Gas Company Limited as saying: "We are sticking our necks out by saying to some industries that the gas will be there." There is other evidence which tends to contradict this. For example, Mr. E. C. Bovey, the president of Northern and Central Gas Company, which is the parent company of Twin City, stated before the National Energy Board at its hearings, and I am now quoting the transcript;
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Our concern is one of bringing continuing supplies, abundant supplies of natural gas to the area
Interim Supply
we serve in northern and northwestern Ontario at competitive prices in order to continue the development industrially and otherwise of that area.
We have viewed a number of the alternatives, and we feel the alternative of the line below the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes project, is the one that seems to meet these requirements.
In other words, he seems to be supporting both routes, but in his evidence before the National Energy Board he supported the international route.
As reported at page 9464 of Hansard, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked about the prices charged for northern B.C. gas and Peace River gas in the Vancouver and Seattle market areas. Evidence filed before the National Energy Board recently indicated that the average city gate price over the last three years-this is really the average price resulting from the revenue divided by the number of therms, as distinct from the rate-to B.C. Hydro in the Vancouver area was 31.8 cents in 1965, and to Washington Natural Gas in the Seattle area it was 36.7 cents. These prices are in Canadian funds. I gather that in the last few years there have been several rate increases afforded the distributors in the Pacific northwest area, and that is the main reason for the improved situation in Vancouver vis-a-vis Seattle.
These are the main comments, Mr. Chairman, which I wished to make in answer to questions that had been asked.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I had not at first intended to take part in this debate and I do not propose to deal in any great detail with the two specific matters that have rather dominated the debate so far. I am aware that among my colleagues there are those who are at least as capable as, if not more capable than, I am in connection with discussing the details of the pipe line controversy, and I must confess that my interest in military matters declined rather sharply some 50 years ago when I left the service of His Majesty of that day.
However, in listening to this debate I have been struck with this really interesting fact. Here we have two questions which are being discussed in isolation. With all due deference to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, I do not think it is good enough to pretend that a debate is not taking place in the country at the present time on the issue of continental-ism v. nationalism. I will agree with him that there may well be some phony aspects to it, that those who oppose what is described as

November 3. 1966
Interim Supply
the continentalist position may ascribe to their opponents purposes that they have not got, or may exaggerate the tendency to merge with the United States. Alternatively, those who are classed as being in the continentalist camp may very well exaggerate the position of those they term nationalists and pretend that those they term nationalists are supporting the idea of autarchy and isolation of the Canadian economy.
We should not have any doubt whatever, Mr. Chairman, that this is an issue which is in the minds of the Canadian people. I would commend to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that he take a trip to Montreal and go to the phone booths in the C.N.R. station where he will discover what I discovered last week, and I will admit it rather shocked me. I found that on the ends of every telephone book in the booths in the C.N.R. station in Montreal someone had stamped the words, and it was a stamp, "Let's join the U.S.A.". This was stamped on a whole series of books. It was cheering that somebody else had come along with a pencil and vigorously scratched it out, but this underlines to me the fact that this is a question in the minds of the Canadian people.
I do not think that it is possible for us to consider either of the two questions that have dominated this debate except in a wider context. I suggest, for instance, that the question of the unification of the armed forces cannot be intelligently discussed until the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament have been given an opportunity to decide just what sort of role they want Canada to play in the world, because on that decision will depend what sort of armed forces, if any, we will require.
Some of the criticisms that I have heard of the minister would seem to indicate that he may be moving in a direction which I for one would heartily approve of, the direction of cutting down our forces to a well-trained force for service with the United Nations. Personally, I happen to think that that is the only sane and sensible policy to adopt. But we cannot discuss unification unless, first of all, we decide what sort of Canada we want and what sort of role we want to cut in the world of today. In the same way, Mr. Chairman, we cannot discuss the question of the export of gas, or the question of alternative routes, unless we are going to discuss them within the framework of what kind of Canada we want to build.

I find myself somewhat unconvinced by this debate. I have carefully read the debate in Hansard, not having been able to attend for most of the time, and I have noticed that there is an almost complete lack of any definitive cost information about these alternative routes. I have not yet seen any categorical statement as to the cost which is supported by a survey in any depth. I have seen no feasibility studies, no studies in depth at all. Every speaker has had to qualify his comments by saying "It appears", "I think", "We are told", or "Probably this will be the case".
Some hon. members go further than that and make what I think, if I may borrow a word from the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, is a phony comparison between two projects, comparing the projected southern route with a completely new pipe line in northern Ontario. I think no one has seriously suggested that that is an area in which a comparison should be made. Obviously a comparison should be made between a new pipe line built along the southern route from Emerson to Sarnia and the twinning of the existing line running through northern Ontario.
Along the northern route, of course, all of the right of ways have been purchased and all of the rock cuts have been made, and the capital and construction costs will be very much less than if a new line were being built there. On the other hand, along the southern route it will be necessary to purchase the right of ways, and while it may be true that the country through which it would travel is less rugged than that in northern Ontario, nevertheless there will be construction costs there which will not obtain in any twinning of the existing northern line.
We have to ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, why we have reached this situation. What has brought us here? It was revealed the other day in the speech of the minister when he admitted that the National Energy Board has warned him, had warned the government and had warned Trans-Canada Pipe Lines of the situation that was developing. But nothing was done.
One cannot escape the conclusion that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has deliberately created this situation. They have created a situation where it appears we have no alternative but to fall in with their plans. I have seen no estimates of any plan. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano speaks boldly
November 3, 19G6

of having to plan not merely for five, 10, 20 or 50 years hut for the indefinite future. If that is the case, then I do not know how he will determine what volume of gas and energy we are going to require at that time.
I think we should look at a much shorter length of time. Surely here is another area where there should be feasibility studies made and economic forecasts undertaken of the demand for power within the next five, 10, 15 or 25 years, some period that most of us can grasp. It is a little difficult for us to grasp the idea of the future centuries. As I say, no studies have been made, or if they have been they have not been disclosed to this house, by those advocating that the pipe line should pass through the United States.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
This afternoon the hon. member for Qu'Appelle made some very interesting comments. He told us that the United States is becoming conscious of being a resource-poor nation. Almost in the same breath he said we had to fight for markets there. You cannot have it both ways. Actually, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle put his finger on the most salient feature of the North American economy, the fact that the time is rapidly approaching when the United States will be desperately short of natural resources. Already we have experience of their desperate situation with regard to water and though we may be heartened for the time being when such a spokesman for the government as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano tells us in ringing tones that we are not going to submit to sending water there until our own needs are satisfied-


An hon. Member:: We sent a whole river.


Colin Cameron: Yes, we sent a whole river there with, if I may say so, the help of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I am afraid the same kind of thing might happen in other cases.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle said he and others had urged the government to enter into an agreement with the United States government for a border arrangement which would permit the pipe line to go through United States territory, an arrangement somewhat similar, I suppose, to that which was made with regard to a road in the western Kootenay in British Columbia where it is more convenient to build part of the highway through United States territory.
Interim Supply
But does anyone imagine that the Federal Power Commission will permit gas from such a line to enter the United States market except upon terms involving complete control over that part of the line? I have heard no one who was willing or able to tell us just what authority the F.P.C. would have over the section of the line passing through the United States. This afternoon the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, without the slightest evidence to support his suggestion, as far as I can see, indicated that the National Energy Board of Canada would have control over the pipe line running through the United States. To me this does not make sense unless the hon. member is suggesting that the National Energy Board could order the tap to be turned off at Emerson. This, it would seem to me would defeat the hon. member's purpose, a purpose, incidentally, with which I do not think anyone quarrels, that is, the export of surplus Canadian gas to the United States at the highest possible price. What some of us are concerned about is that by sending the line through the United States we are making it almost certain that no alternative Canadian line will be built for a considerable number of years and that in effect the line through the United States will become the main line, with the southern Ontario area receiving the surplus, not the American states adjacent to our border.
These are questions we should be considering in the light of the future of Canada. I take strong exception when suggestions are made that those who would take steps to ensure our continuing national existence are anti-American or advocating autarchy or isolation. I do not deny-only a fool would deny-that there are tremendous advantages to be gained from our proximity to the United States, the largest, most highly developed and wealthiest economy in the world. But there are also dangers inherent in that very proximity because of the fact, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned this afternoon, that this enormous industrial machine south of the border will inevitably call for larger and larger supplies of raw materials as the years go on. Canada is its obvious source of supply and if we are to content ourselves, as it appears to me the hon. member for Coast-Capilano suggested this evening, with confining our activities in the main to the production of raw materials for export, our chance of developing in Canada a viable, selfreliant economy will go out the window, and as the United States economy grows and be-

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
comes increasingly dependent on Canadian supplies, less and less of our national identity will be left because we would then be integrated to the point at which our only activities would be concerned with the development and operation of a foreign industrial complex.
As I say, there are a great many advantages to be gained from our proximity to the United States. We have to look for means by which we can take advantage of that situation while at the same time remembering there are serious dangers. We have to make up our minds what kind of country we want and then decide what must be done and what must be avoided to bring about the desired development.
To my mind we do not have a viable, self-reliant economy in Canada when, as up to now, we are becoming more and more dependent on an influx of United States capital, not to produce industrial expansion in Canada but merely to offset the drain on our economy created by previous foreign investment in this country. At the present time there is almost no net capital inflow into Canada. All we are getting is a return for the sale of other properties sufficient to offset the heavy drain which has already been established.
I am not advocating the rather simple-minded proposals that the former minister of finance seemed to favour, though I have great sympathy with his broad general aims. As to his policies, I feel they were perhaps a little less than sophisticated. I am not advocating this. What I am suggesting is that unless in Canada we can build an economy of which an increasingly large proportion is under Canadian control there is no doubt about our future. We have no future as a nation and we shall have none unless we make very sure that our resources, particularly our resources of energy, are directed first of all toward the expansion of the Canadian economy.
We need to consider what steps must be taken to permit such development in Canada, what steps need to be taken to overcome the present fragmented condition of our economy due to the branch-plant nature of development here from which we can hope to gain very little in the future. There are a number of things which can be done. I could think of a number of devices which could be used to stop, for one thing, the snowballing effect of

excessive foreign investment in Canada, which is the most serious of the present threats to our economy, inasmuch as foreign ownership is expanding not by the importation of new capital but by the re-investment of capital gains in Canada acquired by the use of Canadian resources and through the efforts of Canadian workers. There are devices by which one could ensure that this practice would not have the snowballing effect I have mentioned.
Of course, the use of such devices would not make the government popular with a number of corporations which much prefer to have their profits taxed so that the effect of taxation can be passed on to their customers and would take a dim view of any action which would oblige them to release their earnings into the hands of the shareholders, thus rendering them liable to the only type of tax which cannot be passed on-income tax. These are things we should be considering in Canada when planning an economy upon which to base an independent nation in this day and age.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
There are some who would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that closer integration with the United States is a step toward a desirable international development. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a step away from a desirable international development. No sensible Canadian, I think, would for a moment oppose handing over some of our sovereignty if it were handed over to a genuine international authority, but no Canadian in his right senses is going to sit idly by and see our sovereignty whittled away into the hands of another nation state.


