1966-11-08

DIVORCE


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: that the third report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on divorce, presented to the house on Thursday, November 3, 1966, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion is to reduce the quorum of the committee to seven. This is required because of the proliferation of committee meetings. The joint committee has been meeting at 3.30 on Tuesdays. As you know, Mr. Speaker, most hon. members like to be in the house prior to the calling of the orders of the day in order to listen to questions, and so on. Immediately thereafter a number of members, who have other things to attend to, such as committee meetings and so on, can attend to them at that time. Under the committee procedure witnesses read their briefs at the beginning of the meetings. I am happy to say that the members of this house are present at committee meetings immediately after orders of the day.
The purpose of the motion is to avoid the waiting to which the witnesses are often subjected. Some of them may have to wait half an hour or an hour before the committee has a quorum permitting it to proceed with its business, and it is for this reason that I am making the motion. I should say, however, that there was not unanimous consent, as there was doubt in some members' minds that this is a proper and essential motion. The principal object of the motion is to reduce our quorum for the commencement of the meeting to enable us to deal effectively and efficiently with the business of the committee.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I regret not to agree once again with my hon. friend from High Park (Mr. Cameron), but I object to a reduction of the committee quorum, as suggested again today.
In my opinion, the real solution as far as attendance of the members and the holding of meetings are concerned does not consist in reducing the number of members for a quorum; on the contrary, every member of parliament should be allowed to be member of a committee if he wants to. When I consider, for instance, in our comer, my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and myself, we are not members of any committee at all, and yet we would be delighted to contribute to the work of committees. Every day I attend the meeting of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, and there are many members of the committee who do not attend at all.
The solution would then be to accept as members of a committee those who would like to contribute to the work, those who are interested in the committees, those who want to be well-informed, those who want to help, co-operate and not reduce the quorum. It is a fact that not many members attend the meetings of the committees and the reduction of the quorum will not bring about an increase in the number of members attending.
The solution, once again, would be to allow those who want sincerely to fulfil their duties as members of parliament, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke and myself, to contribute to the work of committees. We attend the meetings without being members. Our names should be placed on the list of members and there would be two more to reach the quorum.
Other solutions are suggested. Some say: let us reduce the quorum. Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that that is not logical. The committee on finance, trade and economic affairs very seldom starts its meetings with a quorum. The discussions begin and after half an hour, someone says: Now that there is a quorum, we ask you to regularize what took place before. There are enough members then for a quorum.
But there are members who are not accepted as members of committees. The only members of parliament who are members of no committee at all are my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, and myself. Will someone say that that is protecting minorities?
9662	COMMONS
Motion for Reduction of Quorum
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a disgrace for the house to maintain minorities, especially the smallest minority, we are three on this side, out of committees. We are three on our side, in our corner. That is persecuting minorities. In the meantime, the others, who are 262 complain that they cannot find nine or thirteen members to have a quorum.
Well now, Mr. Speaker, I submit and I repeat that it is a shame, not to be able to form a nine member quorum out of 262 members of parliament, having to ask that the quorum be reduced to seven members while, at the same time, denying members who wish to take part in committee work, who sincerely wish to fulfil their duty as members of parliament, who want to co-operate and work, denying these people the opportunity to become members of a committee and help other members form a quorum.
I hope that the people responsible for this situation, the party whips, will see to its clarification. I have been asking the Liberal party whip for the past three weeks permission to become a member of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. Later,
I am told. It takes three whole weeks to reach a decision. One could compare this situation to that where the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) considered for a month and a half the desirability of removing tolls on Champlain bridge. He waited until the work on Jacques Cartier bridge was completed. Well, the Liberal party whip takes just as much time to decide whether we can become members of a committee.
I am speaking out against such a situation and I object to the reduction of the quorum for this committee or any other committee. If the motion is to be accepted, I ask that it be accepted on division only, for I am personally opposed thereto.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the attention of the house for only a minute or two. Like many other hon. members I dislike supporting a motion to reduce the quorum of a committee, but under the circumstances, with the numerous committees that are meeting, and particularly those that are meeting while the house is sitting, we seem to have no alternative, for the work of the committees must go on. However because of the kind of

DEBATES	November 8, 1966
problem we are facing, not only with respect to quorums but in other ways, I would urge the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to consider very seriously this whole problem. One of our objectives last year, when we revised the rules of the house, was to try to strengthen the committees system. I submit that unless the committees can meet under better circumstances than they are now experiencing, this attempt to strengthen their work may fail. It is still my view that we will have to come to an arrangement under which there is time allocated for committees to sit and to do their work when the house is not sitting; but my point in rising now is to urge that this matter be looked at before the new system of committees breaks down.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: I should like to follow up the remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I am not in favour either of a reduction of the quorum of the committees. I believe that, at the beginning of a session, the government resorts, I would say, to faulty procedures and wrong psychology. Hon. members should be asked whether or not they are interested to sit on a committee and which committee.
In my case, following several requests, I finally succeeded in getting my name on the list of the members of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. I showed a good deal of interest in it but when the time came to make up the report, my name was simply crossed off on the committee members' list; it was done callously without even advising me.
This procedure, Mr. Speaker, does not tend to encourage members to sit on committees. When a member wants to sit on a specific committee, I believe that it is the duty of the government to give him the opportunity to make a contribution to the business of that committee. Therefore, the cure is not to decrease the quorum but rather to appoint hon. members to appropriate committees on which they wish to sit.


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


Gilles Grégoire: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.
November 8, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West) moved: that the twelfth report of the standing committee on transport and communications, presented to the house on Thursday, November 3, be concurred in.


Gilles Grégoire: Again we have another committee asking the house to reduce its quorum from 13 to nine. There are 265 members in this house. The committee in question is the committee on transport and communications. The agenda of that committee includes a study of the problems of the national railways and of the problems of Air Canada, as well as consideration of transportation problems in Canada. Now, out of 265 members, not even 13 are available to look into transportation problems in Canada. And when the time comes to be heard here every member rises in turn, asks questions without any knowledge of the matter and makes inquiries, but no one is prepared to go on the committee to consider transportation problems.
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly unthinkable that we should be asked to reduce the quorum from 13 to 9. I am not on this committee, but if they want to appoint me to it, I will go and carry out the work accordingly. I did that for three years; I have been assiduous in attending the sittings of the committee on transport and communications. I have had the opportunity, during the sittings of that committee, one year in particular, to ask questions of, and get information from, Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways; another year, I had the opportunity to question and get information from Mr. McGregor, president of Air Canada; I learned what was involved in Canada's transportation problem.
But you cannot even find 13 out of 265 who will go. I, for one, will go, Mr. Speaker. Bring down the quorum to 10 only and I will go, I will be present. But no, we are not appointed committee members. Therefore, I think this is abnormal. It is illogical. I object to the fact that members of the House of Commons do not take enough interest in the nation's business. They are not interested enough in that. They do not attend the sittings and, consequently, we are asked to reduce the quorum. I object to that, Mr. Speaker, and again I ask that this motion be agreed to but on division, which means that I object to it being concurred in.
DEBATES	9663
Motion for Reduction of Quorum
I would ask the Prime Minister, as I forgot to do so earlier, to intervene personally, because I have already approached the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) seven or eight times to be appointed to the committee. I also approached his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Chretien), as well as the chief whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Pilon), but without success. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister, who has always been known for his sense of fairness and his respect of minorities, to have me appointed as an official member of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, because out of the 25 or 24 on that committee, some Liberal members never attend the meetings. Let him check which members are always absent. I know that the member for Outre-mont-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lamontagne), former Secretary of State, is a member of that committee and has not attended one meeting. I know that another member from Newfoundland as not attended one meeting. And there are others.
I would therefore ask the Prime Minister to use his influence and I pay tribute to his impartiality and to his respect for minorities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Well, it can be seen that others recognize that feeling in the Prime Minister. We will see if it will give practical and positive results; we will see if I am appointed a member of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs after having asked for three weeks or a month.
I personally appeal to the Prime Minister and ask to be appointed a member of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. I can assure him that I will attend the meetings, keep well posted on its proceedings, discuss its affairs and that he will not nor anybody else be compelled to ask for a reduction of the quorum on account of my absence.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee on transport and communications I cannot give my personal consent to reducing the quorum from 13 to nine members. This committee probably has the most important task of any in the house, that of settling the whole transportation problem of Canada for the next number of years. I see no reason to reduce the quorum. We have heard a great
9664	COMMONS
Motion for Reduction of Quorum number of witnesses. Thirteen members most of the time have attended, and we have started fairly well on time.
With only one or two witnesses remaining to be heard, we shall be proceeding to the clause by clause consideration of the bill. I do not know why, out of 23 or 25 members-and I am not sure which it is-we cannot get 13 members to attend our sittings. Also, although I may be wrong in this, I was under the impression that for a motion like this to pass there had to be unanimous concurrence. Certainly, however, I express my disapproval about reducing the quorum from 13 members to nine. There is no reason for it.


Mr.   J.-P. Goyer@Dollard: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) wants to give to the house the impression that he alone, with two other independent members, is able and willing to keep the committees going. But the fact remains that with three hon. members only, it would be impossible, in view of the present number of committees, which sit constantly during the session, to do the work. It is not possible either for hon. members, in view of the way we are organized, to take part in a constructive and adequate manner to the work of the committees.
Of course, reducing the quorum might help to accelerate the work of the committees. But how?
At the present time, we have no technical help and we often have to face a group of 10 officials to examine closely the policies and administration of the government.
I think that the solution to that fundamental problem would be to give hon. members some technical help, either through executive assistants or researchers to help us prepare our work intelligently. We often hear in committee interventions by hon. members who are ill-prepared and scrutinize the government policy in an awkward manner, wasting the time of their colleagues who take part in the work of the committees.
If everyone had the possibility to prepare himself well, and that is the fundamental problem, all hon. members would be interested in participating in a sustained manner in the work of the committee and the policy of the Canadian government would surely be better served by hon. members.
[Mr. Pascoe.l
DEBATES	November 8, 1966


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) has just confirmed what the member for Lapointe said a while ago.
Reducing the quorum or the number of members on a committee will not improve legislation or lead to a better understanding of what is studied by a committee.
In this case, the committee on transport and communications consists of 25 members. There are Liberals, Conservatives, two N.D.P.s and one member from the Social Credit party, but not a single member from my group nor the group of independents.
Now, under the circumstances, it is not a matter of knowing whether a member has the required qualifications or competence to belong to a committee, but rather that of knowing whether or not he will attend the committee sittings. For the time being, there is no question of multiplying the duties of the member. If he lacks the training required, I feel the committee can give him this training to the extent that he will attend its sittings.
If both the Liberals and the Conservatives do not attend committee meetings, it is not by reducing the quorum from 13 to 9 that we will remedy the situation, or facilitate the study of bills, or help the work of the various departments.
Here, we ask for a quorum of 13 out of 25. When we, on our part, suggested the name of a member of the Ralliement Creditiste, we were told that there was no more room. Although there is no room on the committee, we are asked today to reduce the quorum from 13 to nine. There are undoubtedly four too many. Let these four be removed, so that we can put in their place those who are interested in attending the meetings of this committee, and we will then have solved the problem of helping the committee by allowing those who are interested to sit on it and attend its meetings.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: What we are witnessing is a further decline in the effectiveness of the committees system of the House of Commons. The fact that the government on several occasions has sought to use a number of these committees as a means of political subterfuge has led in large measure to the situation which has developed.
I say this, having in mind the committee on transport and communications which heard certain representations today. Now, as the committee is about to get down to the meat
November 8, 1966	COMMONS
of its work, the government proposes that the quorum should be reduced in order that there might be fewer questions and suggestions forthcoming from opposition members on that committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: I think this is one of the reasons for the decline in the effectiveness of our committees and it is indicative of the general mismanagement of the affairs of the house by the government.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I think we are making a mistake by reducing the committee quorum. I pointed out a few moments ago that the government should consider the wishes of hon. members to sit on this or that committee.
One other reason why certain members are not present at committee meetings is that two trips are scheduled for this week, one to NATO and another in connection with the opening of the Russia-Canada airline. I feel here that the government should have foreseen the situation and appointed substitutes for the members who are absent. And persons chosen for these trips should have been selected among those who are not members of committees, such as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Allard: Therefore, I would like to ask the hon. Prime Minister something, in connection with trips. If a trip is planned before I am reinstated in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, I am available.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the transport committee and would like to support this motion. I have done some research into the quorum of committees in other countries and I have found that in the United Kingdom the quorum for parliamentary committees is one third, while in the United States Congress, in both the senate and the house, the quorum in committees for voting is one third, and for taking evidence it is less than one third of the members of a committee.
The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and other hon. members have said that
DEBATES	9685
Motion for Reduction of Quorum there are 265 members of parliament available for committee work. This is not so. To begin with, we have 25 ministers who have to take care of their respective departments. We have 16 parliamentary secretaries, a Speaker and two deputy speakers, in addition to other members such as whips, who have certain duties to perform. So that in reality there are not 265 members available for committees. If some of us do not attend regularly the committees to which we are allocated, it is because we are attending other committees. Of the five committees on which I serve, three have been sitting, and I have been at each of the committees each time it sat. I am in favour of reducing the quorum of committees.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
All members have the right to be treated on an equal footing. Now, the last speaker stated that he is a member of five committees, while I was not a member of any.
I therefore maintain, following his statement, that I am deprived of my privileges, since I do not enjoy the same privileges and the same rights as does the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). I must call this fact to the attention of all members, so that I too may be recognized as a full-fledged member and not as a second-class member, not as a "coloured member", but as a genuine member. If the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace is a member of five committees, I too should be a member of five committees.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say something on this question of committees, but first I would support any move to send the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) on any number of trips.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The government is faced with a situation which I forecast when we were discussing the committees system a couple of years ago, when the rules were changed. I warned that it would have trouble on its hands, but as usual it railroaded the rule changes through the house and now it has to face the music. I am all for having it face the music.
November 8, 1966

Motion for Reduction of Quorum
The government has a majority of members on each committee. Committees consist of about 24 members, and the majority are from the Liberal party. All they have to do to form a quorum is to have their members present.
They are now acknowledging publicly that they are unable to perform the functions of government. This we have seeen for a long time. We have tried to get that fact across to the Canadian people, and perhaps this will be additional information for the public.
In view of the fact that the rules are under temporary experimentation I think we should continue with them, so that the Liberal party may thoroughly understand the mistake they made when they altered the rules two years ago. Let them attend the committees; let them maintain the quorum, just as we ask them to maintain the quorum in the House of Commons, and then everything will go well.
After the experiment has been concluded they may find out that there are too many committees, which I think is the case. They may find out that the quorum should be set at a different figure, which I also think is the case because we used to operate some years ago with a smaller quorum. But we should not look back. We must look ahead. This is the twentieth century and we have to move forward into it. If 1966, in the twentieth century, requires a quorum of 13, let us be modern and have a quorum of 13. For that reason I think we should retain the present position.
If the committees system is going to be pursued in the house, let us maintain the quorum under this experiment, and let us make sure when people are giving evidence before committees that they give all the evidence and not just what ministers want them to give.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a few figures in support of the contention I made when we were on the previous motion. I shall give them also as a means of urging the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the government to think seriously about this whole problem.
If hon. members will look at page Roman numeral iv of yesterday's Votes and Proceedings they will see there a list of the committee meetings scheduled for today. The list shows 10 different committees meeting today-
IMr. Churchill.]