An hon. Member:: They are doing it but won't admit it.


Colin Cameron: This is the point I am coming to. Let us not fool ourselves, Mr. Chairman. There is something very wrong with parliament and something very wrong with the view the Canadian people have of their representatives. All kinds of suggestions are made for curing the ills of parliament. Some would take the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and banish them and then all would be well. Possibly they would take the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam too and banish him along with them and all would be well and we would have no need to do anything else. But I suggest that what is
November 3, 1966

wrong with Canada today, and wrong with parliament, is that people are afraid to speak of the real issues.
Those who have a genuine concern with extracting as large a measure of advantage as possible from our proximity with the United States are hesitant to advance their views in logical terms for fear of being charged with selling out to the Americans. Conversely, those of us who are concerned with preserving our Canadian identity, and I think most of us are-in fact, I agree with the hon. member for Coast-Capilano on this point-are hesitant to oppose certain arrangements with the United States for fear of being accused of anti-Americanism or rabid nationalism.
It is time that those of us who hold these opposing views should take positions based on our intellectual decisions and debate them in public so that we may put these things in a better context. Once they have been debated, once certain decisions have been made, once we have discovered where the danger to our identify lies and where it does not lie, then we shall be in a position to make decisions on specifics. Today we are not, particularly when we are asked to make decisions on specifics without having been provided with a single scrap of solid evidence in favour of one course of action or another and have to decide on mere speculation.
I remember two occasions on which the Canadian people were hustled into decisions, decisions which they had cause to regret later. I remember the weeks in this chamber when we debated the question of the building of the Trans-Canada Pipe Line and when we were told, in spite of Mr. Howe's statement, quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the other day, that it was essential that this pipe line should remain on Canadian territory and in spite of that we were faced with a proposition of financing presumably quite wealthy American companies to persuade them to build the Trans-Canada Pipe Line across the easy part of Canada and then we took it upon ourselves to build it across the hard part and allowed them to buy it back and pay only 5 per cent on the investment.
Were were hustled into that decision. We were told, "There is no time to waste because if we don't get it done right now we are not going to be able to get the pipe with which to build it." Later events proved that the source from which the pipes were to come was not as substantial as we were led to believe in
Interim Supply
the house. Any proposals that we made for undertaking this as a people or as a government were brushed to one side because we were told there was no time to lose. We were told, "These people know how to build pipe lines. There is absolutely no time to lose." It was run, run, run all the way. Consequently, today we have this same organization presenting us with another difficult choice, having deliberately led us up to the brink of this crisis.
I remember another occasion when the government of Canada allowed itself to be bullied by the province of British Columbia, at one time against the advice of most of its advisers, including the hon. member for Coast-Capilano who made statements denouncing the policy that was eventually followed although he supported that policy in the final analysis. Again we were hustled. Again we were told we would have to do this, that the Americans would back away and would not sign an agreement. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, would not sign an agreement when they were parching to death for water and they needed water on any terms? The result was that we gave it to them for practically nothing.
We are building a dam in B.C. which is costing millions of dollars and this government is being asked to help finance it, but it will not bring the slightest bit of benefit to the Canadian people. We did it to allow Mr. Bennett to get the fast buck. There was no consideration given to the final effect on the Canadian economy.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman. If we continue on this course of action we shall have set precedents by which we shall be asked, before many years are out, to decide that after all we must save our poor American friends from starving to death for lack of water. We shall be told, "Look at all the water we have. Let them have it." But, Mr. Chairman, we may want it 10, 15, 20 or 25 years from now. However, we shall be told, "Let them have it now and hope that we can get it back in the future."
We shall be told this in spite of the experience quoted in the chamber today of an international arrangement for a temporary transmission of power to the United States. What happened in that case when the United States was faced with a crisis? We could not turn the switch off. The American authorities said, "It is too bad but we cannot let you do it." I ask you to note that they did not let us

November 3, 196G
Interim Supply
turn the switch off. As a result that became a permanent agreement and that power goes there now in perpetuity, although when the Canadian people were asked to sanction the agreement it was clearly understood that it was a temporary measure which could be discontinued at any time.
These are some of the questions we should be thinking about now. We should be prepared to stand up and tell the people what we think of Canada and what we think of its future. I for one am prepared to say I think a great deal of Canada. When I have been in other parts of the world I have been enormously proud when I found out how highly regarded Canada and Canadians are, except for slight pangs of misgiving as to whether we were worthy of that regard. We will not be worthy of it unless you and I and all Canadians start working on plans to develop the Canadian economy, to advance our own economy and not the American economy.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: May I ask the hon. member a question? According to the accounts of the International Monetary Fund which I have in front of me, the members of that fund have $4,668 million invested in it, of which the United States share is $2,750 million. It can be seen that the United States dominates the International Monetary Fund. In the terms used by the hon. member of switching on and switching off, the United States with its majority control can switch on and switch off so far as the International Monetary Fund is concerned, and I believe they have switched off on gold.


Mr. Fulton:: Question?


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: We have gold in our country from coast to coast, but the United States has switched off and says that according to some agreement we must pay only $35 per ounce for gold. We must buy and sell at $35. In this connection it seems to me we have relinquished our sovereignty.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Colin Cameron: I was afraid the hon. member was going to raise this subject and ask a question about it, although I had hoped we could confine that discussion to the hearings on the Bank Act. I rather regret having heard him ask this question within earshot of my colleague from Timmins because I know he shares the same views as the hon. member for Charlotte in this matter. I do not think,

Mr. Chairman, you would be lenient enough to allow me to engage in a debate on the question of the position of gold in the world economy today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the committee to direct its attention to a matter which already has been discussed in the course of this debate on interim supply, and that is the matter of defence and defence policy. I do so because this is an issue of mounting importance and urgency as we come closer to the time when we may have first reading of the bill which now stands on the order paper in the name of the Minister of National Defence.
It is important that we should take this opportunity on interim supply to try to get the debate down to its real essentials, because we on this side regard it as a very important and very essential subject. That is the reason we insist on this opportunity to ask the minister and the government whether they will reconstitute the standing committee on national defence before that bill is brought in for second reading-indeed, before it is too late.
In the time available to me tonight I should like to consider three general areas of the defence situation. First, I wish to review the background of the present situation. I start by asking you, sir, and members of the committee the question: What is involved here? What is involved or what should be involved in this debate, a debate which should be a discussion of unification policy, because that is the course upon which the minister has embarked?
There are of course a number of answers to that question. One answer is that what is involved here is one-quarter of the national budget, approximately one quarter of the expenditures of the government of Canada, which is a vast sum. What is involved here is the question of the defence of Canada which, in over-all terms, surely is the primary responsibility of any government of Canada. What is involved here is an area where not only is it essential that we have a sound policy in respect of our expenditures, but we must consider the appalling consequence in terms of national security and national defence if we have the wrong policy. All these issues, and many others which could be mentioned, are involved here.
The issues in effect form the background of the debate. Against that background we have
November 3, 1966

seen evidence of the most disturbing and serious nature that the course upon which the minister is embarked is unsound-and I am making an understatement when I use that word. Indeed, it is a course fraught with disastrous consequences in respect of every one of the implications I have mentioned. I will refer in brief to some of that evidence.
We have heard evidence from senior professional advisers, or perhaps I should say former senior professional advisers because most if not all of them have had the axe. In the remorseless removal of all those senior professional advisers who do not conform to the minister's views on policy we have seen a disturbing awareness that all is not well.
Just think for a moment. The white paper on which the minister now says he bases his position was presented in 1964. All the senior advisers who were the senior advisers of the minister when that white paper was prepared are now gone. Never, outside of a banana republic or a Hitler type purge of military personnel-certainly never in the history of any western countries-have we seen so many senior and respected military officers axed in such a short time.


Mr. Churchill:: Shameful.


Edmund Davie Fulton: These are not Colonel Blimps. I do not hold any brief for generals, admirals or air vice marshals as such; they are generally able to take care of themselves. But these men who have gone are not persons who are characteristic of the type drawn by the cartoonist who drew the Colonel Blimps. As the minister knows, these men are highly intelligent, highly skilled and highly trained professional military personnel. They are young in terms of the contribution a man has to make in the totality of his career. They were and are still highly respected for the quality of their performance
As I have said, I have no brief for the generals, admirals or air vice-marshals as such, but these were the professional advisers of the government of Canada and the designers or potential designers of the kind of forces we should have. The country now is deprived of their services. We are deprived of the services of a substantial number, well over 20, of senior professional advisers at the very time when the country should be receiving the maximum benefit from its investment in the training and careers of these officers. This has happened at a time when these
Interim Supply
officers are at the height of their creative power and ability to make a contribution in this field. They are gone, all gone, retired compulsorily, or in some cases have taken early voluntary retirement. And so, as we look at the background of the situation, these are some of the reasons we want the committee on national defence reconvened and given the opportunity and responsibility to look into the policy on unification before it is too late.
What is the minister's reply? His reply appears to take two forms. First, it is a categorical no. "I have embarked on this course and you will not have the opportunity to review it; first you must accept the principle of unification and then we may allow you to discuss it in detail", he says. The other answer, if we follow the course of the minister aided and abetted by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, is an attempt to pour scorn and ridicule on individuals, primarily one individual. Why? Because that individual had the courage to speak out and because he followed the proper course of consulting with those who although opposed to the government, are properly concerned in this field; he consulted with them to give them the benefit of his views. That individual then is scorned and ridiculed in the words of the minister.
I am not going to spend too much time on this. But what is the minister suggesting? What is the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra suggesting? The minister has hundreds of consultants and he and the government receive all kinds of advice every day from people in the galleries. Are these persons to be scorned because they send advice down to the minister? Of course not. Why should anybody else be scorned because he sits in the gallery and thinks it is his duty to advise those who share his views as to the impractical and dangerous nature of the minister's policy? Instead of this course of heaping scorn upon those who have the courage and dedication to advise, why does the minister not answer, and answer on the merits?
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Why does he not reconvene the committee and let the committee go into the question of whether this policy and the basis upon which it was founded is right? That is all we are asking for, but the minister does not deal with the issues.


An hon. Member:: He is afraid to do that.

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the background of the discussion in which we are now engaged.
I should next like to deal with the question of reconvening the committee and the kind of evidence that the committee should receive when it is reconvened. At this point I must refer to the minister's extraordinary proposition that he has the right to censor in advance the evidence of a witness called by the committee. That is a proposition which is absolutely unacceptable and contrary to the spirit of parliamentary democracy and our concept of responsible government. The minister cannot take refuge behind his smokescreen by saying that what he is trying to do is prevent the import of the United States system.
What we are trying to do is protect the Canadian system which states that a witness called by a parliamentary committee or by parliament itself is inviolable, that is evidence cannot be tampered with or changed.
There are rules of parliament in this regard, Mr. Chairman. I make it as a statement of fact that Beauchesne, our Canadian authority, accepts the principles set forth in May, the primary English authority. I refer this committee and the Minister of National Defence to the 16th edition of May, page 129, regarding the status of witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees. The first principle I refer to is this:
It is a contempt to molest any persons attending either house or committees of either house as witnesses during their attendance in such house or committee.
The second principle I wish to refer to comes under the heading "Tampering with Witnesses" where it is stated:
To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given-
Let me emphasize that it is the evidence "to be given", not the evidence that has been given. I repeat the quotation:
To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before either house or any committee of either house or to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, is a breach of privilege.
And at the bottom of page 129 the following is stated:
This matter was considered in 1935 by a committee of the Commons who reported that, in their opinion, it was a breach of privilege to give any advice to a witness which took the form of pressure or of interference with his freedom to form and express his own opinions honestly in the light of all the facts known to him; and the house resolved that it agreed with the committee in their report.

That is the parliamentary position, and it is directly contrary to the dangerous proposition asserted by the minister who has in fact tampered with a witness.
Let me say this in respect of professional advisers, whether they be military or civil servants, appearing before a parliamentary committee. Once the committee has called them the minister has no right to tamper with their evidence. On the other hand, there his presentation of facts because the minister has the right, when such a witness is questioned, to say that the question involves a policy matter and therefore the answer must come from him. He can reserve to himself the right to answer in respect of policy matters. He can say to a witness and to the committee that although the witness has been called he has no right to discuss policy because he is a civil servant or a professional military adviser.
That suggestion would be understood and acceptable to any committee. But the minister has no right to require a witness to change his presentationnof facts because the minister's interpretation of the facts does not agree with that of the witness. The minister has no right when a witness is called by parliament or a committee to suppress his evidence dealing with the facts.
When you look at the two versions of Admiral Landymore's evidence now tabled in the house, you will see that there is some part which deals with policy and with foreign policy. I do not argue with the general proposition that this is perhaps not appropriate evidence for an admiral to give because this is not his field. There is a case to be made in this regard. However, when you get to the last four or five pages of that brief, where he is dealing with facts in respect of the availability of personnel necessary to enable him to discharge his responsibility as the commander of the maritime command, those are facts and the minister has no right, nor has any minister any right, to tamper with that evidence or require the witness to change, suppress or alter it in any form whatsoever. But that is what happened in this case.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether what the minister did is a breach of privilege or not-and I have extended my remarks somewhat because I think it would be dangerous in the extreme if we let the minister's proposition stand unchallenged and perhaps one day we will have to obtain a ruling in this regard-there is no question but that extensive and important alterations
November 3, 1366

were made to the evidence which Admiral Landymore wished to give. As I say, I am leaving aside now the question whether this was a breach of privilege. But whatever our views may be in that regard, there is no question but that there was a material alteration.
Let me ask the minister whether he will not agree-whether or not he believes he has a right to do it-that the result of the process was an extensive alteration of the effect of the evidence regarding the availability of personnel? There was, and it is obvious therefore that Admiral Landymore at least should be recalled before the defence committee to give the evidence he intended to give. And on the basis of that evidence the committee should then have the opportunity to ask the important questions to which their minds would then have been directed.
The important question in this whole issue-the question to which Admiral Lan-dymore's uncensored testimony would have directed the committee's attention-is this: what is the effect of unification on the availability and morale of personnel? That is what the committee should be getting at now.
And the purpose of this discussion now, as I see it, is to obtain an assurance from the minister that when the standing committee on defence is reconvened he will place no obstructions in the way of Admiral Landymore being recalled and that he will not directly or indirctly make any attempt to influence in any way whatsoever the evidence the Admiral may wish to give. I ask the minister whether he is prepared to give that assurance.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think it is most irregular that I should be cross-examined in this fashion. I would give that assurance because, first of all, it is completely beyond my purview to do any such thing. My hon. friend, who is supposed to have some knowledge of the rules of the House of Commons and its committees, knows that a committee can call any witness it likes, and he has made that point. There can be no restriction placed on the questions the committee wishes to ask witnesses, nor would I attempt in any way under any circumstances to restrict or alter what those witnesses might wish to say. I hope the committee does call Admiral Landymore and a number of other ex-admirals and officers to hear fully their views, but I remind the committee that the issue at hand is the unification of our armed forces.
Interim Supply


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear that assurance from the minister. Let me remind him that Admiral Landymore is still on six months' retirement leave. I am glad to know that this committee will be reconvened and that Admiral Landymore will have an opportunity to speak his mind without fear of penalty, recrimination or reprisal. I am also pleased to know that there will be no tampering with his evidence by the minister.
There are other witnesses who should be called before the defence committee before the house is asked to give second reading to the bill standing in the name of the minister. I suggest to this committee and to the minister that unless the minister is really determined to conceal the facts about the situation in which his department is involved-a department which spends almost one-quarter of the national budget-he should give the same assurance in respect of those other witnesses as he has just given in respect of Admiral Landymore.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I suggest to you, sir, that the following are amongst those who should be called before that committee: Lieutenant General R. W. Moncel, Lieutenant General F. J. Fleury, who was controller of personnel and took an early retirement, Vice Admiral K. L. Dyer and Air Marshal C. L. Annis. All these and perhaps other retired officers should be called to give evidence as to the present history of the progress-I put the word "progress" in quotation marks-the progress of, and their views on, the policy of unification.
I believe that to obtain evidence of recent events and the reasons surrounding some of these early retirements the following should also be called to give their views to the committee: Rear Admiral W. A. Landymore, Rear Admiral M. G. Stirling and Rear Admiral R. P. Welland. It would be interesting to hear the untrammelled evidence that these senior, professional officers could give the committee.
Then I think we should have the views of the following on the integration and unification of the services: Lieutenant General Geoffry Walsh, Rear Admiral J. V. Brock and Vice Admiral H. S. Rayner. There are other retired officers whom I could mention, but the officers I have enumerated should be called before the committee.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, of the many thousands who are opposed to unification, large numbers are still serving. For obvious

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
reasons I should not mention their names at the present time. But I think that when the committee gets down to its business it should be allowed to call officers serving at the present time, if we have the same assurance of non-interference from the minister. Any and every one of us who has maintained friendships and contracts with the armed services knows perfectly well that there are many serving personnel who are strongly opposed, and for very good reason, to the policy of unification. Any and every one of us who has maintained contacts and friendships with serving personnel knows that the minister is talking utter balderdash when he says that the serving officers and men in the armed services are unanimously in favour of unification.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. gentleman can find any quotation since 1963 where I have said that they were unanimously in favour of unification. I have never said that. I have said on many occasions that they were not unanimously in favour of it. In respect of anything as fundamental as this reorganization you cannot have unanimity. I have said that the majority were in favour of it, and I still think they are. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I should like my hon. friend to explain what he means when he says there are very good reasons why many members of the armed forces are in opposition to unification. These are the things we should discuss.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Give us the facts and maybe we will agree with you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has given us the assurance that what he said is that he is confident that the vast majority of the armed services personnel agree with unification. Let us be accurate about this. The minister has said that the vast majority are in favour of unification. I accept this correction. He has not said they are unanimous, he has said a vast majority favour it. I do not deny that. That is the impression the minister has given. Let him give us the assurance now that not only the retired officers whose names I have mentioned but serving officers will also be allowed to come before the committee and give, without fear of reprisal, in an untrammelled and uncensored way, their views on the effects of the policy of unification. Let us have that assurance from the minister.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is too afraid.


Mr, Hellyer:: Is that your view of responsible government?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is a little gutless. He won't.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is obvious that the minister is not prepared to give that assurance. I can only say that if he does not, it leaves most serious implications with respect to the policy of his department and-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I rise once more on a question of privilege. I think I should set the record straight in this regard. I am sure the hon. gentleman does not have such little regard for the officers and men serving at the present time that he would want them dragged into political controversy just to serve his ends. I am sure he would not want to do that and would in fact want to preserve them from this kind of political exploitation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is no question of privilege there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no question of privilege there. I earlier discussed and set forth clearly my views on the rights and obligations of professional officers who appear before parliamentary committees. The minister must remember that when this committee is convened, he himself has said he has the right or should have the right to determine who is called before it. But the minister is not the dictator that he thinks he is; he cannot say that so-and-so will be called and so-and-so will not.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You mean that I am not the
dictator you think I am.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know that you are, or rather I know that you want to be. But the committee is the judge of who should be called before it. All I am asking is that the minister place no obstacle in the way of the committee, because he tells us that he wants us to get the truth. If he wants us to get the truth, he will place no obstacle in the way of the committee in respect of the calling of witnesses. On matters of policy witnesses are not free to speak but on matters of fact and what the policy is presently doing and its effects, surely the witnesses must be free to speak. That is the only condition upon which I have asked for this assurance. But obviously I will not get the assurance for which I am asking.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, would my hon. friend say whether he thinks that unification is a matter of policy?
November 3, 1966


Mr. Fullon:: What I do say is that the failure to give this assurance has the most serious implications in respect of the soundness of the minister's and the government's policy in this regard, and it has the most serious implications with respect to our readiness to grant interim supply, which is what this discussion is all about.
The third area I wish to refer to is the reasons why it is so essential that the committee should sit now before the bill is given second reading. Some of these reasons will be apparent already from what I have said. They include the vitally important area of the defence of Canada, the amount of expenditure involved; the very important question of the alteration of evidence; the inability to get at the facts. But the most important reason is the essential purpose and nature of our desire to have a review of policy and a debate on policy, informed as to the facts, before it is too late. We want to have that review of policy on the basis of factual information obtained in the committee, and we want to have that review and then the debate in the house before the bill is given second reading.
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.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let us hear the minister on this point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We want to find out whether the policy is correct. I have already emphasized the obvious, namely, that the country has a large body of professional opinion which would give to the committee evidence that the policy is not sound.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They have all been fired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the hon. member has pointed out, they have all been fired. This is not a case of our suddenly saying: We want a discussion on unification. We have evidence that large numbers of senior, professional advisers believe that this policy is disastrous, at least in the way it is being pursued at the present time. But the House of Commons has never had a debate on this topic.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That's right. We have not yet had the bill.
Interim Supply


James Ross Fulton: We want to have that debate on policy on the basis of evidence given before the committee.
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; 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.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You should read the white paper.


James Ross Fulton: I have read the white paper, and I am distressed by it. The third assumption is that, on the basis of those first two assumptions, the only role for Canada which makes any sense is the provision of peacekeeping, mobile forces, primarily under the auspices of the United Nations and possibly NATO. It is because he has come to the conclusion, on the basis of those assumptions and that course of reasoning-
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Don't give my assumptions. Use your own.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We cannot reach assumptions because you have tampered with evidence. You have screened and withheld evidence.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, it is quite apparent that when we get down to the nub of this debate the minister is touched on a very sore spot.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will give my assumptions. You use yours.


James Ross Fulton: On the basis of these assumptions the minister has decided that this is the kind of force we should have and that this kind of force is the kind for which unification is the best policy.
I would say quite frankly that the minister may be right if his basic assumptions are correct. If the primary role for Canada in the field of defence in the future is in mobile peace-keeping forces and nothing much beyond it, then the minister may be right when he says unification is the answer to creating an effective and efficient force.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Texas Rangers.