Gordon Minto Churchill: There should be 11; the
defence committee should be meeting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and it shows some of those committees meeting more than once. I know that the committee I am on which is meeting today is listed to meet only once but is actually meeting twice, so it adds up to 14 or 15 committee meetings today.
I remind the house that the number of members on most committees is 24. If my arithmetic is correct 15 X 24 is 360. In other words, it takes 360 parliamentary bodies to man in full the committee sessions called for today; but our 265 members, under standing order 5, are required to be in the House of Commons from 2.30 until 10.30 p.m. Mr. Speaker, it just does not work.
I suggest that we get nowhere by recriminations. I could indulge in them too, and make speeches about our responsibility to be here. In fact I have introduced a bill suggesting that the quorum in the house should be increased, something which I strongly believe. I contend that it is clear to anyone who can look at figures and understand them that it is impossible to have 15 committee sittings requiring 360 parliamentary bodies, and to have the House of Commons requiring 265 parliamentary bodies, when there are only 265 of us in all, because under such circumstances we cannot do an efficient day's work either in parliament or in committees.
I agree with what the government tried to do when it sought to strengthen the committee system. Some of the criticisms made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) are quite valid. However, I think even he will agree with me that it was good to make an effort to improve the committee system, but on these terms we have not improved it. We are dealing with a situation that is going to break down.
Maybe the time has come for another allparty committee.


Mr. Pugh:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear a loud guffaw from the back corner over there, but I submit that the best changes made to the rules of the house over the years were made when they were brought in by all-party committees. One of the reasons for the trouble we are getting into now is that the rule changes in this instance were brought in by the government, and not by an all-party committee.
November 8, 1966

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I suggest, because this problem is staring us in the face, and because the rules under which we are operating are provisional and die unless something is done about them when this session ends, that the whole question should be examined. I do not ask the Prime Minister for a comment today. However, I do think he and the government ought to look at this. My suggestion to him and to the government is that they discuss this with Your Honour, and perhaps a few representatives of the various parties, to see whether it is now time to have an all-party look at our rules structure in general, and our committee structure in particular. I think it is extremely important to the effective working of parliament that the committee structure be strengthened. We are not doing that when, in a normal day, 265 members are required to be in this forum all day and 360 of us at various committees during the same hours.


Mr. Reward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be a demagogue or adopt a holier-than-thou attitude in saying: "A plague on both your houses," but I should like to point out that this parliament is the highest court in the land. We individually and collectively are sent here to do the people's business. We have now used up 40 minutes talking about a question of procedure regulating our own affairs.


An hon. Member:: And you are using up more time.


William Heward Grafftey: That is a facetious remark. Everybody who sits here knows that this establishment, particularly for the younger generation, is becoming absolutely meaningless. This is so for other generations and the public as well. This place is becoming meaningless when we fritter away 45 minutes of our time on a question of procedure which should have been settled outside this house. If the people of Canada are becoming sick and tired of what is going on here, it is because of the kind of thing we have just Witnessed.
I do not suggest that I have the answer to this problem, but I think the government should certainly play its part in arranging a discussion with opposition members outside this forum. We are meant to be dealing here with the people's business and the people's problems. I can only say that I speak for millions of Canadians when I say it is my
Motion for Reduction of Quorum hope that this procedural debate will end right now, so we can get on with the public's business.


An Hon. Member:: Why do you not sit down, then?


William Heward Grafftey: I will sit down. As I said, I hope I am not sounding like a demagogue to individual members, but it does seem that the time has arrived for us to use our common sense. We can talk about rules, rules, rules, until we are blue in the face; but common sense governs, and it seems to me that common sense should dictate, at a time when we are approximately two years behind with the nation's business in terms of legislation. We should not be using up 45 minutes of our time to discuss how many people should or should not be on a committee. Let us make this place meaningful to the people of this country in general and to the younger generation in particular, and get on with the nation's business in the nation's forum.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the constructive suggestion of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) in asking this house to consider the adjournment of this debate, and facilitate a meeting with house leaders concerning the matter raised in the motion.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That is what the government should have done before.


Mr. H. W. Kerridge (Koofenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I also support the remarks of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). I do not wish to take up too much time of this house, but it is obvious that the committee on rules and procedure from experience has found that some of the rules are impractical. I suggest this matter could be settled outside the house without any further debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it my understanding that the hon. Solicitor General proposes to move the adjournment of this debate?


Lawrence T. Pennell: If there is unanimous consent of the house I would ask that it consider adjourning this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent shall the debate stand adjourned?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On motion of Mr. Pennell the debate was adjourned.

November 8, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



IMMINENCE OF STRIKE ACTION-SUGGESTION THAT OFFER BE INCREASED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue and ask him first whether the statement in the Journal of this afternoon is correct, that Canada faces a postal strike as early as tomorrow. Will he at the same time inform the house that, in view of the serious consequences that will follow, the picayune offer of 60 cents increase to postal employees will be increased so that fairness will be done to them?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, I should like to inform him that officials of my department met with postal workers this morning and that another meeting has been arranged for tomorrow morning. I do not anticipate a strike taking place tomorrow.
In reply to the second point he raised, about a picayune offer, let me point out that this was not an offer on the part of the government to postal workers, but a recommendation by the Civil Service Commission. This is one of the matters being discussed at the negotiations in which we are now engaged.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the government
agree that a 6 per cent increase is a picayune offer?


Mr. Pearson:: It is an interim recommendation.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what the Prime Minister is annoyed about, because his formula was away up in the sky.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the question is not in order.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: In
view of the fact that the postal workers have apparently given their officers full authority to call an election-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Ricard:: He is dreaming aloud.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am afraid the anniversary of a year ago today was in my mind, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that members of the postal workers association have given their officers authority to call a strike on November 15, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not feel the time has now arrived to appoint a conciliator or mediator who might be able to find some reasonable settlement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the time has not yet come for that procedure to be followed, because negotiations are still going on with the consent of both parties. There has been no suggestion from either party that a mediator or conciliator be appointed at this time. The time may arrive shortly when that procedure will have to be considered, and when that time comes it will be considered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the 6 per cent offer is the only offer that has been made? Has the government's position remained entirely inflexible throughout these negotiations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It would be quite improper for me to discuss the offers that have been made, or the reactions to those offers by the Civil Service Commission and other parties to the dispute over wages and conditions. The 6 per cent figure which has been referred to is an interim offer pending a settlement of the dispute. I think that fact should be pointed out.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the Pearson formula?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether the negotiations are being carried on by the minister and other ministers who have authority from the government, or are they being carried on just by officials of his department?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I met with representatives of the Civil Service Alliance as well as members of the Postal Workers Brotherhood last week and it was agreed at that time that negotiations would be carried on by officials of my department meeting with the postal workers. In the meantime I am available and on call at any time. It was unanimously agreed by both sides that this would be the best method of procedure. I am available, as I said, on five minutes notice, to meet with them at their request.
November 8, 1966


Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Do these officials have government authority to carry on negotiations based on some other figure than that of 6 per cent recommended by the Civil Service Commission?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, having had experience as minister of labour, knows well that it would not be to the advantage of either the government or the postal workers for me to discuss openly the negotiations that are taking place between the two parties.


Michael Starr: I do not think the minister understood my question. I think I have had sufficient experience in the settlement of these matters to understand the situation. Do these people who are now negotiating on behalf of the government have the authority to negotiate a salary which might be the final outcome?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize that the consultations are taking place without overriding legislation, because the bills that are before the committee at the present time have not passed the house. I should like to assure my hon. friend, however, that the people representing the government at these negotiations are in constant consultation with me, and through me with other members of the government.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. It is, at the same time, a question of privilege which will interest, I am sure, every member of the house.
On March 19, 1965, a year and a half ago, as can be seen on page 12572, right hand column, under the title: "Suggested establishment of youth parliament", a question was put by Hon. Paul Martineau, then member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, of which I have given him notice. Can the Prime Minister state what action the government has taken or is taking to further the establishment of a youth parliament to mark Canada's centennial year, a project which I believe the Prime Minister personally endorses?
Inquiries of the Ministry
The right hon. Prime Minister gave the following answer:
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. I have received this what I consider to be very imaginative proposal which I would like personally to see brought into effect, for a youth parliament during centennial year. I sent the proposal on to the centennial commission, and they are considering it. I would be glad to have a word with them in the light of my hon. friend's question.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said then that he fully agreed with that request made by young people, and especially by a young chap in Saskatoon, Mr. Bill Fair. The right hon. Prime Minister replied:
I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker; and I hope that if and when the youth parliament is convened, the right hon. gentlemen and myself will be able to take part in it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member explain his question of privilege?


David Réal Caouette: My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is the question I am asking at the same time. I ask the Prime Minister whether he still has the same feelings concerning the statement he made on March 19, 1965 and whether the youth can expect an answer from the Prime Minister as soon as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: There is obviously no question of privilege. The hon. member has put a question which he might have expressed more briefly, a question to which the Prime Minister will perhaps reply.

Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I think I said the other day that the Secretary of State would be making a statement on this matter shortly. I would merely reply to my hon. friend by reminding him that since that date in 1965 there has been a recommendation of the Centennial Commission on this matter.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might say something in respect of this question. I have noticed reference to this matter in the press, and some hon. members have drawn an incorrect conclusion from a question I was asked the other day by an hon. member about whether I would reconstitute the ad hoc committee to discuss this question.
The Centennial Commission, as the house knows, has discussed the matter of a youth parliament and in fact had the young man in

November 8, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry question under contract to prepare a proposal, which was found to be completely unacceptable. While I read in the press that he is still supposed to have something to do with this matter, that is absolutely incorrect. What I did suggest to my hon. friend the other day was that I would, when I received a proposal for an alternate suggestion from the Centennial Commission, call together those hon. members who were good enough to give their time on an ad hoc committee and discuss it with them. But I should like to tell the house that there is not, as I wrote every member some months ago, any proposal to have a parliament of Canadian youth within this building during 1967.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the consideration being given to the idea of a youth parliament of some kind, would the minister consider reconvening the ad hoc committee of members interested in this matter, so we may consider the prospect of not only having something suitable for centennial year, but on a continuing basis?


Mr. Fairweaiher:: All you need is an election.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This has been strongly supported by the Canadian political youth movement.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No youth parliament as such has been supported by the Canadian political youth movement. They have a proposal which is an alternative, and which has gone to the Centennial Commission. This is what I promised the leader of the New Democratic Party I would put before and discuss with the ad hoc committee when I have heard what the Centennial Commission has to say about it. But there is no suggestion now that there will be anything in the form of a youth parliament to be held in this building under government auspices.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the short time that is left and the elaborate plans that will have to be made, how soon does the Secretary of State think it will be possible to place this matter before an ad hoc committee of the house?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I asked for the report last Friday. When it sifts through to me, I will at once call a meeting.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on November 3 in reply to a question asked by my leader, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), the Prime Minister indicated that he expected a statement to be made this week with respect to the appointment of the royal commission on security. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman has any announcement to make.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I hope to do it at the end of the week.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of what is generally regarded as a ridiculously light sentence that was imposed on Leonard Vigodda, Belleville, who pleaded guilty to having possession of cobalt valued at $317,000 belonging to the government of Canada, none of which was recovered, and in view of the fact that the judge called it a planned and deliberate crime, is the government considering appealing the sentence of only two and a half years' imprisonment, either through a private prosecutor or by way of the crown attorney who prosecuted the case?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the right hon. gentleman for bringing this matter to my attention earlier. As a result of that earlier conversation I asked my officials to provide me with the details of this matter. I expect to have them tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you very much.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it the intention of this government to cosponsor a resolution to admit Red China to
November 8, 1966

the United Nations, at the expense of Nationalist China, as reported on the C.B.C. news last evening?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that story, which I saw, is purely speculative and I have no comment to make on it.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. On November 3 the minister stated that his department was in consultation with the Department of Justice concerning certain aspects of the Volkswagen-Studebaker deal. Is he now ready to table that report?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I did not mention tabling any report. I have nothing further to report beyond the fact that consultations are taking place.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister whether he can report to the house on the approximate damage done to the prototype hydrofoil which was damaged by fire at Marine Industries Ltd. in Sorel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question may have some urgency which is not readily apparent to the Chair. It may be that the question should be placed on the order paper.


Howard Russell MacEwan: It is important, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that for many years no ships have been built in this country for the navy.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour.
Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the fact that November 14 has been set for the strike at Air Canada, has the parliamentary secretary anything to report on the negotiations that are taking place, and is there any possibility of averting this strike?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Ontario knows that if there was any report to make, the Minister of Labour, by virtue of his office, would assume the responsibility of placing it before the house. The minister will be back tomorrow and I will bring the question to his notice.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. It is a question of national importance and of local significance to many communities in Canada. In view of the numerous complaints and representations which have been made to the minister and to other members of the house, would the minister, when drafting his minikin budget, give consideration to removing the sales tax on centennial projects supported by federal and other government grants and undertaken by voluntary centennial committees?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I always give careful consideration to suggestions from my hon. friend, but I cannot promise him sympathetic consideration.