November 3. 1968
Interim Supply


Edmund Davie Fulton: But I suggest to you, sir, there is not sufficient evidence to support this assumption or this series of assumptions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member like to hear my assumption? He has asked for it and I will tell him what it is.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, dictator.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have already suggested that we should have a debate and a debate, as I understand it, is a series of propositions on one side and answers on the other.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are making my propositions. Make your own.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope the minister will take part in the debate but I am rather terrified by the prospect because nothing he has said so far indicates to me that he is competent to draw the assumptions which he has. I am saying that in my view there is not sufficient evidence to support the assumptions upon which the minister's policy is clearly based, and there is a terrific penalty for this country if the minister is wrong.
We want to have that debate. After all, who is really bold enough to assume the role of a prophet and say that we will never have any responsibility for the defence of Canada? I am speaking of the defence of Canada in the conventional sense and in a conventional war.
Perhaps it is not sensible for us to assume we can discharge that role completely by ourselves. Of course we have to rely to a large extent on the United States and our other friends, but is this a position that a growing nation can accept in perpetuity, a nation soon to number at least 40 or 50 million and maybe 60 or 80 million? Are we to assume the posture in perpetuity that we are dependent on another state for the defence of our own territory?
I see the minister has just received a message from the gallery. How ridiculous. How dare the minister sit here and receive advice from the gallery after what he has said about others who sit in the gallery?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Signals from the gallery.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell them not to interfere any more.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps he received a message advising him to be silent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: His face is red.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am raising the question of whether Canada can afford, in terms of her national position and pride, this posture that we are dependent upon another country for the defence of our territory. If, then, we do have to assume the responsibility for the defence of Canada, and I suggest to you, sir, that we do and must, this requires Canadian defence forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If we have to assume responsibility for the defence of Canada or our share of it, and it will be a growing share, it requires land forces capable of a separate military effort. It requires air forces capable of their own military effort, and it requires naval and sea forces capable of their own military effort, all of them in the defence of Canada, all of them co-ordinated, all of them subject to a degree of integration in commands and supply services and the like, but all of them capable of their own military effort.
The Depuiy Chairman: I regret having to advise the hon. member that the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I agree that the hon. member should be allowed to continue his address but I would remind the committee that earlier this evening there was general agreement on both sides of the house that members would use the extra time with propriety.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, indeed.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it unanimously agreed that the hon. member be permitted to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the indulgence of the committee.
The point I have just made is that if-and in my humble submission it is not a supposition but a fact-we must assume the responsibility for the defence of Canada, then we should contemplate maintaining in existence Canadian defence forces of a type that I have described. If that be the case, then what is the reason for unification? If we are going to have Canadian defence forces capable of their own distinct military efforts, although co-ordinated at all stages, then what is the reason for this rush into a policy called unification which is but blinding us to the real issues of defence and disabling us from maintaining forces capable of discharging
November 3, 1966

their responsibility to Canada, which is the only role that they want to discharge?
My time is short so I will not go into the details of integration. I appreciate that the military situation calls for integration to a point and a co-ordination of commands and staffs, of services and supply.
Of course we have always supported that, but we have also contended clearly, consistently, and now with a growing insistence, that the minister is wrong in his basic policy of unification. He is twice as wrong in the ill-considered rush with which he is precipitating us down this road, and he will be three times as wrong unless he accepts his responsibility to inform the country and agrees to the reconvening of the defence committee which will allow us to have a debate on the basis of full information as to the facts. That is all we ask for and that is the purpose of this discussion on interim supply.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable interest to a number of speeches which have been made in the committee this evening, and in particular to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Kamloops. He is certainly entitled to his views, with which I do not necessarily have to agree, but he made three points on which I would like to comment very briefly tonight because I do not think they should be allowed to pass unnoticed.
The first one is the impression he has left that at this point all the good men have walked out of the armed forces and the senior officers who are left are all yes-men to the minister and men of considerably less experience than the senior officers who have retired. I disagree with this 100 per cent. I think that is a very dangerous inference to draw from what has happened. I believe it does a disservice to the country and a disservice to the men who are now in charge of the armed forces.


An hon. Member:: Do you know the men who left?


An hon. Member:: Much better.
Another hon. Member: Do you know the men who left?


David Walter Groos: Mr. Chairman, I do not know all the gentlemen who have retired from the armed forces but I know a good many of them and I know a good many of those who are left and who are now in charge. If you
Interim Supply
compare their backgrounds I believe you will find that they are all men of similar age, of very similar experience and of very similai service. In fact, it has largely been a matter of chance who got to the top first. They were all good men. We now have men running our services who I think are second to none and deserve nothing but the confidence of this house.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Another point made by the hon. member for Kamloops on which I should like to comment concerns witnesses at committees. I believe it would be very easy for us as members if all witnesses who appeared at committees were obliged to give nothing but their own views instead of members being forced to draw their own conclusions from their evidence or to worm their evidence out of them. But I suggest that this cannot be the case when serving officers and men appear before committees.
If I am asked to explain why, let me point out that these officers and men are required as a matter of duty to appear before committees and their promotion opportunities depend on the very people who are attending that committee and who are in office. I can just imagine the howl that would go up from the members of this house, and very rightly, if members of the armed forces were required as a matter of duty to give their independent views before a committee of the house without having some protection. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that they would require the sort of protection that could not be given.


Mr. Nugent:: Does this apply to the facts as well?


David Walter Groos: This applies to the interpretation of facts or policy. I believe the hon. member for Kamloops said that what was going on now in the form of ministers being allowed to revise presentations made to committees by members of his staff was a dangerous proposition, was tampering with the evidence. I suggest that this is not so.
I should like those on the other side of the house to expound exactly how you could protect the promotional opportunities of servicemen if they were given the right to speak their own views when they came before a committee. They must be guaranteed some protection. The witness, knowing that he is only speaking for the minister-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member like me to answer that question?

November 3, 196G
Interim Supply


David Walter Groos: I would be delighted if you would.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest it is relatively simple and it is done countless times in parliamentary committees. The witness says "I am sorry, that is a matter of policy and that question must be directed to the minister. I am here to give you information on the facts".


David Walter Groos: I do not think that is sufficient.
I am suggesting that a witness who is a member of the armed forces-this is the point I am particularly interested in at the moment-must be given complete protection by the house. If he is asked a personal question he can always say that he does not wish to answer it himself but would like to defer to the minister. This, of course, often gives a clue to the members of the committee that they must do some further delving of their own. But the witness must have this protection or I do not think you can demand that he appear before the committee as a military duty.
The last brief comment I wish to make is on the subject of Admiral Brock's paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is not in the house. Attack somebody in the house.


David Walter Groos: The suggestion has been made that I am attacking Admiral Brock, which is not the case. His name has been mentioned by members on both sides of the house many times. There is one aspect of this matter, and only one, that disturbs me and I think other members of the house. The hon. member for Kamloops said that Admiral Brock was only doing his duty by advising those who are opposing the government on its integration and unification program and who have similar views to his own. I do not mind that one bit. Admiral Brock is a man of considerable experience and I think he has the right to be heard.
However, what disturbs me is that having prepared this paper, as was his right, when his name came before the house and reference was made to his giving signals from the visitors gallery, to one of the members opposite, he took the trouble of calling a press conference. A description of this press conference was given in the Toronto Globe and Mail of November 2-


James Ross Fulton: Can the hon. member not discuss the issues here without quoting press reports?


David Walter Groos: -and at this particular time-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he not think it would be more appropriate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Chairman, I would like your protection at this time. I do not speak very often in the house.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It would appear that the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) does not want to receive a question at the moment.


David Walter Groos: Not at this point, though I would be glad to afterwards. I am just trying to make this point, which I think is a useful one. I am now referring to the November 2 issue of the Globe and Mail which contains an article by Anthony Westell.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are attacking somebody outside the house.


David Walter Groos: I am not attacking anybody; I am merely asking for an explanation. The article reads in part:
When It was alleged recently that Admiral Brock had been directing Mr. Nugent's attack upon Mr. Hellyer, the admiral held a press conference at which he denied the charge. He said he was not involved in politics-
Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman:
He said he was not involved in politics-
That is a very interesting statement because he has produced this paper which nobody, as far as I know, has denied, was prepared by Admiral Brock, and it was introduced by a member of the opposition. On the second page, in the first paragraph, Admiral Brock is reported as making this statement:
In anticipation of a return to power, our party should make a very early attempt to define defence objectives.
If that is not interfering in politics or having something to do with politics, then I would be very surprised. I do not mind being attacked for political reasons but I do like to know where the attack is coming from. I now find that the attack is coming from a neutral corner, and I think this is something which should be explained. One explanation may be that this paper, which is undated, may have been prepared after Admiral Brock held his press conference. However, I doubt that because according to an article in the Globe and Mail of July 19 it appears that Admiral Brock had held a press conference, and in a special report from Halifax there were three
November 3, 1966

Interim. Supply
paragraphs which are identical word for word with three paragraphs in the paper which has now been produced. So, Mr. Chairman, my third point is that I find it rather difficult to believe that Admiral Brock is not involved with politics and I should like him as a good sailor to show his true colours at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. member if he considers it improper that a party that expects or wishes to return to power should consider the subject of defence policy? Is he suggesting that that is improper? I would imagine he is because it is obvious that his party never seriously considered defence policy either before or after coming to power.


David Walter Groos: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is wrong at all. What I object to is that Admiral Brock said that he had nothing to do with politics, yet there is a report in the paper which quotes him as saying, "In anticipation of a return to power, our party" should define defence policy.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the hon. gentleman accept another question? As chairman of the defence committee, when he was informed by Admiral Landymore that his evidence had been tampered with, why did the member not bring it to the attention of the house?


David Walter Groos: The hon. member has raised a perfectly valid point and I would be glad to answer it if I am given the opportunity by members opposite. There is a lot of noise coming from over there. I think this committee is obviously entitled to an explanation of what happened. After all, references to it have appeared in the newspapers. I think it might be helpful if I were to place my remarks in perspective. I have known Admiral Landymore for 25 or 30 years. We are practically classmates. If I can be personal about it, let me say that in 1940 my ship rescued the survivors of Admiral Lan-dymore's ship when it was sunk off the coast of France. Speaking from memory, I would say that Admiral Landymore certainly did mention to me the matter of changes in his evidence. But he spoke to me some two weeks after presenting evidence before the committee. I think the hon. member for Halifax has something to say. I should like to give him the floor so as to hear what it is.


Mr. Forresiall:: I was cautioning the hon. member to be very careful because there are a lot of other questions which will be asked of him.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


David Walter Groos: I am not the least bit worried about further questions which may be asked. I was trying to give the committee some explanation of what happened.
Admiral Landymore did speak to me about two weeks after his evidence had been given to the committee and some days after the estimates of the national defence department had been returned to the house. At that time he was still a serving officer. He happened to be here in Ottawa. This, as I understand it, was part of a private conversation with me. We have had many private conversations over the years, as hon. members can imagine. This was one of a number of points which he brought up in the course of our conversation which covered a period of six or seven hours. I gave his remarks on this particular point no greater weight than I thought them entitled to, for the reasons I have explained to the committee. I think that if the minister is to protect witnesses he must be able to change the evidence which he is requiring those witnesses to give.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to facts?


David Walter Groos: With regard to the interpretation of facts and policy.
My last point is that as a committee chairman I do not think I can be expected to act on all matters brought up in private conversations. I believe that written advice would always be acted upon and brought to the attention of the steering committee. But on this occasion I regarded what was said as part of a private conversation. It was only one of the subjects which were brought up at the time, and for these reasons and because the committee was not sitting I did not bring it to the attention of the steering committee.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, during the past few days we have witnessed some odd behaviour on the part of the government. It began when my hon. friends from Grey-Bruce and Winnipeg South Centre asked questions concerning old age pensions. We heard the publicity-conscious Minister of National Health and Welfare say the only interest of members on this side of the house was to promote themselves publicly. That is a strange attitude on the part of a minister who allows a difference of opinion between himself and his own colleague, the Minister of Finance, to be bandied about in

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
the maritime provinces to what he considers his own advantage in seeking the leadership.
Then we come to the attitude of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as witnessed in the house today. When a good suggestion was made from this side of the house the hon. gentleman put his head together with those of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence and after some delay, in keeping with the advice given some time ago by the Prime Minister that we should not ask questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs without giving him time to think, he laid claim to the idea having been put forward earlier from the Liberal side of the house. We give him time to think and he tries to sell us the notion that his own side was responsible for the- idea. A similar suggestion from this side of the house prompted the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say that this too had been put forward by the Liberal party. As tomorrow's Hansard will show, he said it originated at the Kingston conference. They will put their heavy hands on anything which will advance their own cause.
It has been suggested from this side of the house that this has been a government of retreat. What happened on September 1? The Minister of Transport tried to steal our thunder because he turned to the Prime Minister and said: "The Prime Minister, as usual, will have to backtrack." Is it any wonder that this government is considered to be a government of retreat when ministers themselves are stealing the opposition's thunder and accusing themselves of being a government of retreat?
In the field of defence we have a minister who, ever since the white paper came out in 1964, has been misleading the Canadian people with regard to what that white paper means. He has spoken of millions of dollars which are to be saved for the Canadian public. Yet the defence white paper says in black and white that these millions of dollars to be saved will all be spent on more sophisticated weapons. There is nothing in the white paper which means any saving to the Canadian taxpayer.
Last night we heard members of this committee coming to the defence of the minister, as has been the case today. I would draw attention to the speech made by the hon. member who is just leaving his seat. He has been the chairman of the defence committee for some time. He accused my hon. friend from Kamloops of casting discredit on the men in charge of our armed forces. I would
[Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South) .1
draw attention to the fact that when he said the hon. member for Kamloops was casting discredit on the men in charge of the armed forces he, obviously for his own reasons, did not include the Minister of National Defence. He did not try to protect the minister. I think it was a case of conscience.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra made what he thought was a very humorous speech. He referred to papers. He referred to a paper which was supposed to be the defence policy of the Conservative party. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with it. It is only sensible for any party which intends to formulate a defence policy to look to experts in the field to draw it up, and I for one would be proud if Admiral Brock had drawn up such a paper, a paper which I can say I have not seen.
At this point I wish to correct an impression which may be left by Hansard. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra used words such as "sly" and "Conservative sneak". I say to him that if there is an authority in Ottawa on the process of sneaking, he is that authority.


An hon. Member:: Leaky Deachy?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: Leaky Deachy. If the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra wanted to be funny why did he not turn to the speech made by the hon. member for Leeds? I use that hon. member's own words to describe it-an outhouse speech. I think that is the only place where he could go to defend the Minister of National Defence.
The minister implied this evening that the defence committee might possibly be set up before interim supply passes, or at least that he was anxious to set it up. If he is anxious to do so, then he will be complying with the wishes of the house.
The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and who had occasion to chair the defence committee, made reference to the dragging of service personnel into a political argument. To call a serviceman before the defence committee cannot be interpreted as dragging him into a political argument. But if one examines what the minister did recently when he went to Halifax, one finds that he did not try to drag service personnel into a political argument. He went there and tried to shove an argument down their throats.
Hon. members may recall that Admiral Landymore was threatened with a courtmar-tial. We were waiting to see if the government would dare take such a step against a
November 3, 1966

man who gave such great service to his country. He was threatened with a courtmar-tial because as a serving officer he had spoken out on defence policy, but when people in the upper echelon of the armed forces made favourable statements about integration, no threats were made against them. As the hon. member for Greenwood pointed out, if the rules apply to one case they should apply to the other, whether the person in question has spoken out for or against integration. The man who spoke against the minister's defence policy has been threatened with a courtmar-tial, but those who express themselves in favour of it are patted on the back and made out to be heroes.
If the Liberal party is so concerned about not involving armed forces' personnel in political matters, why did it use senior officers during the last election campaign to go around and make speeches on defence matters? I speak particularly of Air Marshal Reyno who went about Nova Scotia making political speeches on defence bases. If the Liberal party is so concerned about not involving armed forces' personnel in political matters, why did it pay a political hack from Nova Scotia to go around the armed forces bases in Europe and preach Liberal politics?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: Liberal members do not know about that, I think they should. In fact, one senior officer who lived up to his duty ordered this man off his base and shipped him back to Canada on a plane. Everybody is aware of that situation. The hack was shipped back to Nova Scotia. I mention Nova Scotia, but people were sent from places other than Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: Oh, Nova Scotia?


Donald MacInnis: If the
hon. member has something to say let him get up and say it. The Minister of National Defence was somewhat concerned about who would be taking part in the debate tonight, but now he is conspicuous by his absence. The Liberals object to calling in experts in any field, and this may well be the cause of their rattle-brained approach to policy on any matter. The only Liberal minister who called in experts is no longer a member of the cabinet. That was the minister of finance who drew up the first Liberal budget. He went outside the civil service to get experts, and look what happened to him. Now the Liberals rely on the expert opinions to be found
23033-602J
Interim Supply
among their own ranks with the result that this is a government of retreat, as substantiated by the statement made by the Minister of Transport.
During the course of this debate Liberal members have quoted press articles. There is one which appeared in the November 2 issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail which I think would do their hearts good, and I would like to put it on the record. It is by Scott Young and is headed, "The New Colonel Blimps". It reads:
I have been angered again and again by the way the new Colonel Blimps of the Defence Department have played upon the yahoo-content of the Canadian public to deride and make a laughingstock of men who have served this country well.
We had Monday and yesterday there in the House of Commons a Defence Minister whose most vivid personal experience of the horrors of war is that he got the same sets of medical injections twice because he transferred from the Air Force to the Army. This apparently has left him wifh such an indelible psychic scar that Monday (this newspaper reported yesterday) he felt obliged to draw guffaws from his fellow Liberals at the expense of Rear Admiral Jeffry Brock, who was sitting in the gallery.
Here, Mr. Chairman, I should like to state that this despicable action on the part of the minister should not have been allowed. If we had recognized that Admiral Brock was in the gallery certainly I for one would have risen on a question of privilege and demanded an immediate apology from the minister for his uncalled for, quite undignified, scandalous behavior. It did not become a man who for the time being holds the position that the minister does.
The article continues:
It occurred to none of the yahoos, apparently, that while Defence Minister Paul Hellyer was suffering so horribly under the double sets of needles Brock was at sea on some bloody awful nights, fighting. Simply that: fighting. Hellyer was too young to be Brock, of course: I know that. What Hellyer chose to do from the ages of 18 to 22 (his age when the second world war ended) is his own business. I did not enlist myself until late in 1943, at age 25, and wasn't sworn in until early in 1944. Lucky for both Hellyer and me, we lived in a country where such freedom of choice was allowed. Men like Brock gave us that freedom. So it leaves an ugly taste to hear one who did not fight (Hellyer) make public and unanswerable fun of one who did (Brock).
Here again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to interject that although I fully subscribe to what has been written in this article I feel that possibly the writer did an injustice to the Minister of National Defence. After all, the minister lived dangerously during the war. He is the man who made that very dangerous trip from California to his home

November 3, 19G6
Interim Supply
town on a motorcycle. According to the publicity at the time, this was a very dangerous thing for him to do. For all I know he might have been one of the original "Hell's Angels" we have heard so much about lately. Mention has been made of the two injections the minister received in the services. Possibly he got a third injection to allow him to sit on a motorcycle that long.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The article continues:
It is easy, too, for a young reporter to see a redfaced admiral and translate him into a Blimp by describing how he glared around at his adversaries on the floor below and in the gallery beside him.
The words I think of, when I think of Blimps, are words written by Siegfried Sassoon:
If I were fierce and bald and short of breath,
I'd live with scarlet majors at the base,
And speed glum heroes up the line to death.
You'd see me with my puffy petulant face,
Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel.
I might interject again. That description is not too far off fitting the minister. The article goes on:
But the difference is that Brock, if he was ever scarlet, was scarlet at sea where the action was- while the ones who jibe at him now were safe in their sand-boxes or free, each in his own safe comer, to pursue the other parts of the role defined by Sassoon.
Rear-Admiral William Landymore's name came into the Commons proceedings, also. Every bit of mud thrown at Brock splashes a little on Landy-more. Brock has taken direct political action, apparently finding that the Conservatives were the only ones who would give him the time of day. Landymore, on the other hand, has taken no direct political action. He told me, the only time I spoke to him (about two weeks ago): "I have taken the position always that I am here at home, and I will answer any questions anyone wants to ask me. The only thing is no Liberal so far has asked me any questions."
I might add-or dared to ask. The article continues:
One accusation always is inherent in the use of the phrase, Colonel Blimp: an accusation of rigidity of thought and opinion, a lack of flexibility and open-mindedness.
Here again, this is very much in line with the stand the Prime Minister promised to take, half way between flexibility and firmness. The article goes on:
In those terms, Hellyer himself is the ultimate Blimp. In that connection, I found an amazing thing in my foray into the Defence Department last month: the men in charge now are not old Blimps, they are young Blimps. They are passionate devotees of unification and Blimpishly will hear no other argument. This is made easy for them, because any man who opposes armed forces unification-well, let me quote a man who now is serving in a senior staff job in Defence Headquarters: "If there are indications that you do not support the

minister's views, from a career angle you are finished."
When you think of some of the defence ministers we have had, is this a good precedent to establish? If there is a change of government at the next election and a change of forces policy, will all of today's young Blimps at headquarters be fired and even newer Blimps wheeled into their offices and plugged in? Is this, as a policy, safe for Canada?
That is the end of the article by Scott Young in the Globe and Mail of November 2. It is recommended reading for the Liberal party and especially for the Minister of National Defence because if his ego were punctured and he came down off cloud nine I think the demands and requests of opposition members might be met and we would have the committee on national defence reconvened so that we could hear from witnesses called before it the evidence which they are prepared to give. The minister has assured the house that he will not censor any evidence. The word "censor" has been used, whereas last week we were using the word "tampered". The hon. member for Leeds certainly fouled up that word last night, and possibly from here on we should use the word "censor". In order to avoid the hon. member for Leeds having to look up the meaning of the word-I should like to draw to the attention of members of the Liberal party that there is only one minister on the front benches but this is just what we can expect from that government-he will find the meaning of "censor" as given in the Oxford Dictionary to be:
An official in some countries whose duty it is to inspect all books, journals, dramatic pieces, etc., before publication, to secure that they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive to the government.
I presume that the Minister of National Defence will not adopt that attitude and will allow freedom of expression to all witnesses who in the future are called before the national defence committee. The hon. member for Leeds stood up to defend the minister. He denied there was any tampering with the evidence and then contradicted himself by referring later in his remarks to what he called untampered evidence. This was a direct contradiction by that member. The minister himself in recent days denied that our defence forces have not been kept up to their full requirement and then within five minutes of making that statement admitted to very grave shortages in the armed forces personnel.
November 3, 1966