HISTORIC SITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs about which we have had a mutual exchange of notice, and to ask him whether today he could further explain to the people of the nation the proposed replacement of the memorial on the east coast of Canada to those who lost their lives during the second world war?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I want to thank the hon. member for giving me this opportunity to clarify the situation. The memorial in question was

November 8, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry erected at the Citadel in Halifax in memory of men in the Canadian forces and merchant seamen who lost their lives at sea. This memorial was erected after the second world war. An earlier memorial had been erected at Point Pleasant Park in Halifax. Shortly after the erection of the new monument it was found that it was discoloring and was badly disfigured, in fact it was shameful to have a monument in such condition in memory of our war dead.
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission tried in every way to restore the memorial, but finally concluded that it was impossible to do so. Furthermore the department then known as the department of northern affairs and national resources requested the removal of the memorial because its weight was causing damage to the underground passages of the Citadel. Through the co-operation of the Point Pleasant Park commissioners a magnificent site has been obtained at Point Pleasant Park for the erection of a new memorial. Of course it will not be the same memorial as the one that is now being removed. It will be a "Cross of Sacrifice", which the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has erected throughout Europe and elsewhere, and the names, in bronze of the seamen who died during the wars will be placed on this memorial. Not only will it contain the names appearing on the first monument from the first and second world wars but also those names which have come to light since.
The reason for the burial at sea of the stones on which the names had been inscribed on the first memorial is that it was felt that these stones or fragments thereof might be misused. Most of them were committed to the deepest part of the Bedford Basin in the last few days, and a ceremony was conducted which was attended by an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the flag officer, and a representative of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and was directed by both the Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy in honour and memory of the dead.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, may I clarify at this stage an answer I gave yesterday or must I revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister can do this with the consent of the house. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, according to a reading of my reply to the hon. member for Halifax yesterday, the answer could imply that the Department of Veterans Affairs had made these inquiries and carried on the consultations. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, of course, to carry on these consultations, not the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Royal: wish to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is now able to make a statement about the government's co-operation with West German authorities with relation to the alleged killing in 1945, of two sailors in a prison camp?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to be able to do so. I had hoped to be able to do so this week, although unfortunately this is not very likely because there is certain additional information I would like to have before making a statement to the house, and it is not yet available.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could assure us, in spite of the fact that he is unable to make a statement, that he and his department will co-operate fully in the inquiry that is being conducted by the West German authorities?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think I should leave in abeyance all aspects of the question until I have a chance to report to the house more fully.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Does the government intend to give help to the Quebec areas stricken over the last few days by floods causing heavy material damage and loss of life?
November 8, 1966


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I was not aware of that, I will investigate.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell us whether his department has selected the site where the Chibougamau-Chapais regional airport will be built? If not, when does he expect that choice to be made?


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


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, for debate at ten o'clock.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
With regard to the preparations for the centennial celebrations which should prompt cultural duality to promote national unity, does the minister consider recommending to the C.B.C. the opening of new French stations in the nine English provinces of the country, especially in the Windsor and Essex areas?


Mr. Speaker:: This question being of a rather general nature could quite easily be put on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: I wish to raise the matter at ten o'clock.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
In view of the newspaper advertisements to the effect that investors in the centennial series of Canada savings bonds will double
Inquiries of the Ministry their money in twelve years, can the minister tell us whether that means that Canada's debt will double every twelve years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question he puts is not in order because it would involve a long and detailed answer.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You say it would involve a long and detailed answer. Now, I believe that the minister would not need to give a long answer for, as Boileau said:
Ce qui se congoit bien s'enonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisement.
Therefore the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is why I am telling the hon. member that his question is out of order.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would he look into the reason for the slowness in return of livestock cars to western Canada. In fact in the western region the Canadian National Railways have only had 135 cars so far this month, and a severe shortage exists in that area. It seems to me that cars should be returned much faster than is being done at present.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if anything can be done by further representations by me, I will be glad to make them. Nevertheless I really do believe the railways are trying very hard but, as the hon. member knows, there was not only a bumper crop of wheat but there is also a bumper crop of cattle this year, and on one of the railways at least only 30 or 40 per cent of the shipments have been made.


Michael Starr: Why do we not also get a bumper crop of railway cars?



DELAY IN MOVEMENT OF GRAIN TO WEST COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this question is related to one that has been asked previously of the Minister of
9674	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Labour. Will the minister reply to the question I asked him yesterday regarding the grain loading situation in Vancouver?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member asked me whether I had received representations in this regard. In looking up my file I found that representations from the brewers union had been made, and probably that is why I had forgotten about the matter raised by the hon. member. I might have remembered better if the question had concerned milk.
I may say, for the information of the house, that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond was concerned about the shortage of delivery cars at Vancouver. My information is that there has been a considerable improvement in this regard since I received representations from the brewers union. I trust matters are now more satisfactory for that august body.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Yesterday I asked him whether he would investigate the manner in which itinerant immigrants were being brought into Canada from Mexico. I notice that the minister is not here today, so perhaps his parliamentary secretary could give me the answer. Could he assure the house that an investigation into the matter is now being carried out?


Michael Starr: The parliamentary secretary is not here either.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take notice of the question. I understand the minister will be in the house later this day.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs. I would ask him to look closely at the promise made by the Prime Minister on October 17 with respect to the Louisbourg project, at which time he promised that those laid off would be rehired.
[Mr. Prittie.l
DEBATES	November 8, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: In the question as asked, the hon. member is suggesting that the minister should look closely at a statement made by the Prime Minister. I assume that that is what the minister will be doing.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to direct the question to the Prime Minister, but in his absence I feel that I should direct it to the minister concerned. I am not allowed to ask the minister of health and welfare, in whose constituency this project is located. We have had the assurance from the government that there has been absolutely no change in the winter works projects, other than the $500 winter works bonus, so that this promise has been made but as yet has not been kept.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked a question in the form of a representation. I can only assume that this representation will be taken into account, but the hon. member is not really asking a question. If he wants to ask a question I will decide whether or not it is acceptable.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will put the question more directly. Will the minister assure us that the promise made by the Prime Minister on October 17 will be kept? At least keep this promise.


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly a question in this form is not acceptable.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary assistant.
In view of the reported disappointment of the mayor of Merthyr Tydfil over Canada's decision not to build a new memorial school in Aberfan, Wales but to send the money to the United Nations Children's Fund instead, would the Prime Minister now reconsider the original proposal that this country erect a new school in Aberfan as a memorial to the victims of last month's disaster?


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.
November 8. 1966

Interim Supply



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that work on the Jacques Cartier bridge will not be completed before another month, according to officials of the Quebec and Eastern Townships Truckers Association, and since the closing of Victoria bridge was announced in the press today, would the minister reconsider his decision and temporarily remove tolls on Champlain bridge?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will have to verify the assumptions on which the question is based before it could be considered responsible procedure for me to make any representations to the harbours board. But I will have the matter looked into.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs always answers very carefully, and we on this side are very appreciative of the care he uses in answering questions in the house.
I now ask him this question: With the approach of November 11 is any consideration being given by the government to making an amendment to the act whereby war veterans allowance, which is a burnt out allowance, will not be reduced upon a veteran's attaining the age of 70 years.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I regret that I have to answer the Leader of the Opposition by saying that we are carrying on the same policy as that carried on by him and his ministers. We are not going to change the concept of this act. While, as I indicated there will be some adjustment in the ceilings in order to give some allowance, there is no intention of making any changes such as requested by the Leader of the Opposition.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, is the .minister implying that the policy carried on by the former prime minister of Canada is acceptable, is good?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is out of order.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That a sura 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;
[Stage Direction]
November 8. 1966
Interim Supply
(1) 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.\n9696\tCOMMONS\nInterim Supply SUPPLY\nThe house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.']
The Chairman:: Order; house again in committee of supply, interim supply.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, before I proceed may I do something which perhaps is somewhat unusual in the course of debate. I have taken note of the fact that an hon. member of this house, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, is presently celebrating a very important milestone in his life: today is his birthday. I believe that this event in the life of a gentleman of his stature, who in my estimation has contributed much to Canada and to this parliament, should be noted, so I will accordingly extend to him the best wishes of every member of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: In regard to the debate with which we find ourselves seized, I suppose it would be more appropriate if I were to use the time allotted to me to put forward the plight of Canada's senior citizens and old age pensioners who are in such a critical position of need at this time. If I have sufficient time I will make reference to this situation, and I might say, Mr. Chairman, that it would not be extremely inappropriate to do so during the course of this particular debate. I also regret that the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not want to listen to me, but this is not my fault. I see he has returned now.
Referring back to the 1962-63 session, I find that on October 1, 1962, as reported at page 72 of Hansard, the following remarks were made by the present Prime Minister during the course of the throne speech debate. I should like to call the attention of the house to this intervention of the Prime Minister who was speaking about priorities at that time. He said:
There are two things specifically we can do under conditions of expanding economy, and which a Liberal government will do. The first is health care and the problems of old age-
That problem is as appropriate today, and as applicable to our situation, as it was then.
The second matter I refer to is health care, so long ignored by the government. I suggest that the government, in our present situation,

ought to look at the priorities of business in front of the house, and compare them with what is happening.
On page 73 there is a second quotation. This might be the crux of my contribution with regard to the defence question. I want the minister to listen to these words, because last night he made a reasoned speech and a reasoned appeal in this house, as did the hon. members for Brandon-Souris, Edmonton-Strathcona, Danforth, and, I believe, the hon. member for Queens. We are coming to the point where we are not too far apart in our thinking. At any rate, on October 1, 1962, at page 73 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
What we should have had years ago, and what we fought for in this house, is a defence committee on policy where we could try to find out the principles-
Today we want to know the principles on which the government is acting on defence matters. We are asking no more than that when we ask for this matter to be referred to the defence committee at this juncture. We ask no more than the Prime Minister asked, and what held true then holds true now. What applied then applies now, just as the matter to do with old age pensions, that I mentioned before, should be applicable now.
We want to show why we think this matter ought to be in the hands of the defence committee. I am sure that the minister, his colleagues in cabinet and the Prime Minister will agree with me that the valuable time which has been wasted here could have been better spent in committee. It is suggested on the front page of one of the newspapers that the opposition does not feel it is important to pass interim supply until this whole question has been debated. We have many people who have volunteered to speak on this question, and there is no reason why this matter should not be before the committee. I say that because last evening the defence bill was not mentioned in the items of legislation announced for discussion. Medicare was not mentioned, and neither was the old age pension bill. These matters are more important to the Canadian people than the defence question.
The minister feels that if he can get interim supply through the house quickly, when the unification bill comes before the house he will have an axe over our heads. We shall have no opportunity to get this subject before a committee until second reading is completed, and the minister does not
November 8. 1966

care what happens after that. The minister, I suggest, has used this issue, and his high office in this country, for his own purposes. I am not making a personal attack on the minister, and I would not want him to think I am. But, I think he has carefully planned his strategy, and he plans to use his position in the Liberal party, and his office as Minister of National Defence, for his own purposes. When one examines the publicity he has had, and the coverage he has had in the news media, one realizes what the motive of the minister is. One has only to think of the time allotted to opposition spokesmen, on the program last Sunday night and the time allotted to the presentation of the minister's views, to realize what I mean. The minister's speech last night was a slight elaboration of his article in the Monetary Times, which carried a great big picture of the minister. I do not know who is responsible for this sort of thing, but the minister has a way of organizing these things.
We do not have the same capacity for organizing. Reference has been made to how he carried on in the last election campaign, having senior ministers making election speeches. No wonder the Conservative party could not get any votes out of the service personnel. We had no chance, because service personnel have had a hammer over their heads ever since they joined. Thank goodness I got out, because I might have been in the same position myself. If the shoe were on the other foot and we were doing this, the minister would be screaming blue murder.
I have another picture here that appeared in the front part of another magazine. I think the minister's coverage in the news media serves to corroborate our suspicion with regard to the position, to which he aspires.
Why do we want this matter to be referred at this time to the defence committee? Also, what are the questions that must be answered? The matters to do with technicality of debate, and of dealing with the arguments confronting the house before second reading, were put on record last night by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. He showed that we could not raise these questions after second reading. Then, we could not call the witnesses that we want to call, that we think should be called, in order to clarify this question for the Canadian people. The longer this debate proceeds, the more the Canadian people will become aware of what the minister is trying to do. That is why we
Interim Supply
believe the defence committee should be convened, namely, to have the questions which have arisen clarified.
The other night the minister said in the house: "Why sure, send this to committee; we will hear all these people." Anybody who knows about these things realizes we cannot do this. It is not within our competence, after the principle of the bill has been established, to call these witnesses. It is the principle that we want clarified. If the top echelons of command have not been able to tell the public why they have either agreed or disagreed with the minister and left the service, I think it is high time we called them. We have friends in high places too, and I am not referring to any one particular person. This whole position is ridiculous.
I have two letters in my hand, and I can show the minister many more like these. One of these-and I shall not mention the name because it is from a friend-explains the feelings of military personnel with regard to the order from National Defence headquarters about communication with the press. The minister has communicated with the press very successfully. As I say, this letter is from a close friend, so I will not use his name because he would get the chop, as the rest of them have. But standing orders have been issued warning personnel not to speak with the news media. In those orders the position of personnel is set out.
Let me refer to another letter dated November 3,1966.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a point of order, I will remind the hon. gentleman that it is a rule that letters be tabled after they have been referred to.


Eric Alfred Winkler: But I did not refer to that letter. I was more crafty than the minister thought I was. I said that I had received a letter and I told him, generally, the contents of it.


John George Diefenbaker: The man would be
retired without pension.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I could table the second letter. The minister said that the vast majority of service personnel agree with the principle of unification. Let me tell him that this letter says no, that the majority of these people do not agree with the minister. This is what the letter says:
As I am sure you are aware, many of us In the navy today are very concerned that unification of the three services will be a very serious mistake.