I had been looking for the opportunity to go back into the history of this matter while certain members were in the house but I do not intend to go too far back at this time. However, if the Liberal party wishes to go back into history, why do they go back only two or three years? Why do they not go back and give us a full resume of what went on when members on that side of the house were in a very involved position in respect of defence? They could have taken us back and possibly given us a story about the horses they had on the payroll under the present Minister of Industry. They could have gone back and told us about the stupid position they took in respect of the Bomarc issue. At the time they were taking their position in respect of the Bomarc missiles, the Bomarcs were being phased out in the United States. Yet they claimed they had to fulfil a commitment. One commitment which should be fulfilled is that of loyalty by this minister to the people of this nation so that this nation can be provided with the information which will allow the opposition and the government working together to establish an armed service in this country of which we can be proud rather than a police force which would serve their purposes, whatever they may be.
These purposes were referred to several times by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Here again there is further contradiction, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs today referred to himself as the foreign minister. This is a further indication of the fact that they are destroying completely the national interests of this country not only in matters of defence but in many other aspects of our economy.
There is a duty upon the minister to provide us with the truth. In the last few weeks, through a favourable press, the Liberals have told the people of this country that the member for Edmonton-Strathcona backed away from making a charge. They know that the member for Edmonton-Strathcona put his seat on the line in making the necessary charge. They also are aware of the fact that the Minister of National Defence himself was the only person responsible for that charge not getting the proper hearing.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The member for Leeds the other night said that the member for Edmonton-Strathcona went on a C.B.C. program and made a slanderous charge. The Liberals say he has no courage in this house, but he has proven that he has courage. It is the Minister of National
Interim Supply
Defence who has proven himself to be gutless and on more than one score. He has proven himself to be gutless in this house and he continues to do so day after day. He has also proven himself to be gutless outside this house. Every member of parliament has immunity in the house, but they do not enjoy that immunity when they make statements on the C.B.C. If the Minister of National Defence has the guts he says he has why did he not do something about the slanderous remarks he has suggested were made? That procedure has been followed before by members of parliament and the C.B.C. has been forced to back down on certain statements. The Minister of National Defence continues to prove himself gutless.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, since the atmosphere is heavy with accusations, in order to lend some variety to the debate, I shall take advantage of the study of those estimates to call the government's attention to another national scandal.
The present case involves the C.N.R. which, in my opinion, has become the worst nest of patronage among all the Canadian companies. When the doubters have an opportunity to do so, I urge them to take a look at the payroll of that company, especially the payroll of senior officials, because the same names always appear among the heads of some divisions, whether in Quebec city, Montreal or Toronto.
And even though that situation has existed for several years, we have yet to be shown that relationship means competence. On the other hand, we have proof that hundreds of young men who, through incapacity or misconduct, have been unable to complete their studies in regular schools, have become students at the expense of the C.N.R. Following their studies, those young men have been appointed inspectors and throughout the country, thousands of workers must submit to every whim of those new inspectors who know nothing. Those workers include the station agent who, all his life, has scrupulously performed the following combined duties: finance agent, telegraph agent, ticket agent, freight agent, express agent. That man is also responsible for keeping the stations clean and in good order.
That agent now works under the orders of those young greenhorns who travel across the country, all expenses paid, as inspectors. Each inspector is supposed to be an expert in one

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
field, of course, and they are expert in accounting, in freight, express inspectors, sanitation inspectors; inspectors are to be found everywhere there are workers.
The government is aware of the fact, I suppose, that the overly large number of inspectors working for the C.N.R. was one of the main reasons for the strike last summer. In the same week, six inspectors may visit the same station, half of those inspectors are unscrupulous and submit false reports.
I could name a few of those inspectors and give their addresses. They are supposed to meet the customers of the various services of the C.N.R. such as the freight or the express. Now, they mention in their report the names of persons to whom they ascribe some statements concerning the C.N.R. service and, moreover, the persons mentioned have never been visited by any inspector; therefore, they have never been asked to give their impressions. How much does this dishonest work cost the Canadian taxpayers? I take the liberty of quoting one of my questions in that connection, namely question No. 1,887 which appeared in the order paper:
What was the total amount of expenses claimed through the expense accounts granted by the Canadian National Railways to its non-union employees for the year 1965?
The parliamentary secretary gave the following answer, as reported on page 8334 of Hansard:
The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The company does not differentiate between expenses claimed by union and non-union employees. No record is kept of amounts that may have been paid to non-union employees only.
Do you know of an independent company which could operate regardless of an elementary rule of logic which states that no business, nothing at all can operate without some form of control?
Only a crown corporation can ignore this rule. And under the aegis of the Department of Transport, Canadian National Railways officials allow themselves to pay out without stint.
Under the aegis of the Department of Transport, employees get more expense money than they do wages, starting with the president of the company.
Not only are we unable to get information on expenses, but wages are just as much a

mystery. Another question put on the order paper, Question No. 1,868, reads as follows:
How many employees of the Canadian National Railways earn an annual salary of (a) $4,000 to $6,000 (b) $6,000 to $8,000 (c) $8,000 to $10,000 (d) $10,000 to $15,000 (e) $15,000 to $25,000 (f) over $25,000?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport replied, as recorded on page 8329:
The management of Canadian National railways advises as follows: It has not been considered in the best interests of the company to disclose data on employees' earnings in the manner requested.
This was not the day for honest and clear answers, since that same day, on the same page, in reply to Question No. 1,869:
How many hours a week must the agent in charge of a station doing $50,000 worth of business a year, work to maintain that standard with (a) C.N.R. (b) C.P.R.?
The Secretary of State's reply, as recorded on page 8329, reads as follows:
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned :
(a) The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Canadian National station agents work a standard week of forty hours and are paid on a salary basis.-The federal government does not have statistics on the amount of business they do.
The Canadian National Railways, a company which is said to have administrative staff, a company in the hands of a number of handsomely paid people, having at its head a president costing the Canadian people $75,000 a year, over and above expenses, told could be achieved by private enterprise which would operate without method, as in the case of the Canadian National. Whether it is not considered in the best interest of the company to disclose employees' earnings.
The company does not keep track of expenses for which employees claim reimbursement; it does not require statistics to be kept in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, I have not been sitting in the house for very long, but the short time I have been able to spare for research has enabled me to realize that the balance-sheets of this company are all alike, namely they all show a deficit. This is not surprising, under such an administration.
We can hardly imagine the success which could be achieved by private enterprise which would operate without method, as in the case of the Canadian National. Whether it is a business, trucking, construction or industrial enterprise, any manager would require
November 3. 1966

reports: inventories, reports on expenses, and efficiency reports. When one wants profits, one begins by insisting upon an intelligent management.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Hence, when we consider the balance-sheet of the Canadian National, we are concerned with its poor management and we wonder also how it happens that such an intelligent person as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is forced to defend a company managed so stupidly.
Waste is not limited to inspection; there is waste of human capital inside the company itself. On account of economy, station agents are transferred unconsciously, without any consideration for services rendered.
In a letter he wrote me recently, an agent told me that after 45 years of service, 45 years of work in an important station, he was transferred 500 miles from his family to perform night work, and that on account of economy.
And also on account of economy, the Canadian National is taking steps to close several stations throughout Canada. How can we talk about savings when figures regarding the amount of business of those stations do not even exist?
The proof that those figures do not exist is that agents with a yearly turnover of only $50,000 will keep their position, while others with a yearly turnover of $150,000 have been informed to clear out and to gather all their books, because those books will be taken to a central office.
The fate of the railway workers has nothing to be envied either, because with the way the C.N.R. is extending the sections, always on account of economy, their number is decreasing from day to day. And the less there are honest workers who, through their work, maintain the railways, the more there are supervisors. It is rather common to see three foremen for two workers. Mr. Chairman, when supervisors have to supervise the supervision office, it is time for a change.
We hope that the Minister of Transport will do everything in his power to rectify that situation and that the house will give him the sympathy he deserves; in fact, in his office, he does deserve our sympathy, because with a mere $27,000 a year, he is responsible before parliament and the Canadian people for the mistakes of a company president who gets a salary three his own.
Interim Supply


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is the sad experience of most backbenchers to have to speak to an empty house, but I think the Liberal party might well have been here in large numbers because I intend to make, if I can, a positive contribution to this debate. This is not a laughing matter; this should not be a Red Skelton program. I believe we are discussing tonight, as we have been for the last two days, the most important subject facing the Canadian people, yes, the northern hemisphere and in fact the whole world, the question of survival. If the Canadian people are not interested in survival, why should any party or any government have the colossal nerve to ask us to spend on defence $1,672 million of our hard earned income.
I do not think we have to spend that amount of money to become an international police force. But if we took a realistic view of the situation it might be that we should spend a great deal more money, after looking at the jungle world in which we live and the forces of evil with which we have to contend. I gave seven years of my young life to war, and I do not want to repeat that experience any more than does anybody else in this country. But I would go to war again if the dignity of man were to be dragged through the dirt. As one hon. member said tonight, we should all be willing to take this attitude.
Sometimes I am half ashamed of my country and half ashamed of this institution when a junior member like myself has to lecture this house. But I am afraid that if I kept silent the rocks of Canada from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island would speak because it is time somebody stood up here and spoke from their guts, and I am not worried about whether I have any.
In the world of today we cannot ignore the nuclear role. When the nuclear policy of this country was discussed some years ago I for one had no fuzzy thinking. I knew what faced Hon. Howard Green in those days as chairman of the anti-nuclear committee. I also knew the problem which faced the hon. member for Calgary North who was at that time minister of national defence. If I may say so, when some of the dust has settled we might well look back to the days of the leadership of the hon. member for Calgary North in respect of defence and admire at least his forthrightness and clear thinking on defence policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We should admire these qualities even if the hon. member could not see as clearly as Hon. Howard Green the necessity for a very deep and sincere wish that men gather around the council tables of the world and outlaw the horror which ruined my young life in its most important seven years.
I believe in the defence of this hemisphere. I also believe in the complete support of our North American allies. But I am not one of those who want this at the price of our sovereignty. I know the problem that exists in the United States. The Americans have only one friend amongst the armed nations of the world-little old Canada. Can they rely on de Gaulle in another war? Can they rely on Mr. Wilson's England? Churchill has gone. That great voice of freedom has been stilled forever. I remember standing in an old pub in England and listening to Mr. Churchill saying, "We will fight on the beaches." We were on the beaches, and I can tell you that we did not have very much more than the rocks at Brighton to fight with. When that great man spoke from his guts, and that is what he had, there was very little else to fight with, and the whole western world was inspired.
I did not think that in one generation the western peoples would descend into the pit of defeatism where they would say: There is nothing left for us to do but be bird-watchers or policemen on the Gaza strip. I too am proud of our armed forces and I believe in integration of a sort. Are combined operations a new thing? Did Corporal Hellyer invent integration? I saw integration in practice. Thousands of my pals died at Dieppe. I wish I had been at Dieppe with them.
Is unification something new? The Spartans knew something about unification. Three hundred men stood at Thermopylae: You did not have to preach to them about unification or about a united effort for the case of Greece. Does the Minister of National Defence expect me to be something less, or does he expect those of us who have lived in the days of Churchill, Lord Alexander and General Montgomery to be something less? I am sure that General Montgomery and Lord Alexander would be only too pleased to appear before a defence committee anywhere in the western world to give their views about integration and unification. They would be the last two men alive to say that the western world can afford to be pacifist. I say without hesitation, would to God we could be. I would