November 8, 196S
Interim Supply
We also feel that many of the points relevant to the current public debate on the subject are being overlooked.
Several of us got together to organize our own thoughts on the matter and the result is the enclosed paper-the views of seven junior naval officers, and views which are shared by the vast majority of our friends and acquaintances. As you have shown considerable interest in this subject, we thought you might be interested in our point of view.
One or two points may not have been adequately stressed. The seagoing world is a large international brotherhood of naval and merchant mariners-to this band we in the navy fully belong. To this group, uniforms, titles etc. are the outward and visible signs of a common way of life. To this group these things are important. To do away with these things is to destroy our own self respect, and to cause us to lose respect in the eyes of this international group.
We have pointed out the inconsistency between the minister's policy and the present equipment programme. This is not to suggest that this programme should be cancelled. On the contrary, much of this programme is good and is appropriate to the services as they exist today, and for the future as we see it.
You will appreciate that we cannot sign our names to this paper, but we assure you that it is a genuine and honest point of view.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I need not table this because there is no name on it. But the view is there, and this is a genuine letter from the people concerned. Surely, this is a piece of evidence worth considering.
Let me draw the attention of the minister to an article in this morning's Globe and Mail, part of a continuing series by Scott Young. This is all about a Mr. Merritt, a gentleman who received the Victoria Cross in the second world war. The conclusion is as follows:
In short, like almost everyone, he Is for effective integration, but deeply suspicious of total unification. The point he raises about how the defence chiefs of 1964 felt on the matter is one of many questions that should be answered before the Commons defence committee before the legislation is permitted to go to second reading.
That is another piece of evidence. I think the minister is bound to reach the conclusion that it is essential, and that it is his responsibility, to see that this matter goes to the defence committee before second reading.
What will be the result otherwise? If this debate goes beyond the end of this week, we all know the situation which will arise. We know how many civil servants will not receive their pay cheques. We know that contractors will not be paid, and so on. The responsibility is directly on the shoulders of the minister; it does not rest on any other

member of this house. The hon. gentleman will have to clarify this situation with his cabinet colleagues. There is a long list of other legislation we should be dealing with, but the minister, because of the adamant stand he has taken on this particular question, has seen fit to jeopardize the positions of other ministers of the crown who are responsible for valuable pieces of legislation. And he has done this, as I said a moment ago, for his own motives and in the light of his own aspirations.
To return to the defence issue. As I have said, it does not appear to me that the minister's plans are of overriding importance today in the eyes of the government. There is, therefore, sufficient time available for all these matters to be further considered. The defence committee might easily have three or four weeks in which to discuss them. This is a period to which I subscribe and to which I would endeavour to pledge the members of my party. There should be three or four weeks to discuss these matters so that the people who should be called to make the position clear might be heard.
Surely, this would be to the edification of the minister, also? Surely, the hon. gentleman realizes this, unless he has something to fear. If he has, I can only refer once again to Hansard when his leader put the situation clearly. This is what the Prime Minister had to say on February 4, 1963:
There is one way in the field of national defence in which this leadership might have been shown, in which some of this confusion may have been removed, when a decision might have been taken on the basis of the consensus of the House of Commons; that is by setting up a committee of this house on national defence policy.
Now, we have a committee. It is defence policy that we want to discuss. On the occasions to which I have referred, the Prime Minister went so far as to say the committee should have the right to make policy. I wonder why the minister is so concerned today. We are on the seventh or eighth day of debate. Surely, the other business of the country is important to him. Sometimes I wonder what the government expects from this House of Commons. I tell you here and now, Mr. Chairman, that anyone who looks over the number of items dealt with by the house in the course of any given year will find himself convinced that the opposition has deported itself well, properly and justly. Are we asking too much when we say that this matter should be sent to committee? I do not think so, especially when we are in a position today to make a commitment to the minister,
November 8, 1966



that there would be three or four weeks of discussion in which the committee would not be inhibited. The members could meet, maybe a couple of times a day, and we could conclude the sittings in three or four weeks. We would hold, maybe, 15 or 16 meetings. Since his bill is not even one of those mentioned for early consideration, surely the minister could agree to this suggestion from the opposition.
We are not even asking the hon. gentleman to change his mind in regard to this question. We are simply asking for certain clarification to be made with regard to the principle of unification, clarification which has not as yet been put forward either by him or by any other member of the government. Is this too much to expect? I do not think so.
Then, the time would come for the minister to move second reading of his bill. He knows very well that if he gets his bill through the house on second reading, that is the end of the matter. The government could apply closure if the opposition got out of hand. But he cannot apply closure to this debate. I suggest that one of the biggest errors the minister has made so far was to introduce his bill in the middle of an interim supply debate, because the situation has backfired to his disadvantage. It is a more realistic situation today. The minister was endeavouring to persuade the Canadian public that he was right. He intended to ram this program through and show us up. But it has not turned out that way. If the minister will not accede to the one, simple remaining request to account for his actions, and those of his department, to the servicemen of this country, we can assure him he will bear the responsibility for the supply situation next week when the time comes for the payment of government bills.
What are the points which need to be clarified? It is not enough for me to stand here and say "This is the action we should take." What about the attitude of the personnel? I believe I have already shown that the personnel are dissatisfied and that morale is low. We all know this. This is one of the matters which needs clarification. What about the efficient operation of the armed services, the logistics of the organization, the supply situation, the communications situation? How will all this be affected by unification? There are people qualified to give us answers to these questions. Some of them are in the minister's own department. There are other senior officers who obviously disagree with his point of view on some of these subjects.
Interim Supply
Does the hon. gentleman not want us to have the right to hear them? I ask the minister this question: should we not have the right to hear these people? Is Canada not entitled to know what its armed services are to be expected to do in the future? Is their role to be that of a United Nations troop or organization? Has there been any consultation with the United Nations in this regard? If so, Canadian taxpayers have a right to know, because the whole spectrum of defence would then be altered.
I am not saying the minister would be unable to find an area of agreement. But why is he denying us an opportunity to take up this subject in committee and ascertain, on behalf of this house and of this nation, what the situation really implies?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
With respect to the area of administration, are we not to have the right to call people who are informed, and who dedicated their lives to their country's service? Have we no right to hear these people? Last, but far from least, what about the historical aspect? How did this come about, so far as the minister is concerned? Has he given us all the facts? I don't think he has. This is a completely new perspective. The word flexibility was used in the white paper, but there was no hard and fast line. Why are we having a noose put about our necks now?
There is enough suspicion about what the minister did in that committee to justify a demand at this juncture that he take this question back to the defence committee and have his own good name cleared. I have no personal battle with the minister. I wish him well. We all know what goes on in political life. I do not think there are too many members sitting here who are that naive any more. But that is no reason for the minister to deny us, or any other Canadian citizen, the right to know exactly what the plan is.
Taking it beyond that, Mr. Chairman, having made a proposal to the minister this afternoon on how to relieve the situation, on how to maintain his position and dignity following further discussion in the defence committee, I suggest that he give serious thought to the whole matter so that no more errors will be made with regard to the progress for which we are all hoping.
A few years ago when in opposition the minister was one of the protagonists of the committee system with regard to defence and other matters. Today, all we are asking is that he bear in mind the position that he and

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
his leader took back in 1963, and the years before that. If he does that, and if all answers are satisfactorily given to us, then he does not have to be concerned about the position of the opposition.
I have already made reference to the number of items on the order paper that we have dealt with during this session. In that respect, we in the official opposition have proved ourselves to be extremely responsible. So, I do not think the minister and the government can point a finger at the opposition when we put forth a request such as I place before them this afternoon. We make this request in all seriousness, with the hope that for the sake of Canada and our armed services, and for the sake of the future defence of this country, the minister will not be adamant in his views on how to deal with the situation.
We know the rules, and we are not going to allow ourselves to be placed in a corner from which we cannot move. We will not allow the minister to do that to us, and he must examine his own attitude in the light of the responsibility that will sit heavily upon his shoulders this week end.
I am not concerned about the position of our friends to the left. As I said, last night the hon. member for Danforth made a very responsible contribution to this debate. Before that time, I was of the opinion that perhaps his party was using us in another area of manouevres. Today, I am not afraid of that. I am not afraid of it anyway, because the decison is not one to be made by them but by the minister. I assure the minister that this debate will conclude if he will accept the very humble and sensible proposal that I place before him this afternoon.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in the few moments that are left to me I wish to deal with the question of old age security. A few weeks ago I spoke on this subject, and I did not correct the Hansard record at that time. I was recorded then as saying that there was $220 million in the federal old age security fund. The actual sum is $320 million, and I hope that figure will be correctly recorded today.
As has been pointed out by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, this amount could be paid out on the basis of $25 a month to every recipient of old age security at this time without one cent of cost to the taxpayer. I want to ask the government, why is it hesitating to do so? Why will the Prime Minister not answer this question? Why will the Minister of National Health and Welfare

not accede to our request in this regard? That minister is another one of the aspirants to the Liberal leadership, and I have no hesitation in saying that the different roads to the top will cause many heads to bump together.
One thing is abundantly clear and that is, although we have been talking about old age security for almost a year, since last January in any event, the government refuses to move. I have previously quoted the Prime Minister as saying in 1963 that there was not enough attention being paid to our old people. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that statement is more appropriate today than it was then.
What is the government going to do? It is going to impose another tax, as well as a means test for old age security recipients, yet there is $320 million presently sitting in the old age security fund. That is a very unfair proposal. When I spoke about this question some weeks ago, I evoked some answer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, as I recall, told me that our proposed increase in external aid was going to be $300 million. Our current foreign aid runs somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300 million, and by 1970 the minister said this would be increased to $600 million, reaching over $1 billion in the ensuing ten years.
At that time I said I heartily subscribed to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I asked about the senior citizens of Canada who are today living on $75 a month? Mr. Chairman, I tell you it is an impossibility for old age pensioners to exist on $75 a month. The Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister must accept the responsibility for not giving to these people the money that exists in the old age pension fund, which has been raised through public taxation and which is available for distribution.
I ask, for what are they keeping it? We also know that a sum of money is being collected under the Canada Pension Plan which is far and away in excess of what the government anticipated would be collected-


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I shall finish in less than one minute, if you allow me, Mr. Chairman.
November 8, 1966


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member wish to have unanimous consent of the committee to continue?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I have said that the money in the Canada Pension Plan fund is far in excess of what the government anticipated would accrue in the short period of time since the inception of that plan. I know this to be true. In other words, it is a case of over taxation. But now, we have a situation in which, as a result of the high cost of living, which has been created by the government, the government refuses to heed the needs of senior citizens and old age pensioners. When there is such an amount of over taxation going into the Canada Pension Plan fund, this is extremely unjust.
I shall conclude by saying that I hope the government will take cognizance of what I have said on both these matters. Most of all, I hope that in a serious sense the Minister of National Defence will see fit to accept the proposal that I have put before him this afternoon.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, although I agree, and as the hon. member for Greenwood made clear the other day, our party agrees that it would serve the purposes of parliament, and probably the purposes of the Minister of National Defence, a great deal better if the bill regarding unification were sent to the defence committee, and although I also agree with the words spoken by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce with regard to old age security pensions, it is my intention this afternoon to deal with the question of the Trans-Canada gas pipeline which has been raised by my colleagues on a number of occasions.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I would not rise to take the time of the committee if I were not profoundly convinced that what the government has done with regard to a line through the United States is a serious sell-out of Canada's economic integrity. Indeed, I suggest that this is a rather shameful present to Canada on the eve of her 100th birthday.
The second reason for my taking up the time of the committee is that it seems to me this is another step, of which there have been a number, which indicates very clearly the 23033-612
Interim Supply
direction which this government and the party behind it is now going. Again, I am profoundly convinced that this direction will lead to the destruction-I do not think that word is too strong-of Canada's economic independence, Canada's economic integrity and Canada's economic self-reliance, and will make Canada an economic satellite of the United States. If that is the wish of this government, let me say that I do not want it and I am convinced that the majority of Canadian people do not want it, either.
I think the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources, when he spoke on November 1, made in his speech a very revealing remark. At pages 9386 and 9387 of Hansard for that date the minister is recorded as having said:
I am often asked, with respect to water, in particular, whether I am a nationalist or a contin-entalist. I answer, by a pirouette, perhaps, that I would be a continentalist if it were in the national interest.
I respectfully suggest to him that a pirouette is hardly the dance step he is really doing. I suggest that the step he is taking is a great deal more violent and less attractive than is a pirouette.
It is the internal contradiction in the minister's mind and in the government's mind, and I suggest in the minds of most or almost all of the members opposite, that worries me as a Canadian beyond words adequate of description.
If I remember correctly the hon. minister was a professor of political science at an Ottawa university before he was elected to this house. Having that fact in mind, the evidence that he does not recognize Canada's position, and that to be a continentalist is by definition against the national interest, is something that worries me very much. The proposition that you can be in favour of an independent Canada-in other words, doing things in the national interest if the word "national" has any meaning-and at the same time be a continentalist is precisely the kind of ambivalence, the kind of two-faced political philosophy which has done immense harm to Canada before today and threatens to do even more harm in the future.
We have at this moment the best possible example of how thoroughly wrong and harmful the government's policy on this point is. After the government has made an agreement with the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company, and after the government of Canada has passed the necessary order in council and has

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
done these things pursuant to an investigation by a Canadian agency, we all sit here in this parliament, including the minister it he were here, with our mouths open waiting for the Federal Power Commission of the United States in Washington to tell us whether what we have already done can in fact be carried out and under what conditions. Does one need any better example than this? Does the minister know how long will be the delay before the Federal Power Commission makes its decision on the application of the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company? Does anyone here know what changes that commission may make or what demands it may make on the company? What control has the minister, the government or this parliament as to how this thing will in fact be done, even if the Federal Power Commission gives permission for it to be done?
That is the essential fact about which we in this party complain. It is an essential illustration of the fact that we are throwing our independence away. We can assure the delivery of gas to eastern Canada if we build a line within Canada. We do not have to wait until the Federal Power Commission gives us permission to do it and lays down conditions which may be unacceptable. We can assure our export of gas to the United States by making the necessary contracts with United States companies at Emerson or somewhere else. But the minute we permit the kind of thing the government has permitted, we cannot assure anything because the whole line will be under the control and thumb of the Federal Power Commission.
Why and how in God's name this government could possibly change the policy it enunciated so clearly on August 25, 1966 I simply cannot understand. Several members of my party, and particularly my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, placed the wording of that statement by the government on record. I should like to repeat just one short paragraph of the release by the Prime Minister on the date mentioned. He stated:
The government does not believe it to be in Canada's best interest that the future development of facilities for bringing western Canadian gas to its eastern Canadian markets should be located outside Canadian jurisdiction, and subject to detailed regulation under laws of the United States which are naturally designed to protect the interests of United States citizens.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam stated, nothing has happened between August 25 and today to change the force and validity of the words used by the