like to see the day when we can spend our $1J billion of defence money on feeding the hungry people of the world instead of buying expensive military hardware. Because we are no longer the government, are we to sit in silence while the same people who said we had no right to cancel the expensive Arrow program now want us to be bird watchers? What good will it do to be watchers of this kind?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I said before that I believe in helping our American allies protect perhaps the last citadel of freedom, the North American continent. If we cannot keep this place safe and free, if we cannot be strong and hold power in the world, how can we afford to be generous abroad? I think that the enemies of the United States are often the enemies of freedom. Are we to follow their advice on what to do when they say "Yankee go home"? Where did that phrase come from? Where does the phrase "Get out of Viet Nam" come from? I do not hear very much of that coming from Australia, I do not hear very much of that coming from New Zealand, and I do not hear too much of it coming from the senior member of the Commonwealths lusty children.
If the old lion is tired, what are we going to do about it? There is the peace-keeping role. Every man in this room knows it would be no good sending our men to Cyprus or to the Gaza Strip if it were not for the powerful, alert, well armed and willing to fight neighbour to our south. Defence is too hot to handle and so we play around with our little Red Skelton programs, dragging each other through the mud. Just keep it up and you will see what our friends to the left, who have never taken a realistic view of the defence of freedom as we know it, will say. They would like to take over, and then it will be too late.
If this government has a consistent defence policy, I would like to see them bring it before us. Why is this the first opportunity we have had to stand up and say what we think should be done? The question of national service has been too hot to handle ever since 1917. We got around it in world war two. We relied on volunteers. I wonder whether we have the right to rely on volunteers. I wonder whether a man has the right to involve his country in a war when the consensus in the country is not behind that war. Do we need leadership in defence? I do not think it is right to wait for public opinion to push us.
November 3, 1966

If Churchill had waited for public opinion to push him, he would never have been where he was when we needed him. He stood practically alone, and because he told his countrymen things they did not want to hear he had to wait until he was an old man before he was given the opportunity to show he was right. For instance, Eden was right when the little ships put the Graf Spee to shame. It is not enough to believe in freedom. Somebody has to do something about it.
I am one of those who do not think we can keep Canadian sovereignty and keep from being completely absorbed by the great republic to the south unless we are willing to pay our way. I said in this house and I say again that I think we should pay our way and take the first moral, brave and spiritual step of admitting that the price of freedom cannot come too high in money or in men. It may well be that the policy of raising an adequate armed force can be achieved through a voluntary system. I would like to think it could. However, if it cannot I would not hesitate, as does the minister of defence, to call upon the Canadian people to take a really good look at the question of survival.
We should consider how far we are willing to go to fight for our own freedom and independence and, I would not hesitate to say, for our national honour because I am one who thinks that Canada's national honour is not dead. As far as I can see, it is in a deep slumber and its snoring comes to us mainly from the treasury benches.
The question of unification and integration is not the only one about which we should be worried. There are many other aspects of our national defence which need a great deal of consideration. What are we going to do about military hardware? I was greatly pleased to hear that our striking power in antisubmarine warfare is greater today than it has ever been and that by some necromancy we are going to be able to do this with fewer ships and fewer men. I believe this is possible but I think it is quite irrelevant if we have no intention of ever involving ourselves in antisubmarine warfare now or at any other time. I suppose the Minister of National Defence knows how many nuclear submarines there are in the world today. I do not, but I know they are there. If we have this super-submarine striking power, where is it?
I think that our committee system has been good and we have expanded it, but what in the world is the good of a defence committee which is muzzled? Surely the Minister of 23033-603
Interim Supply
National Defence has some confidence in the views of serving soldiers, airmen and sailors. If he has not, then somebody must be seriously wrong. Either he is wrong or the men that he is calling are wrong. Anybody who has ever served in the army knows perfectly well that when a man has a good, superior officer he need not hesitate to take his advice. Before any attack our colonel always held a meeting and he asked each and every officer in his command to criticize the plan fully. We knew that at zero hour we had to go ahead and do what we were told but, as I say, any officer for whom we had the slightest respect never hesitated to pick the brains of lesser men.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Who is this straw man, this bogeyman of brass, who is bullying the defence minister? Where is he? How is he doing this? The hon. member for Leeds asks: How do you tamper with an admiral? I might ask another question: How does a serving admiral hope to bully the defence minister? Surely he can say anything he likes. Does the defence minister say that any serving member of any one of the three forces, or a member of the proposed unified forces, could hope to influence him against his own conscience and will? If that is the case, then we certainly need a new defence minister. We can afford to have officers who do not know all the answers but we cannot afford a defence minister who will not listen to the experts in the various commands.
We have these experts, and let hon. members opposite not raise this straw man again and say that the Tories have no faith in them. We have a great deal of faith in our defence experts. Day by day we are going to keep hammering at this question until we have hammered out a sensible defence policy. We have been asked half a dozen times today what we think about defence policy, but the government does not want to hear our answer.
I am going to tell you what I think about it, Mr. Chairman. I may be wrong but as one member out of 265 I have the right to state what I think is the cross-section of opinion of this country. The cross-section of public opinion in this country must be that we should all stand to defend Canada to a man. There is unification there from one end of Canada to the other. Loyalty to Canada is not a party matter. There is no monopoly of patriotism.

November 3, 1966
Interim Supply
I know the war records of many of the members of this house on both sides, and I think we should have had a full-fledged debate on this subject a long time ago. It is not enough to say that we have a defence committee which can do this. We cannot all be members of that committee. The reason we have a committee of limited size is to enable 15 or 20 members to thrash out some of these problems. But this cannot be done unless there is reliance placed upon the witnesses who appear before you.
I do not think that a government with a defence policy worthy of the name should be afraid to have the frankest expression of opinion of every serving member of the armed forces. Having been a service officer myself I cannot imagine that I would do or say anything designed to weaken our strength or to weaken a strong, effective government defence policy. But as a private soldier, let alone as a serving general or admiral or air vice marshal, it would certainly be criminal negligence if I were not willing to come forward and stand up to any type of badgery.
Are hon. members opposite indicating that we have officers in the armed forces who would rather collect their pensions than have a safe Canada? If such there be, I say to the government that they should put them out of the armed forces now and replace them with somebody who has the proper kind of integrity and courage. We can face up to the truth. If we have run into dead ends in our defence policy over the last 20, 40 or 100 years it is no good crying over spilled milk. We must decide what we are going to do now and where we go from here.
I suggest that we had better get a longterm defence policy which seeks to keep Canada strong and free as long as she is a nation. We will always need men, and unless I am vastly mistaken the spot wars which have broken out all over the world recently and are still raging in many places are a threat to us all, our homes, ideals and principles. Wishful thinking can spread like a disease to cripple a whole nation.
I said before and I want to say again that I am not a defeatist. I do not think we have yet got to the point of no return. If I may speak for my colleagues, there is not a member of the official opposition who is not willing to go the whole way. We are willing to listen and to talk. We only want a chance to be heard and we only want a chance to hear. We want to hear from those who can give us the best information.

We in the armed forces served under such men as General Guy Simonds in the Canadian army. Let him appear before the committee. I think he knows something about combined operations, call it integration if you like. I think Lord Louis Mountbatten would be very pleased to make a tour of Canada and visit every defence post. He would be above suspicion of being mixed up in our local politics. He would not worry whether we used what he said during the next general election campaign. Let us hear him and at least learn some of the lessons the British learned on the question of integration.
If you will forgive me for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I will put a little sentiment into this speech. The Black Watch regiment happens to wear my family tartan. I think that some of these points which mean nothing to those who have not worn the Black Watch tartan might well bear consideration, even in this twentieth century when these sort of things are not supposed to count. Perhaps hon. members may think it makes no difference to a guards officer that his buttons are two up, two down on the front of his jacket. Perhaps they might think that the two swaths which are cut out of the gaiters worn by members of the Black Watch do not mean anything. I would remind them that this means that in their centuries of service to their king and country only twice in 500 years did they give ground. There does come a time in anybody's military service when there is no place to go, and if you give ground, you give all. This is the tradition of the Black Watch.
I do not want to labour this point, but there is not a regiment serving Canada which was ever called to its colours that did not have some idea of the sanctity of tradition. Nations that forget their history very soon have no history. This is the thing that makes a good man great. It makes a soldier fight when there should not be any fight left in him. This is the kind of stuff that we want to hear, and I think we need to hear it today more than at any other time.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We know that this unification program, this integration program, cannot be brought in overnight, right though it may be. We have time. Why should it be necessary for any one man or small group of men, no matter how right they think they are, to deny the right to express an opinion to those who may differ from them in some degree? I should think
November 3, 1966

that any government which only polled one-third of the popular vote in the country, and which had any feeling for its duty, would want to know what the rest of the country felt. Even though I do not deny them the right to be bold, to be imaginative, to be out in front, to be leaders and to give us a dynamic defence policy which we had not dreamed of, I still believe there is room for the opinions of others to be heard. But I do not think all the members on this side of the house are dreaming. I think we are facing reality in this jungle world of the 20th century. When we are ready, when the race of man has matured and we are prepared to furl the battle flags forever in the parliament of man, even then it may be found that we on this side of the house are willing to co-operate in the great march toward peace which is so desired.
Is it traitorous to criticize something which we believe to be wrong? Am I partisan because I say we should give our serving officer the right to contribute in every way, not only with their muscles and their guns but with their imagination, their courage and their right to speak freely? The strongest armies in the world have always been those armies which have believed in the people. The army of the French revolution at its best was an army of the people. Nothing could stop it. With staves and brickbats and scythes they tore down the Bastille. However, they forgot their aims. They went out on imperialistic forays.