Prime Minister on that date. No alleged guarantee that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company has given can in any way change the basic proposition that by building the line on United States territory to bring western Canadian gas to eastern Canadian markets it will be located outside Canadian jurisdiction and will be subject to detailed regulation under the laws of the United States.
As I have already indicated, not only will this line be subject to those regulations, it is now subject to them. Everything Canada has done so far still awaits a decision by the Federal Power Commission before it can be put into effect. The decision of that commission may be entirely different from ours and may be entirely changed.
I have tried to study the National Energy Board recommendation in some detail. Like other members of my party, I have consulted some experts and I have read the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Act. I want to say a few words in relation to some of the allegations and arguments that have been made. The first point I want to deal with is the question as to whether or not the building of the line as proposed, and as agreed to by the government, is contrary to the act incorporating Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
Chapter 92 of Statutes of Canada 1950-51, and particularly section 6(a), is very clear in its language. Let me paraphrase the introductory portion. It says that the company may, within or outside Canada, construct and do other things with regard to a pipe line, and then it states:
-provided that the main pipe line or lines, either for the transmission and transportation of gas or oil shall be located entirely within Canada-
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I think those words are very clear. They are clear on two points. They are clear, first, that the legislature-in other words this parliament-recognized that there may be more than one main line; the words are "provided that the main pipe line or lines", and so on. This means that parliament recognized that Trans-Canada might have more than one main line. It is clear, second, that if Trans-Canada has more than one main line, the other main line or lines must also be located entirely within Canada.
The way in which the minister and the government are trying to get out of that clear undertaking in the act is to say that the words "main line or lines" in section 6 (a) mean a main line or lines concerned solely with transporting gas from one part of
November 8, 1966



Canada to another part of Canada, and that the moment the line does something else, the moment it also transports gas outside Canada, it ceases to be a main line regardless of its size, capacity or anything else.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is a totally unacceptable interpretation of the words in the act. It is a bit of casuistry and is in violation, in my respectful submission, of the very act which this parliament passed. I do not know what a court would do about it, but I know that as far as I am concerned the government is twisting words when it takes out of this proviso the authority to permit Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to build such a line through the United States.
The fact is that the line through the United States will be a 36-inch line; that its capacity will be somewhere around 50 per cent more than the capacity of the present line in northern Ontario; that it will undoubtedly carry more gas than is carried now in the line through northern Ontario, if not in the first or second year, then eventually; and that it is therefore a main line of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company. I do not see how anyone can look at it in any other way. It is not a branch line; it is not a feeder line; it is not an adjunct of any line: it is a main line and is therefore in direct violation of section 6 (a) of the act incorporating Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
There is nothing in this section that defines "main pipe line" as a line that is only for the purposes of transmitting gas from one part of Canada to another. There is no such definition in the section or in any other part of the act. I respectfully submit, therefore, that on this point the government is violating the legislation of this parliament. It is another indication as to the direction of, not creeping continentalism as my leader the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam expressed it the other day but, if he will forgive me for referring to it, it is galloping continentalism that this government is engaged in and has been engaged in for some years.
We have made these mistakes over the years in our oil policy, as was indicated the other day, in the auto trade agreement as has now become clear, and in the fact that we have over the years permitted Canadian industry, particularly the manufacturing industry, to become purely a branch plant industry of the United States. We had another example of this some time ago in the American guide lines to branch plants of American corporations in Canada. These were guide 23033-6121
Interim Supply
lines which our federal government did nothing about until one of the ministers of the then Liberal government of Quebec made a fuss about it across Canada.
Surely, we have had enough examples of the terrible actual damage, and even greater damage potentially, that is involved in this constant giving away of Canadian economic independence. If we had any sense of planning, if indeed we had any sense of responsibility to our nation as a nation, we would have planned another Canadian line for the transportation of gas from the western gas fields to eastern Canada a long time ago. We would have insisted that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines began looping its northern line two or three years ago, so that by now the job could have been finished. Instead, we are under the gun, as Trans-Canada Pipe Lines sought to convince the National Energy Board, and therefore they must have the proposed line now. They thought the line could be built faster south of the border.
I am not at all sure of that. I warn the minister that if the Federal Power Commission should take as long as it usually takes on cases as involved as this one, in view of the very widespread opposition from competing companies in the United States, the likelihood is that if we started the northern line today we would finish it before the Great Lakes company gets permission to build the other line, let alone before they are able to finish the other fine.
The basic resource of Canada, gas and its transportation, is now being put in the hands and under the control of the United States. When it is said that we must have some export of gas to the United States, I agree,-if we have a surplus. I am not competent to say whether we have a surplus. The National Energy Board made calculations and decided that we now have, and will probably continue to have, a surplus for the next number of years. I am ready to accept their expert opinion, although I must say that someone I consulted has very great doubts whether that conclusion will be valid for a very long time.
However, Mr. Chairman, if we need to export to the United States and are able to export to that country, let me make clear that my inquiries have persuaded me that there are other ways of doing it. It is a false red herring-if you can use what is in effect a double negative-to say that we are opposing the export of gas when we oppose this particular method of exporting it. It is totally possible to export gas by selling it at the

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
outlet at Emerson, Manitoba, or by having someone take it in some short, small, inexpensive branch line that could be built lor the purpose.
The fact is, as the National Energy Board points out, that the agreements for the export of gas which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines now have will result in a worsening of Canada's balance of payments position. It will be the kind of export of gas which does precisely the opposite of that which exports are supposed to do. The reason a country like Canada wants to export is to gain foreign currency to be able to offset the cost of its imports. Exports which result in a net loss of foreign currency are surely not the exports that this or any other country in its right senses wants to have.
At page 6-28 and earlier pages of the report of the National Energy Board, the board analyzes the income from the exports on the basis of the contracts which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has. It analyses the outgo of foreign currency as a result of this particular arrangement and concludes, as will be found at page 6-26, that the cumulative net outflow would be about $133 million over the first 10 years. The board concludes that there would be a net loss in foreign currency, as a result of this arrangement, of an average of $13 million a year. This will surely affect our balance of payments seriously. At page 6-28, after discussing the entire matter, the National Energy Board says this:
On balance, therefore, the foreign exchange implications of the Great Lakes project appear to the board to weigh against the project, constituting a national cost, though not a cost to Trans-Canada.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am grateful to the board for the addition of the last words "though not a cost to Trans-Canada"; of course it is not. Trans-Canada is interested in this particular Great Lakes project because it will be able to leave the headache of raising the investment money to its subsidiary, precisely 50 per cent of which it owns which does not give it control over the company, and it will get all the profits involved, through its association with producers and others, without having to do the kind of work it would have to do if the line were built in Canada.
In summary, I say that the argument to which the minister alluded in his speech, that this will be a means of exporting gas and that we need exports, is without basis. The fact is that for the first ten years of this proposition there will be a net outflow of currency. The export of gas will not be in

Canada's interest even though it will be in the interests of Trans-Canada.
Now I wish to say a word about the cost differential because I think that some of the things that have been said, and perhaps some which have not been alluded to, should be put on record. I do not claim to have any expertise in the field, but I have looked at the National Energy Board report and have had it analyzed. I would like to make a few brief comments on this subject, keeping in mind the time which I should observe.
My first comment is that at best the National Energy Board shows a cost differential of about 5 per cent. In its report the Board admits that in such calculations there is a 3 to 4 per cent margin of error. My experts tell me that this is an understatement, that the margin of error in forecasts of this type is much more likely to be between 5 and 6 per cent. Therefore, the margin of error by itself is enough to wipe out the alleged differential in cost, because note should be taken of the fact that all the evidence before the National Energy Board was provided by the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company which was seeking to make its case for the southern line. I will speak about this point again. I therefore suggest to you it does not require great logic to see that if a margin of error is likely, it would not be in the direction of the lower cost but in the direction of the higher cost of the northern line.
The fact that all the evidence came from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is of great significance. As far as I am concerned, it puts all their evidence under suspicion. I do not say this because I think Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is a worse corporation than any other corporation or that the people who prepared the evidence are dishonest. The point I am trying to make is that, as any member in this committee knows, one does not rely for evidence against a case on the person who appears to plead in favour of it. The National Energy Board relied on evidence given by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines against as well as in favour of the application which it put before the board. Anyone looking at the evidence objectively cannot help but decide that he should examine other evidence before accepting the application.
It seems to me, from the short look I gave to the National Energy Board Act, that sufficient authority is given that body to allow it to make an independent feasibility and cost study of the northern line. I hope that in
November 8, 1966

making this criticism I am not hurting anyone's feelings. I believe that the National Energy Board should have made such a study. Several suggestions have been put forward. To rely solely on the evidence of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was to ensure that the conclusion would be in favour of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and against any other line.
As my hon. friend suggests, the company did not even have the right length of the northern line on which it based its evidence.
There is another point regarding the evidence on cost which is a little technical but I hope I can make it clear without taking too long. It seems to me extremely important and striking. In calculating the cost of the two lines the National Energy Board rejected the 8 per cent return which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines wanted for a northern line, and made its calculations on the basis of a 7.5 per cent return. That was the return which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would have had if it built the northern line, and this return of 7.5 per cent is calculated from the first year on. However, in considering the southern line not only did the National Energy Board accept a 6.5 per cent return but it accepted calculations which make the 6.5 per cent applicable only in the fifth year, not in the first year. I was so struck by that fact that I committed it to memory. I do not have to look up the figures.
In the first year the return is .96 or less than 1 per cent. In the second year the return is 4.45, about 4.5 per cent. In the third year it is 5.53, about 5.5 per cent. In the fourth year it is 6.15 per cent, and it is only in the fifth year that it becomes 6.5 per cent. According to the calculations which were made for me by someone who knows a great deal about this matter, this accounts for the entire alleged difference in cost.
I asked this person, who has had years of experience in the entire field of power, to recalculate the estimate giving the northern line a return of .96 the first year, 4.45 the second year, and so on, and 7.5 the fifth year, not 6.5 as was the case with the southern line. The result was that the cost via the northern line would be smaller even over the first five years; and over the total 10 year period with which we are concerned, the difference in cost would be 4.4 per cent in favour of the northern line. As the leader of my party pointed out the other day, the calculations of the National Energy Board showed the difference in cost over the 10 year
Interim Supply
period to be .22 of a cent, or roughly 1.1 per cent against the northern line and in favour of the southern line. However, if you applied the same rates of return in the first four years to the northern line, the difference would be in Canada's favour, that is the difference would be 4.4 per cent in favour of the northern line.
This is the kind of consideration which should be taken into account by the government, by the committee and by the whole country. It is precisely the kind of evidence which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would be expected to give, and the fact that the National Energy Board accepted it is a disgrace to its work. The fact that the government accepted and acted on this evidence is a betrayal of Canada's economic interests and of its future. The fact is that the alleged difference in cost to eastern Canada is extremely questionable. According to the information I have received it is probably invalid and totally unreliable.
It is important to realize another point made by the National Energy Board namely, that the building of the line in northern Ontario would bring to Canadians over a period of 10 years a total of $700 million if it were a 30 inch line and a total of $1 billion if it were a 36 inch line.
The National Energy Board points out that not only does the construction of the southern line result in a total loss of income to Canadians but also the construction of various installations and the maintenance of the line and its appendages in the future would have given work and income to Canadians for a long time to come.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It will now go to citizens of another country. I do not begrudge the citizens of another country work and income, but I am sure that they do not want it at the expense of the Canadian people, and certainly we do not. The real issue that this poses-and this is the reason the members of my party have spoken on this matter with such feeling-is whether we are going to permit this government to continue-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted to his speech has expired.


Michael Starr: Continue.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed by hon. members that the hon. member may continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Do not be too long.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I will not be very long because I am on the last point that I intend to make.
As I was saying, the real issue is whether we are going to permit the government and the party behind the government to lead Canada into economic integration with the United States. As if we did not already have enough of this!
In saying this, I would emphasize, as other members have done, that this is not an antiUnited States stand. For the past 99 years we have had good relations with our neighbour, the United States, and we should continue to have good relations with them. But good relations with a big and powerful neighbour do not mean subservience to that neighbour.
The policy that the government is following in this, as in other matters, will make Canada a subservient satellite of the United States of America. Not because the United States wants this, Mr. Chairman. I do not blame corporations for coming into Canada and investing money when there are opportunities for them to do so. They are merely alert and are doing things in their own interests. I do not even blame Trans-Canada Pipe Lines for trying to bring off a deal which will be in the interests of that company. It is not the business of United States or Canadian corporations to look after the national interest; this responsibility belongs to this government and to this parliament.
I do not blame these corporations or people who take advantage of the opportunity, deliberately created and presented to them by the government, to exploit Canada's interests, even though in the long run they are affected so adversely as to put Canadianism totally in doubt. This is the issue that faces us, Mr. Chairman, and faces us in many ways. It faces us in the economic field and in the cultural field. It faces us when we permit private television stations to use as much foreign material as they do instead of promoting Canada's cultural and spiritual wellbeing in some identifiable way. This issue faces us in all areas.
The reason I emphasize this at this time, Mr. Chairman, is that this Trans-Canada Pipe Lines deal is perhaps as outstanding an example of the sell out of Canada's economic integrity to another country as any example could be.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
However, there are other examples. I would briefly remind the members of the committee, if they need reminding, that the hon. member for Davenport was completely and totally rejected not only as to his prescriptions, with some of which I do not agree either, but even as to his anxiety about what is happening to the Canadian economy. He was hardly listened to by the Liberal party in its recent conference.
The Liberal party went further than this. It not merely rejected the hon. member for Davenport's theories, anxieties and concerns about Canada's economic integrity; it immediately thereafter passed a resolution calling for free trade with the United States. This call for free trade was not wide-ranging, embracing all or a good many of our customers. If it were, Mr. Chairman, this party would have been the first to support it. The New Democratic Party is entirely in favour of free trade because we believe that tariffs have always been and always will be a charge on the purchasing power of the people. If such free trade were to be on a wide basis Canada would be able to continue to be a free agent in the matter of trade.
This was not the view of the Liberal party in conference, Mr. Chairman. It passed a resolution calling for free trade with the United States. Then the Caribbean area was added, but with the full knowledge that our trade there is not worth 5 cents compared with our trade with the United States. I am, of course, talking in relative terms; I am not saying that our trade with the Caribbean amounts to 5 cents. The object of adding the Caribbean was to make people believe that they had gone beyond just trade with the United States, but in fact they had not.
I could not bring any better witness as to the folly of the decision which was taken by the Liberal party in conference than the Prime Minister himself, and I should like to quote again an extremely relevant and important statement of his which is reported in the Ottawa Citizen for October 31. He said:
Canada could not seriously contemplate a free trade union with the United States and the Caribbean countries-
I now ask hon. members opposite to listen carefully to the following wise words. If I may just interject a remark, one of the characteristics of the Prime Minister very often is that his words are wise but his actions go precisely in the opposite direction.
November 8, 1966



Having said that we could not contemplate this free trade union, he continued?
-unless the Canadian economy were strong enough and Canadian ownership and control of all our sources of prosperity complete enough to ensure that we could not lose our political independence.
That, of course, is quite right. But what this Trans-Canada Pipe Lines deal does is that it ensures that the ownership and control of our sources of prosperity will be in someody else's hands; that the extent to which they are in somebody else's hands will be increased.
Once we build the line, Mr. Chairman, we are stuck with it. We must pump the gas through it. We cannot turn off the tap at Emerson even if most of it is used for export purposes. If we did that we would really raise an international problem with the United States and the Federal Power Commission, and we would plunge the company concerned into bankruptcy.
I conclude by pleading with the government not to be obstinate over this. They changed their minds once during the period August 25 to October 4 and they can change their mind again. I urge the government to request the National Energy Board to make an independent feasibility and cost study of a northern line so that we can obtain independent evidence as to what this proposal would really mean. I would also urge the government to withdraw from its agreement with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and not wait for the F.P.C. to destroy it. I ask the government to think again.
If it will not adopt any of these requests, then I urge the government at least to consider insisting that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines starts to loop the northern line in 1967 instead of in 1970. This would mean that the evil effects of the agreement will at least be slightly mitigated with the Canadian line being looped next year instead of in 1970, as provided by the agreement.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I hope that I will be permitted to deviate from the topics which have dominated the present debate, first the question of unification and second the pipe line. I have listened to most of the debate on the question of unification, but unfortunately I have found that this has not really been the topic discussed. Most of the arguments have been devoted to whether or not the minister is arrogant, or to what degree he is arrogant. I would have hoped that in general the merits of unification and
Interim Supply
the pros and cons of the issue could be debated logically, eloquently and objectively in this house so that all of us who have an open mind on the subject could have had some guidelines to follow in arriving at our own decisions.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I shall now add the last words I intend to utter, this afternoon on the subject of unification. I do not think hon. members should carry into action the threats implied, that unless the minister refers this program to a committee before second reading we shall have a repetition of the flag debate. Nobody wants that to happen. I should think many in this chamber are sheepish when they look back at the flag debate, then realize how the new Canadian flag has been accepted by the Canadian Legion and by those people who fought their battle in an objective and progressive manner.
The other subject discussed at some length in this debate has been the pipe line. The hon. member for York South, referring to the pipe line question, said that it is another indication of our willingness to sell our heritage to the United States. I cannot comment adequately on the topic, because I do not know enough about the pipe line. However, I cannot agree with the statement that the Liberal party and its backbenchers have deserted the hon. member for Davenport, the former minister of finance. I should like to place on record that this country, this party, and the backbenchers of the Liberal party owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Davenport. The hon. member for Davenport had the courage of his convictions by introducing legislation eliminating the possibility of further magazines such as Reader's Digest and Time magazine coming into this country under false pretences. When the hon. member for Davenport was minister of finance he brought to the statute books of Canada legislation making it impossible for chartered banks of this country to fall into foreign hands. He also brought in legislation that prevented the possibility of our insurance companies being dominated by foreign owners. I share, with many other hon. members in all parts of the house, a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Davenport.


Edward Nasserden: You are in a minority in your party.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I may be a minority in my party, but I still feel that we all share the tremendous apprehension of the hon. member

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
for Davenport of our vulnerability in the field of communications from our friendly neighbours to the south. We ought to form a balanced judgment, because sometimes our pro-Canadianism is nothing more than a disguise for anti-Americanism. I share, with the hon. member for Davenport, his concern about periodicals, daily newspapers, banks and insurance companies. I do not necessarily share his viewpoint, nor would he expect me to, in all the other areas that are important to this country and to parliament.


Edward Nasserden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I did not participate in this debate to take issue with my hon. friend, who likes to ask questions. I like to answer them, and I shall try to do so at the end of my remarks. My hon. friend is very courteous. I get along very well with him.
I wish, basically, to talk on two topics of interest to me. One concerns the Department of Labour and the other is a personal project that I have sometimes discussed in the house. As a result of the rash of strikes that have occurred recently, a great deal of hon. members' mail at the moment is devoted to labour questions. Many people in my riding, many people in big business and people from across the country, have written offering suggestions as to how parliament can prevent strikes. Some suggestions-and I am sure hon. members are well aware of them-are completely reprehensible. They are that we virtually outlaw strikes; that we remove this tool from labour. Other suggestions recommend compulsory arbitration is the only solution. Some people try to define those areas where they consider the national interest to be more important than that of labour or management. Surprisingly, however, the theme dominating my correspondence is the crying need for more communication between labour and management.
This morning, and this is what prompted my participation this afternoon, a friend in Montreal phoned me, perhaps agitated by the postal situation, wanting to know why the government did not set up a department to encourage some form of continuous communication between management and labour. I pointed out that such a department, or such a branch within the labour department, has existed for 22 years. This is not something this government introduced. It existed when the hon. member for Ontario was minister of labour. As a matter of fact, this branch has

existed for 22 years. Certainly, the idea of managment-labour consultation originated, as many members know, in England, in 1917. J. H. Whitley organized works councils of management and labour to discuss working conditions, and these became known as Whitley councils.
But, Mr. Chairman, labour-management problems have changed. There is an urgency today for a type of continuous consultation. There was a time when the average wage agreement, to use that expression, drawn up between management and labour in this country lasted for one year. In those days, there was a form of continuous consultation between management and labour. Today, many wage agreements are for two to three years. For that reason quite often there is practically no communication for two or three years between labour and management.
The hostility existing between labour and management during the recent longshoremen's strike in Montreal appalled me. Perhaps there was an historical reason for this. Nevertheless, I must point out that between the meetings leading to the wage agreements there was absolutely no communication between the ship owners and the longshoremen. As a matter of fact, the moment the agreements were signed the ship owner in effect, transferred his interest to stevedoring companies. I often wonder why the free collective bargaining process does not take place between the longshoremen and the stevedoring firms rather than between the longshoremen and the ship owners who often are absentee owners.
* (5:10 p.m.)
Labour and management can no longer afford to sit down every two or three years only, to discuss wages and working conditions. New problems have arisen which are beyond the scope of such periodic meetings between labour and management. These are difficulties brought about as a result of technology and automation, and increasing attention will be paid to them as the new department of manpower reaches maturity.
One of the aims of the department of manpower is to increase opportunities for on-the-job training of employees whose working lives have been disrupted by the results of technology, men who are redundant in department A but who well might find employment in department B if they were retrained. One of the aims of the department of manpower will be to make it possible for an employee to be retrained while still in the
November 8, 1966

service of his present employer. I can well understand however labour's mistrust of such a plan if provisions were not made for continuous consultation before this type of training is introduced.
The Department of Labour has set up a branch called, I believe, the labour-management consultation branch-I may not have the correct terminology-headed by Mr. DeWitt, an expert in this field. I have been pleasantly surprised to note that in the last four years there have been no less than 13 labour-management conferences jointly sponsored by the federal government, the provinces and by labour and management across Canada. Six of these conferences have taken place in Alberta, four in Ontario, two in Quebec city and one in Montreal. The most recent took place in Edmonton last week and no fewer than 475 delegates from the greater Edmonton area, representing almost equally employers and employees, met in a two-day seminar to discuss some of the questions which have arisen out of discussions between labour and management groups across the province.
There are a large number of industrial companies in Canada today where provision is made for meetings, on a regular basis, of committees of six, eight, ten or 12 people, half from management and half from labour, to discuss matters of common interest.
The questions discussed at these meetings are not those which would normally be discussed at formal meetings held every two or three years to consider wages and working conditions. They are, for example, such matters as absenteeism. Why should a man with an excellent record of attendance suddenly absent himself from work two or three times a week? The committee tries to find out what is disturbing the employee concerned in an effort to save the man his job and, what is equally important, to save a good man for his employers. Other matters are discussed, such as manpower training, perhaps, or in the case of smaller companies, dwindling profits. Suggestions for increasing production are considered.
Without boring you with the details, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that these committees have invariably resulted in the betterment of labour-management relations. They have helped to improve the financial picture of the companies concerned and they have worked for the benefits of labour inasmuch as they have provided solutions on a continuing basis to many difficulties which 23033-613
Interim Supply
might otherwise have become the source of tremendous resentment.
Hon. members may say: that is what labour and management do. What does the government do? How does this concern the federal Department of Labour and what is done in the department to encourage action of this kind? Well, right across Canada we have field representatives of the labour-management consultation branch working in cooperation with the provincial departments of labour and other interested organizations to assist in the formation of these committees. We have pre-printed constitutions to suit the needs of companies with, say 10 or 20 employees. We provide free of charge informational literature and posters. At the request of management and labour, we assist in the discussions which take place in the committees. Then, periodically, we evaluate the work of the committees and conduct research with the objective of making them more effective.
I should like, through the medium of this committee, to pay a tribute to this particular branch of the department which, for some unaccountable reason, does not get the publicity it deserves. I mention publicity not to edify the present minister or the Department of Labour but to encourage men like Mr. DeWitt and others to do an even more effective job.
As one who was privileged to attend meetings of such a committee last week in Alberta, may I say how greatly impressed I was by the degree of co-operation shown between the federal and provincial governments in this particular field.
I should like to turn, now, to the consideration of another topic, namely, the question of the Canadian centenary and what this country is doing, or not doing, about commemorating the Fathers of Confederation. It is _ only natural that I should be concerned with one Father of Confederation more than any other, and that one happens to be the great Canadian known as Thomas D'Arcy McGee. My interest in him does not stem from the fact that we can both trace our ancestors to Ireland. Rather, it is because he was one of the greatest forces for the unification of this country. Certainly, his speeches and writing had a tremendous bearing upon the Atlantic provinces, entering Confederation.
I do not wish to bore the committee with a resume of the life history of Thomas D'Arcy McGee. As the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State so well put it on March 7,

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
1966, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who was born in Ireland, was a brilliant speaker, a polished writer, a fine poet and a great administrator. As far as I am concerned, he was a distinguished Father of Confederation.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Furthermore, because of United States influence on our mediums of communication, which the hon. member for York South spoke about briefly, because of the fact that our television, radio and news media subject matter usually originates in the United States, the average Canadian citizen, and certainly the average Canadian youngster, is much more familiar with Davey Crockett and the events which led up to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, then he is with the events which led up to the assassination of Thomas D'Arcy McGee in 1868, just a few hundred feet from the parliament buildings.
Following Thomas D'Arcy McGee's return to Ireland from the United States and then to Montreal, he was sponsored as a parliamentary candidate in a Montreal riding by the St. Patrick's Society, something which was not unusual in those days. He entered parliament as an independent member. I am sorry to say that in a moment of weakness he became a Conservative, and it has taken almost 99 years for us to live down that fact.
But the important thing is that in Canada today the only symbol of recognition of the contribution that Thomas D'Arcy McGee made to this country is a monument on his grave in the Cote des Neiges cemetery in Montreal which, because of the nature of the stone, is now in complete disrepair.
On February 25 of this year the president of the St. Patrick's Society, Kenneth J. McKenna, wrote to John Fisher, the centennial commissioner, and I should like to read a small paragraph from that letter:
The St. Patrick's Society of Montreal, which was instrumental in bringing D'Arcy McGee to Canada in helping to support him here, now finds itself faced with a serious problem. His tomb, in Cote Des Neiges cemetery, which the society has maintained, is in very poor condition. The stone fagade is crumbling, as stone of that type does not normally last more than one hundred years in this climate and we must consider rebuilding it. Emile Brunet, the noted sculptor, has donated his time to a study of the problem and is preparing a plan showing how the tomb could be repaired.
We are afraid, however, that the eventual cost will be far in excess of our limited finances and would appreciate your suggestions as to how federal assistance could be secured to help with the project.
I do not know if there was any reply to this letter, but I asked the Secretary of State
[Mr. Mackasey.l
if we could not assume the cost of the restoration of this monument as a centennial project, which it is calculated would cost approximately $10,000. After paying tribute no McGee in very flowery terms, the parliamentary secretary to the minister suggested I would be very pleased to learn that under a federal-provincial program of per capita grants distributed by the centennial commission, funds were available for carrying out this type of work. However, under this program all requests must first be approved by the provinces.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is none of the provinces' damned business, that Thomas D'Arcy McGee was not a Quebecker, that he was not an Irishman, that he was a Canadian and a Father of Confederation, and it is the duty of the federal government to look after his tomb. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I found out when I got this well prepared answer that it should have included the information there was a one year time limit on such requests. A year from 1967 would have been January 1, 1966, yet on March 7 of 1966 the minister and his department suggested I should appeal to the province of Quebec for financial assistance for this project. Needless to say, the provincial authorities assured me that, while they recognized the contribution of McGee to the unity of this country, the time for making such requests had expired.
I then redirected my request to the department of northern affairs in the hope that this type of financial assistance might be found through the branch of that department which maintains historic sites across Canada. I have been the subject of a lot of good natured kidding about this matter, but I feel very deeply about it because one of the problems that faces Canada 100 years after its confederation is our self-consciousness, our inferiority complex, our lack of appreciation and realization of how great Canadian history really is.
One has only to rediscover the exploits of Radisson, La Verendrye, LaSalle, and of other French Canadian explorers, and to reread the discussions which preceded confederation to appreciate the vision of men like D'Arcy McGee, and I regret that there are none of his type preaching unity across our country today.
I am a great believer in Expo. I will not bat an eye if we are going to lose $100 million on that project. But I am more excited about centennial projects than about Expo, because it is through centennial projects that we can leave some lasting monuments of our
November 8, 1968



first century as a nation. I think we need more of those symbols now than at any time in our history, symbols to which we can look back periodically, which may make us feel a little sheepish and small when we argue about petty issues like bilingualism and biculturalism. While we argue about petty issues, men like McGee are buried in cemeteries like Cote des Neiges dependent on private groups to perpetuate their memory. I am told this is true of many Fathers of Confederation.
Amazingly, Mr. Chairman, I have received a lot of correspondence on this subject. Many of the letters are not from people aged 60 to 70, as one would expect, who would be concerned about the Canada which we all love and want to see continue. I have a letter here from one student, and at this point I apologize for not having answered it. His name is John Shiry and his address 28 Plaza Court, Kitchener, Ontario. In his letter he says:
Dear Mr. Mackasey:
It was with a keen interest that I read your remarks in Hansard (March 7) about Thomas D'Arcy McGee. I am one of the fortunate few who have read more than the one line most of our text books meagrely assign to the memory of this great nation-builder . I have read some of McGee's poems and speeches. I have felt the inspiration of his vision for a great nation, and I have felt a deep sorrow that he is not more widely known.
Further on in his letter he says:
It is almost 98 years since the most eloquent advocate of confederation was cut down by an assassin's bullet. The tragedy is that time has made McGee a forgotten man. Every schoolboy should be familiar with that last great plea for unity which McGee delivered that April eve so long ago. It is so relevant today, when our union is being tested, that every Canadian should read it. If a fund can be set up to provide a suitable monument I will take pride in giving, from my limited resources as a university student, to preserve the memory of one of the greatest Canadians of them all, Thomas D Arcy McGee.
I received many such letters, Mr. Chairman, and I also received a very nice letter from the minister of northern affairs pointing out that he had intended to investigate the matter. But I emphasize that our centennial is only six weeks away. However, the minister informed me that this matter will be on the agenda for consideration at a meeting of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, which advises the minister on matters of historical importance, and which meeting is to be held soon. The minister's letter is marked "personal and confidential", and so I do not want to reveal what it says. But it does point out that it is not the normal practice for the government of Canada,
Interim Supnly
through the department of northern affairs, to look after this type of project.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that the hon. parliamentary secretary be allowed to complete his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It will only take me three or four minutes to conclude my remarks. I should like, through the medium of this House of Commons and the opportunity provided me on interim supply, to urge hon. members to join with me in requesting the government to pay tribute to men like McGee, Galt, Laurier and Sir John A. Macdonald in recognition of what these people have done for the development of Canada and the unity of this country. It is a shame that we in Canada do not have greater pride in those things that really count. I ask hon. members to write the minister to whom I have made reference, and to bother him during the question period if they like. I should like this government to put up the $10,000 to assist the St. Patrick's society to mark the grave of Thomas D'Arcy McGee in an adequate manner.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member permit a question? I ask it because I am so much in agreement with what he said. Is he aware of the fact that in 1961 I, as prime minister, visited Ireland and took with me a plaque for the purpose of marking the birth place of Thomas D'Arcy McGee which was the first time anything had ever been done to honour that birth place of one who contributed so much?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am sure no one would accuse him of being irreverent of our past history or to the Fathers of Confederation. I was aware of the fact that he visited Ireland and took with him a plaque to mark that birth place because of information I received from the historical division of the St. Patrick's society. We are very much aware of that fact. Let me say in all sincerity that the day will come when the great prime ministers of this country, and I include the