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


Mr. Mather:: Mr. Chairman, such is the "cabbages and kings" nature of the discussion we have been having on this interim supply motion that we have been able to talk today about pipe lines, admirals and level crossings. Another item we can talk about concerns northern affairs and it is my hope to put a few observations on record in this regard.
We have heard a good deal in the last few days about the fruits of integration. I suggest seriously that whatever value integration may have for the armed services it might well be given a try in the area of northern affairs. I was one of the members of the committee on northern affairs who visited the Arctic and the Northwest Territories this summer. We saw an area there which is about half the size of the United States and 23033-603J
Business of the House
carries a population equal to that of a good sized city, between 40,000 and 50,000. The bases we visited there are for the most part administrative outposts in which 2,000 or
3,000	people at the most are living. They are usually civil servants. It is no criticism of them to say that they spend a large part of their time looking after one another. Of course, they are also concerned with looking after and helping the native people in the areas in which they are located.
What struck me about the efforts being made in these administrative outposts was the fact that in the communities one found so many different departments of government at work-Northern Affairs, Transport, Justice, Health and Welfare, and, of course, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. My feeling was, and it remains with me, that we could do a better job in some of these areas if we set up an integrated service or a unified service under which, instead of this variety of services under different headings, we could carry out a unified operation. I believe better results would more quickly be obtained at less expense if there were an integrated task force to deal with the problems of the north.
I should like to say something about education. There is a great need for a stepped-up program, particularly of adult education. In some northern areas we found a situation where natives who had been living all their lives until recently in tents or igloos are now learning to live in houses while their children go to schools and try to assimilate the knowledge taught to children in the south. A great deal of progress has been made in the north in the field of education but more remains to be done, particularly with regard to adult education. May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether I may ask the genial and understanding house leader to tell us what we will be doing tomorrow.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I thank the house leader of the official opposition for his generous words and wish to advise him and the house that the government proposes the same order of business as was announced last evening.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Advise the Minister of National Defence, then.
November 3. 1966
9532	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 26, as recorded in Hansard at page 9126, I put this question to the Prime Minister:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the sharp criticism of a means test which we heard from the government side last night, will the government make sure that there is no means test attached to the proposed increase in the old age pension?
My reference to sharp criticism was to a speech that had been made the previous night by the Minister of National Health and Welfare during debate on second reading of the medicare bill. During the course of his speech the minister criticized the "medicare for the needy plan" proposed by the Progressive Conservatives on the grounds that it was a means test, something to which the Liberals were opposed.
The Prime Minister's reply to my question of last Wednesday was:
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask my hon. friend to wait until the introduction of the legislation when these matters will all be made clear.
I then posed a supplementary question as follows:
In view of the fact that the government has given itself additional time to draft this legislation, will it not reconsider its position regarding the means test?
There was no answer to my supplementary question so I gave notice that I wished to raise it during one of these adjournment debates. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I rise again at this time to make as strong an appeal as I can to the government to desist from the idea of attaching a means test in any form to the proposed increase for the old age pensioners. It will not get away with an attempt to say that any kind of a test that it may be devising is not a means test.
I remind the government that the original Old Age Pensions Act that came into effect in 1927 had in it what was popularly known as a means test. It was popularly known as that, but it was the most unpopular provision we had on the statute books at that time, and


eventually we got rid of it. Officially it was an income test, and the same is true for the means test in the war veterans allowance legislation and any other legislation. None of these tests is called a means test. It is always called by some more euphonious name, but when you require people to submit information as to their other income before they get a benefit, you are submitting those people to a means test.
I submit that the government will not get away with this play on words with respect to this matter. I remind the government that recently a Gallup poll was taken on this question, and those who were polled regarding their opinion about a means test on old age pensions were 54 per cent in favour of no means test, and 40 per cent in favour of a pension being paid after a means test. In addition there were 6 per cent who were undecided. That means that of those who expressed an opinion, about 57 per cent were against the means test, and only 43 per cent were willing to consider it. I suggest that this is an overwhelming figure on this important issue.
Currently there are rumours as to variations the government may make in its means test, whether the first $30 other income will disqualify a person or whether there will be some 50-50 proposition, but I say to the government that any of these devices will bring down a storm of criticism upon its head.
I freely give to the government this piece of friendly advice: do not again make the kind of mistake you made in the field of old age pensions that you made in 1957. You thought then you would get away with a $6 increase on what was then a $40 pension and as a result you lost the 1957 election.
I submit that with all the progress we have made in this country in getting rid of the means test, if this government puts it back on even a portion of the old age pension it will be the worst political mistake the Liberals have made since 1957. I am not concerned, of course, about political mistakes on the part of the Liberals, but I am concerned about what it does to the respect and dignity of our older people. Do not tell us that we are not with the new ideas about guaranteed annual income-the language the government wants to use. All the government is doing is using high-sounding words to cover up the iniquity of something as old as the hills. Call it what you may; if you force people to tell what
November 3. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	9533
they have in other income before they get this increase, then it is a means test. Do not say there is no means test if you force people to report their income in order to get the pension increase. Not only will it be unpopular with our people but it will be a blow to the self-respect and dignity of our older people. So I urge that the government do what I have been appealing to it to do every time I have brought up this question, namely, to reconsider its position with regard to the means test.
It now seems fairly clearly established that the government is going to do something at this session regarding aid to the old age pensioners. I plead with the government to stick with the principle and the policy accepted in 1950 and 1951, and brought into effect in 1952, namely, that our old age security pension be paid to all our older people without a means test of any kind. The pension must be raised, but let it be a pension as of right, across the board, to all our older people.


Mrs. Margaret Hideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) have stated in this house that it is not proposed to employ the means test in the guaranteed annual income program. Accordingly it will not be necessary to reconsider the matter as requested in the original question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).



PENITENTIARIES-REPORTED CHARGES AGAINST ADMINISTRATION OF WOMEN'S PRISON

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, last week I attempted to put a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) with regard to statements issued by the former superintendent, the former psychologist and the former social worker at the women's prison at Kingston. In my opinion these statements contained the most serious charges, in respect of a change of policy which probably have ever been made against our correctional system in the last 15 or 20 years. I rise tonight because my question was ruled out of order. In a matter of such importance I think the Solicitor General should welcome the opportunity to make a statement and explain as soon as possible what is going on.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The people of Canada have been increasingly concerned with the problems of crime, criminals and correctional services for a good many years. This is not surprising in view of the fact that Canada has two and a half times as many people, when one adjusts for population differences, in our prisons and jails as have countries such as Great Britain. Since the Archambault report of 1938 and particularly since 1956 when Mr. Justice Fauteux and his committee reported, we have been advised to turn from the punitive methods we have always used to more modern and humane methods of treatment of prisoners. The Ouimet committee undoubtedly will make the same recommendations.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
While all this has been going on and while the best medical, legal and social service leaders in the country who have been studying our correctional system have been making such recommendations, the commissioner of penitentiaries has been turning the clock back to a system of repression, punishment and discipline. In a couple of weeks, according to the Solicitor General, the committee headed by Mr. Justice Ouimet will report on the maximum security unit built in Montreal. This unit was built against the advice of all professionals in this field. It was completed in 1966 and is much like prisons of the middle ages, without windows for the prisoners. I presume it was built on the advice of the commissioner of penitentiaries and the psychiatrist at Kingston, whose advice I suggest has been wrong on every occasion. Surely that unit will be condemned by the Ouimet commission. We will then be saddled with an institution which has cost millions but is obsolete.
This condition attains so far as the women's prison at Kingston is concerned. The superintendent, the psychologist and another worker of the former staff have recently suggested that the department has changed its policy in respect of the rehabilitation of inmates to one of discipline. The commissioner of penitentiaries says that there has been no change. The acting warden apparently believes in the same kind of discipline in women's institutions as in men's institutions.
The views expressed by the former members of this staff have been endorsed by the Elizabeth Fry Society of Ontario and a brief to this effect was submitted to the minister. I am sorry to say that one cannot expect much
Novembei 3, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion change in the present attitude of the commissioner of penitentiaries regarding the administrative policies at the women's institution. This is true in spite of the fact the number of prisoners who return was cut from seven out of ten to three and a half out of ten. Since 1965 there has been a considerable and steady change from that type of rehabilitative treatment of inmates to a disciplinary treatment of a kind which we do not see in correctional systems anywhere else in the world.
The Solicitor General as the head of this system ought to know what is taking place and whether or not this kind of disciplinary action is taking place. If it is he should make *changes. As I suggested privately to the minister, perhaps this is the time to ask for the resignation of the commissioner of penitentiaries because his views are no longer consistent with the desires of the Canadian people.
The orders in respect of prisoners in the women's institution were revised in June of this year. Discipline has been imposed and many of these prisoners have been kept under constant surveillance. The acting warden has been quoted in newspapers as having said that he believes women inmates should be disciplined in the same manner as men. I wonder whether the acting warden has ever heard of the Archambault and Fauteux reports and their recommendations.
Sometimes I wonder whether the facts I have given are accepted. If anyone thinks they should not be I should like to refer them to a list of questions submitted to the Solicitor General by the Elizabeth Fry Society. These are questions that I presume the minister has not answered yet. I should like to read some of these questions into the record and I suggest the answers should be obvious. These questions surely would not arise if our penal system so far as women are concerned did not create difficulties.
The questions I should like to read are:
When Is solitary confinement used?
How long can inmates be held in solitary confinement?
Is there a limit on the number of days in a month or a year that an inmate can be held in solitary confinement?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has now expired.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the interventions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. [Mr. Orlikow.l
Orlikow) because although he is critical of the minister I know he also has a genuine interest in the inmates of our correctional institutions. He is one of the few members in the house who, it seems to me, manifests a genuine interest in this regard. However, I cannot accept his views in their entirety. I would say to him that I have not only read the brief of the Elizabeth Fry Society but I have had the benefit of two meetings with the former superintendent of the prison for women at Kingston and also interviews with two of the former employees. In addition, I have made two extensive visits to the prison this year.
I must say that whenever there is a difference of opinion in these matters I have found there is a great deal to be said on both sides of the question. I think it is only fair to say that, I accept responsibility and at the urging of the commissioner the government set up a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to examine the physical plant of the prison and see what is going on there. In addition, the government set up the Canadian committee on corrections under Mr. Justice Ouimet to study in depth the training and treatment best suited to the inmates of our institutions. I told the house, I believe in answer to a question put by the hon. member, that a number of the recommendations of the Fauteux commission had been implemented; I believe they total 30.
We realize that this is a tremendous task. It is a very difficult and complicated one. I have no illusions about the problem of recidivism but I believe we are making some progress in this direction, I hope shortly to be able to publish figures of the number of inmates in our institutions compared with the number several years ago. I believe these figures will be encouraging in the sense that it is a declining number. However, you cannot always depend upon numbers in these matters because for some unknown reason the balance shifts from time to time.



FISHERIES-REMOVAL OF OFFICE FROM GASPE TO QUEBEC CITY

James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, because of the unusual circumstance of the absence of the minister and his parliamentary secretary, may I be allowed to stand this question?
November 3, 1966	COMMONS


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I wish to apologize to the hon. member. I learned late this evening that the minister and his parliamentary secretary were both unavoidably absent. I do not think the hon. member should suffer because of this and I would hope that his question would be allowed to retain its place in the next adjournment debate.
DEBATES	9535
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that this be agreed to by unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house agree to the request of the Solicitor General and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Friday, November 4, 1966