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the present Prime Minister in that category, must be honoured by something that will endure through posterity.
As Canadians, we have an inferiority complex that we should shake as quickly as we can. The best way to fight Americanism is not by becoming isolationists, as many people think, but in revering those things that are truly Canadian.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member indicated that he would answer a question. My question relates to an earlier part of his remarks. Did I understand him to say he thought a monument should be raised to the anti-Americanism of Walter Gordon?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It was my hope that the hon. member's question would be more objective and to the point. Walter Gordon is not anti-American; he is a pro-Canadian, and there is a fundamental difference. We do not have to erect a monument to things Walter Gordon has done because they appear on our statute books. He protected our field of communication by making it impossible for our daily newspapers to fall into foreign hands. He protected us in the field of finance by making it impossible for banks to fall into foreign hands. He protected us in the field of economics by making it impossible for insurance companies to fall into foreign hands.
I do not know how many people there are who can walk out of this House of Commons and point with justifiable pride to the type of legislation for which Walter Gordon is responsible. For that reason, I will always respect Walter Gordon.


Mr. McQuaid:: Mr. Chairman, for a few moments I should like to discuss a matter which is not connected with defence or the Trans-Canada pipe line. This matter is closely related to the matter raised by the hon. member for Verdun, the difference being that in respect to my subject matter the government of Canada did suitably recognize the Fathers of Confederation by the construction of a confederation centre in the city of Charlottetown. Unfortunately, not enough money is being supplied to look after the operating expenses of that magnificient cultural centre.
As most hon. members of this committee are probably aware, the memorial foundation responsible for the operation of this centre in Charlottetown is presently faced with a deficit of some $600,000 and is going behind at the rate of $325,000 per year. Let me make it

abundantly clear to members of this committee, in as vehement terms as I can use, that the government of Prince Edward Island does not have the money to pay off this operating deficit and does not have the fiscal capacity to raise that kind of money.
I think these facts can be substantiated by stating that our province is now faced with a direct debt of something over $44 million. This amounts to approximately $407 per capita. Our total debt charge last year, including interest and sinking funds, was $3,600,000, or about 30 per cent of what the government is able to collect through its own taxes and 12 per cent of its total revenue.
Prince Edward Island is already highly dependent on the government of Canada for sufficient money to carry on the operation of its essential services. In the year ended March 31, 1966, just as an indication of how dependent we are, 58.3 per cent of our revenue came from Ottawa. We received 32.7 per cent from taxes, licences and so on which were collected from the taxpayers and 9 per cent from other sources. When you consider our heavy debt, and the large amount of money required to service that debt, it must be clear that our government has not got the money to provide for the operating deficit of this memorial building.
It is my suggestion that we have not got the money, and I maintain that we do not have the fiscal capacity to raise it. We have only 108,000 people in our province and, as members of this committee well know, they are dependent entirely, or almost so, on two basic industries, agriculture and fishing. The average weekly wage in Prince Edward Island is $63.25, which, according to the latest statistics, is the lowest of any province in Canada.
Let me compare the averages. The national average is $93.51. In Nova Scotia the average weekly wage is $74.67; in New Brunswick it is $76.00 and in Newfoundland it is $82.92. It can be recognized that Prince Edward Island, having the lowest national average, is not in a position to collect any more taxes from its people. Consequently, we do not have the fiscal capacity to provide sufficient money for the operating deficit of this centre. It is my suggestion that we should not be expected to finance the entire operation of that confederation memorial building. This building was erected by the Fathers of Confederation Memorial Citizens Foundation on behalf of all the people of Canada to commemorate the
November 8, 1966

Charlottetown conference of 1864. We are happy and proud that the people of Canada saw fit to erect such a magnifieient structure in the city of Charlottetown.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I do not think it should be forgotten that this is a national shrine. While it may be situated in Prince Edward Island, it nevertheless belongs to all the people of Canada. The Prime Minister, at the formal opening of the building by Her Majesty the Queen, stated very emphatically that this was a national memorial which "honours the past, is inspired by the living present and is a not unworthy legacy to future generations of Canadians who take delight and entertainment from it." When the idea of establishing this memorial centre was first announced, the then prime minister said in this house on March 9, 1962, that the federal government would finance one half of the construction cost but not exceeding $2.8 million. All the provinces of Canada very generously agreed to pay 15 cents per capita toward the cost of construction, and the balance of the cost was to be raised by public subscription.
I believe that the cost of the building when completed was in the vicinity of $5,600,000. It is true that our province did not pay the 15 cents per capita, and for this reason the feeling probably exists throughout the country that we got the building for nothing. But that is very far from the truth. As a matter of fact, I believe I can successfully establish that the province of Prince Edward Island paid more toward the cost of construction of this centre than did any of the other provinces of Canada or the federal government.
We were required, for example, to provide the site. To do this, our government had to contribute a whole block of the most valuable land in the city of Charlottetown. I do not know exactly how much that land is worth but, considering present land values in the city I would judge the value of that city block would be at least $500,000. On the land at that time was a three-storey provincial office building of stone construction which housed five departments of government. This building had been remodelled only recently by the government of Prince Edward Island at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, but it had to be demolished.
On the site there was also a public library and an art gallery. The public library and the art gallery, which was also a permanent type of building, had to be demolished. As a result
Interim Supply
of the compulsory demolition of these two buildings, our government was faced with the problem of constructing a new government office building because space had to be provided for the offices that were vacated. I do not think the total cost of this building can be properly charged to the building of the Fathers of Confederation Memorial Building, but certainly a percentage of the cost can be attributed to this shrine.
The point is that if we had paid 15 cents per capita, as was paid by the other provinces of Canada, on the basis of our population we would have had to pay only approximately $16,000. I estimate that our contribution, by reason of the fact that we contributed the site and had to tear down two excellent buildings in order to construct this centre, was in the order of $3 million. To arrive at this estimate, I am allowing $500,000 for the value of the site, which I suppose is a very conservative estimate, and the value of the two buildings which had to be demolished.
I am pointing this out to make as clear as I can the fact that our province did not get this building for nothing. The largest contribution made on the basis of 15 cents per capita would be made by the province of Ontario, because it has the largest population. I presume that their contribution was based on the 1961 census, which showed that at that time there were living in the province of Ontario 6,236,092 people; therefore on the basis of 15 cents per capita the contribution of that province would be $935,413. The contribution of the government of Canada was $2.8 million, and I suggest that our contribution was very-close to $3 million. Therefore, it is not true to say that Prince Edward Island got this building for nothing.
We lost out on another score. The federal government made available to all the provinces of Canada $2.8 million to assist in the construction of centennial projects. This $2.8 million is the same amount that the federal government granted toward the erection of the memorial building at Charlottetown. All the provinces of Canada except Prince Edward Island were given this $2.8 million. We were denied this grant because the government said, with some justification I admit, that they had already helped to build in our province a memorial to the Fathers of Confederation and we were therefore not entitled to the $2.8 million. But the fact remains that the centre is now faced with an annual operating deficit of $325,000. Each year it is going behind by this amount. All

therefore, plead with the government to be as generous as possible so as to ensure the continued operation of the centre.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Verdun suggested a few minutes ago that he would like to hear someone discuss the principles of unification, integration or amalgamation of the armed forces, and I will attempt to do so in the time that is allotted to me. I am sure that every serving officer now has a dictionary aside from the book on rules and regulations governing the army, because these three words have been used and misused in the last two or three years. The white paper on defence used the word "integration". A few weeks ago the word "unification" was used, and now Bill C-243 uses the word "amalgamation". In fact, one can hardly keep up with the use of these words and I am not sure that their meaning is well understood. I noticed when the minister was introducing the bill he said that the amalgamation will also establish Canada as the unquestionable leader in the field of military organization. I would like to suggest that he misused that word and that he should have said "the unquestioned leader". We can understand why he should be thinking about unquestionable things. He has been so forthcoming lately in the house that he probably considers himself the unquestionable minister.
The principle of integration applied to certain military functions deserves support. It is an intelligent and forward-looking step. I think fault can be found with the former government for not having integrated certain functions of our services. Perhaps if we had done this we would not have given the present minister such a wide field in which to blunder. I do not think there is any doubt that certain fields in service and supply and in research and development should have been integrated. We only need to look at the history of the United States, the British and the German armies during the last war to see what happens when research and development are not integrated. Training can also be largely integrated. Communications and the command function are more difficult to integrate but to a large degree they have a common purpose. Everything that is done in any armed service is done to provide an efficient combat function. The aim of research is to provide an effective combat unit. This is the difficult part of integration. It may be that it is impossible to integrate and that is
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion why thoughtful citizens all over Canada are disturbed and frightened because nobody has convinced them of the fact that we can successfully integrate our combat function.
This is what is causing people such as Colonel Cecil Merritt, V.C., to write letters, and this is what is causing anxiety amongst officers and former servicemen who have formed the Trio Organization. Do not make the mistake of thinking they are a bunch of Colonel Blimps who are only interested in retaining their Scottish kilts or whatever particular uniform they have. They are deeply concerned about the effectiveness of the combat function of the Canadian armed forces after the minister has done his best or his worst to explain it. Their real and honest concern causes them to give up their service careers and to live on reduced pensions, if they have not been fortunate enough to have received the "golden bowler". Their uncertainty is especially acute with regard to the combat function.
Mr. Chairman, I understand some negotiations are going on with regard to a recess between six and seven o'clock. May I call it six o'clock?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The suggestion is acceptable on this side of the house.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Sherbrooke, public service-the right to strike; the hon! member for Brantford, transport-restoration of navigability of Grand river; the hon. member for Chapleau, airports-choice of site.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the debate be resumed at seven o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree that the session be suspended from now until seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house also agree to go into committee of supply at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
9696	COMMONS
Interim Supply SUPPLY
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.
['It is so ordered.']
Sydney John Smith: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes. The hon. member will be recognized at seven o'clock.

DEBATES	November 8, 1966
Pursuant to special order made this day I do now leave the chair.



[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe North.


Sydney John Smith: At six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was discussing the genuine concern that organizations such as TRIO and others all over the country were showing concerning the combat effectiveness of the Canadian forces and particularly the effect of unification, proceeding at its present rate. The people concerned say that now is the time to pause and consolidate the advances in integration which have been made. They are concerned also about changes which have been made in the services and in supply techniques. They say that we should take a backward look to assess our progress. We should wait until that has been done and then look carefully to see how, when and if integration should proceed farther.
Some will say: "Why pause now?" I think the time to pause and look at things is before damage has been done to the combat effectiveness of our services. Why does one think that damage might be done? Well, so far as it has gone integration up to now has been full of bumbling, bad planning and confusion. One thing badly handled was the early retirement of officers assumed to be unnecessary, the so-called golden bowler program. We had people in the forces anxious to leave and being kept in against their will, and others anxious to stay being forcibly ejected. Some were given a golden bowler they did not want. There was great confusion with medical discharges, and a lot of bitterness resulted.
How many plans have been made and cancelled? Too often in the integration of units and functions orders were given that such and such a plan would be proceeded with and completed in seven days only to have those orders changed and changed again. It seems no one knew what anybody was doing. I impute no motives to this unseemly haste, but I hope, with people all over Canada waiting for political mantles to fall, that the Minister of National Defence was not trying to get into the position of catching a falling mantle if such an occurrence should come about. I know his great dedication to the changing of the services, and I hope he will not discard his portfolio like a toy, once
November 8, 1966

unification is completed, and proceed to urban renewal or whatever he is now starting to be interested in. Whatever the motives behind it we must face, when we talk of integration, the fact that there has been too much quick planning, replanning and more replanning, and that this has caused the services a great deal of uncertainty. It is no use saying, "I hear nothing," or "They are all behind us". The fact is that when people's livelihood is affected they become concerned.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
People who are familiar with this situation should be heard and their opinions should be considered. We should take time, and this is precisely the moment at which we should pause and look again. There are many questions which need to be answered. We should be given a progress report on the effects of integration on the materiel command. What has been the effect on the former air force establishment at Rockcliffe? Have any of the supply services been integrated? Has Rockcliffe materiel command been hamstrung by the lack of trained personnel? These are things we should be told before we approve the minister's bill in principle, not afterwards.
It was drawn to my attention yesterday that the 15 th Regional Ordnance Depot at Lakeview, near Toronto, is to be closed very shortly. The personnel of the depot are learning about this from suppliers; they have no direct information but they are aware something is going to happen to them. How can morale be good when men are faced by this kind of uncertainty?
This is the time to examine and consolidate the gains which have followed integration. The minister says that recruiting has been less successful overall. Figures for the army and air force are good, he says, but those for the navy are down. I suggest that the recruiting situation is much worse than the minister has indicated and that in any case over-all figures are meaningless. Anyone who is familiar with the troop shortages in Italy when Mr. Ralston went out there in 1944 will know how deceptive total figures can be. There were always shortages. Yet a report would say there were always troops available. In fact, they were not available and I suggest that the same situation exists in our services today. In each of the services there is a shortage of key troops and our forces are much less effective in combat than would be indicated by total numbers alone.
Interim Supply
The minister told us we were in a state of prosperity and that recruiting was slower in consequence. I hope he will not be tempted to. say as a corollary that if we experienced a recession we would get the troops we need. I hope he is not like his friend, Mr. Templeton, who on T.V. in Toronto in 1962 hoped for just enough recession to get the Liberals re-elected. I am afraid that even if there were a recession the type of recruits brought in. would not be the type required. We need highly trainable troops.
We shall never be able to compensate these people at rates of pay comparable with civilian rates. Accordingly, the terms and conditions of service must be made sufficiently attractive to induce recruits to take up a military career. It will take more than the-assurances of the minister and his new hierarchy to convince me that these conditions are forthcoming.
Another reason for pausing at this point is. the need to ensure that the pattern of our armed forces is based on our military requirements. The white paper published in 1964 was a remarkable document-one could support almost any case from it because it was full of bland sentences-but it did at least make an attempt to list our military requirements. There was the mobile force, the strike role of the Starfighters, the heavy brigade in Europe and the anti-submarine role of the navy. In the course of our committee hearings we travelled all over the western world. We talked to military experts. We saw our troops and we saw other troops. Some things were very impressive and some-were less impressive.
One thing which impressed me very much, was the peace-keeping role which our troops, were performing in the Congo and in Cyprus. I was much less impressed by the bombing role of the Starfighters because it seemed to me that even in 1964 those aircraft were becoming obsolete. I doubt that there is very much they can do which could not be done a lot more cheaply by an intermediate range ballistic missile. One leading military authority, speaking about our brigade in Europe, said: "You have the best infantrymen in the world stationed in a place where they are-least likely to be used."
One other thing which impressed me was the effectiveness of the anti-submarine role of the Canadian navy-the research and the knowledge required as well as the plain utility of the role in keeping up surveillance of foreign shipping and helping to maintain the-

November 8, 1986
Interim Supply
seas free and open. Now is the time to re-assess the priority of these roles. Perhaps the mobile force should become the most important, with the anti-submarine role a close second. Instead of scrapping the navy in order to keep up the mobile force and the other services perhaps we should be considering the redeployment of our brigade in Europe.
Perhaps it should be given a mobile role in the area which it now occupies so that when our NATO commitment runs out we shall have a mobile brigade ready-formed. Perhaps we should speed up the replacement of our Starfighters by ballistic missiles. This is the time to pause and consider what our military priorities are and how they can be established.
I have not talked with any retired admirals. I do not know any retired admirals. But I do know that I am married to a retired naval lieutenant and I hear every week end when I go home what makes my opinion of the minister seem kindly. This is the ideal time at which to re-assess the situation. If the minister were to do so he might save his bacon, as it were. What has been done so far, if it is properly consolidated and carefully worked out, has, I believe, been reasonably good on the whole. But to take the next step, to tamper with the combat effectiveness of our forces on a basis of pure theory, is dangerous, and we could get into serious trouble.
The other night in Toronto a friend of mine, who is also a friend of the minister and supports the government point of view on this subject, was taking part in a panel program. He cited, as one of the experiences upon which he was basing his opinion, the ideal unification of the Swiss forces into a single force. I hope that there is no portent in that for the Canadian navy because I would not like the same fate to happen to the Canadian navy as happened the Swiss navy.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I am just a retired sergeant but I am not going to enter the debate on national defence this evening. I will confine my remarks to the other theme of the debate, the route of the trans-Canada pipe line from the west to southern Ontario.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tabled the agreement between the government and Trans-Canada on October 28 some comments were made, and I very much like the one made by the Leader of the

Opposition at that time, as recorded at page 9226 of Hansard:
Are Canadian interests being protected? We should not take the say-so of any minister of this government in this regard. Second, what is being done? Will it undermine the future development of western Ontario and northern Ontario? Those are great areas that require and will require an ever-increasing amount of our gas resources.
These are serious matters, and my suggestion is that the government, in the interests of the Canadian people, should make provision whereby this agreement would be submitted to a committee of parliament for examination. We want to know what is in this agreement. Are Canadian interests protected?
That is what I would have expected from the Leader of the Opposition, he being a veteran of the pipe line debate of 1956 and always having shown a great interest in matters affecting the sovereignty of the country. I approve and support what he said at that time, but I am very disappointed at the subsequent performance of his colleagues throughout this debate. None of them who have spoken have supported the position he took on October 28. His position was quite strong and unmistakable, and on the following day, Saturday, October 29, I noticed a headline in the Globe and Mail which read, "Decision On Pipe Line Is Threat to Canada's Independence, Diefenbaker says." If the subject is that important in the mind of the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, surely other members of his party should have supported him. However, the four other members of that party who have spoken on this subject have all supported the government's decision to allow Trans-Canada to build the pipe line through the United States. These were the hon. member for Bow River, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, the hon. member for Calgary South and the hon. member for Winnipeg South.
I am very surprised that others have not spoken on a subject of such national importance. I am particularly surprised that we have not heard from members from southern Ontario. After all, though this subject is of national concern it is primarily of interest to the province of Ontario and the future development of that province. It is particularly important to northern Ontario, but it seems to me that the members from the southern part of that province should have shown some interest in its future development. Yet to my knowledge, and I have checked Hansard, none of them has spoken on this subject.
November 8. 1966

It may be that they were discouraged from speaking in this debate for one reason which I want to stress. On Sunday I was listening to a member of the press gallery speaking on a radio broadcast covering the week's events in parliament, and he said something like this: The occasion of the interim supply debate gave the members of the N.D.P. a chance to indulge in some anti-Americanism on the subject of the pipe line.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Robert William Prittie: I hear someone say "hear, hear". I think it is a very unfortunate trend that if one ever wants to speak in favour of Canada and take a pro-Canadian point of view one is labelled anti-American. I was not satisfied with this reporter's remarks and have written to him asking that he kindly define anti-Americanism. Perhaps this is what is discouraging other members of the Conservative party from participating in the debate.
I noticed that during his speech the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said that the New Democrats were allied with the Texas oil and gas men because these particular people, for quite different reasons, are appearing before the Federal Power Commission in Washington opposing the application by Trans-Canada to build a pipe line through the United States. I say that if you think what you are doing is right it does not matter who your allies happen to be, and in supporting the application of Trans-Canada the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is associating with the same people that his leader termed buccaneers ten years ago.
The fact is that there is a great deal of opposition to the application to build the line through the United States. Understandably the people of northern Ontario are very concerned about it. City councils, municipal councils, labour councils, chambers of commerce and people of all political persuasions in that part of Canada are deeply concerned, and I think the rest of us should be concerned too because our interests are affected.
It has been pointed out by previous speakers that if the line were built in Canada through northern Ontario there would be a great multiplying effect from the money spent on its construction and from the money later paid in taxes to the various municipalities. This would contribute to the prosperity of the whole country. It is something we should be concerned about, and people in the
Interim Supply
great manufacturing centre of southern Ontario should be particularly concerned about it.
It is unfortunate, that there is as much regionalism in this country as there is. It is quite natural when you think of the size of the country but nevertheless unfortunate. At the time of the Columbia river debate there was not much interest shown in the house except by members from B.C. and a few from prairie provinces. For the rest of the members it was rather a bore. It may be that our excessive regionalism is making itself felt in the case of this gas pipe line. People think it is a matter only for northern Ontario and therefore they should not concern themselves about it. That is why I am so dissappointed with the performance of the Conservative party.
Like all Canadian youngsters I went to school and read history books. I read all about Macdonald and the national policy, about the building of the railway through Canada in spite of the fact that the country could have been served by a line through the United States. I read about Borden and reciprocity, and even allowing for a certain amount of malarky that appears in our history books there is a great deal of truth in what these people said and accomplished. This country would not be in existence today if these measures had not been taken.
I have read as much as possible on the subject of the route of the proposed gas pipe line and, as has already been pointed out, there remain a number of unanswered questions. We are told that it would be much cheaper to put the line through the United States but we have not been given firm estimates of the cost of putting it through Canada. A pipe line exists through northern Ontario. The basic work has all been done. Property has been purchased. The trenches have been cut and access roads built. Surely if a second line is to be built to serve the needs of southern Ontario, which unquestionably needs the gas, it could follow the same route.
I know that some of the spokesmen for the pipe line company will say that the present northern route is not the one to be followed, that a more southerly route has been mapped out which would involve the company in more pioneering work, in the purchase of right of ways and in the expensive rock mining that has to be done. I have looked at the brochure published by Canadian Lake-head Industrial Commission Incorporated

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
which shows a route quite a bit south of the existing route, but I think it would be possible for Trans-Canada to build its second line immediately alongside the existing line, with other areas of northern Ontario being served by lateral routes. I would like to know if a thorough survey has been made to ascertain what the actual costs would be. We might find out that the costs would not be very much different from those incurred in going through the United States via Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan, and I stress that it would be of great value to Canada if we could follow the route in northern Ontario.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
In the past the United States government or some of its agencies have unintentionally come to the support of Canadian interests. I think of the time two years ago when one United States brewing company was going to purchase Labatt's. The deal was completed and there was no objection from the Canadian government but the anti-trust division of the department of justice in Washington stopped the transaction. I note in the news today that the United States supreme court upheld that decision. One more Canadian enterprise has been saved for Canadians because of the actions of an agency of the United States government.
It seems to me that it would be a very ironic situation if the Federal Power Commission in Washington came to the conclusion that it should not allow Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to follow the United States route. What would the situation be then? It would simply mean that in order to move gas from western Canada to southern Ontario the company would have to decide to build in Canada, presumably by the most economic route. If this company is to fulfil its commitment to the Canadian people it will have to go ahead and do just that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not do that now?


Robert William Prittie: Yes, why should that company not do so now? I suggest there is a real doubt that the Canadian route would be more expensive to construct. We can make a fairly good guess and say that if the company were required to build in Canada it would find it possible to do so at a price perhaps fairly close to that of the route through the United States. I suggest it could do so very soon. The company could get gas to the markets in southern Ontario within a couple of years time if it started construction immediately.
[Mr. Prittie.l
I have followed the career of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with a great deal of interest. He is a very capable man and has impressed me as having the interest of this country very much at heart. I really cannot believe that he approves of the reversal of the decision first taken by the government. It seems to me there must be a great deal of this story we do not know. I remember the decision that was taken concerning Reader's Digest and Time and the opposition to that decision by a great many members of the Liberal party. I know that the then minister of finance, the hon. member for Davenport, did not agree with it. Something like that must also be behind the reversal in this instance, because otherwise it does not make sense.
Let me refer also to the accusations about anti-Americanism that we quite frequently hear about those who speak along the lines I and my colleagues have spoken. This is an unjustifiable charge. Anyone with any sense knows that our main trading partner is and always will be the United States. There is no question about that fact or the fact that the United States will always have a great influence on this country and will be the source of investment funds. That is true. But there is nothing wrong with advocating that we do what we can ourselves to lessen that influence to a certain extent.
The influence of the United States is being felt all over the world. The people of western Europe, Australia and New Zealand as well as other countries feel this influence and are concerned about it. Recently the West German government took action to make sure that an important industry in that country was not bought by a United States firm. The Australians and New Zealanders are also concerned in this regard, and the Mexicans, the United States southern neighbours, are very much concerned and have taken much stronger action than we have ever taken.
I suggest again, and there is nothing antiAmerican about this, that it is the duty of this parliament and particularly the government of Canada to attempt to retain and keep to itself as much control as possible of the resources of this country. We cannot do that if decisions like this one are taken. A great many things have happened in the past which have lessened Canadian control of the Canadian economy. Though others may not agree, the Columbia river treaty is certainly a prime example. The disappointing legislation we had concerning publications is another
November 8, 1966

example. This kind of thing is happening all the time, and I do not think we should view the question of the route of the gas pipe line as a single isolated incident but rather as a pattern. Canadians have to take a stand and we in this party feel quite certain that those of us who are opposing the decision of the government have the support of a great many people in this country who are not antiAmerican in any way but rather proCanadian. They want to retain control in this country to the greatest possible extent.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to speak on the defence issue as I believe that the ex-service people will adequately cover that subject. In my remarks I propose to try to speak of something that is of interest across this nation.
The lives of the pioneers on this continent were hard and simple. They were farmers and hunters living in isolation in small communities, unconcerned about the outside world. Their existence was free of the many problems facing the people of the 20th century, which in many instances, have been created by the exploitation of succeeding generations.
It has been stated that two grim spectres beckon mankind toward oblivion. One offers instant wholesale death by nuclear means and the other guarantees eventual starvation when human population exceeds food supply. The powers that be in our world of today are struggling in an all-out effort to postpone these evil days. I propose to deal only with food. Man is rapidly changing those once immutable features around him-the soil, atmosphere and waters, even our seas.
The basic conflict is that between the mounting need for food and fibre and the equally urgent need to preserve the quality of our environment. This is the perspective in which to view the continuing debate over the value and hazards of pesticides and drugs. Of course the use of pesticides and drugs is not the only way in which man is not respectful of his environment. The growth of cities, clearing of forests or draining of swamps, the future prospect of weather control, runaway population and the adulteration of food all promise to change this once undisturbed earth irrevocably. Men can no longer approach nature merely to exploit her. They must now learn to manage her wisely. They must decide what kind of environment they really want and what quality of life they desire to lead.
Interim Supply
To talk of pesticides and drugs only in terms of benefits and hazards fails to grapple with the basic question. Men do need to know exactly what these chemicals do and what liabilities their use may incur. But then we must decide whether, where and how to use them to help build the kind of world we want.
To my knowledge the pesticides most widely used are d.d.t. and its breakdown products, aldrin, dieldrin and lindane. In experiments and studies reported to have been carried out by specialists of the University of Miami school of medicine, concentrations of d.d.t. and dieldrin were found in many humans. Traces of pesticides were found in the tissues of stillborn and unborn babies. The greatest concentrations were found in the fat tissue, but the liver, kidney and brain also carried the residue.
At this time I would like to put on record an excerpt from an article that appeared in and Globe and Mail of February 16, 1966 under the heading "Pesticides Held Threat to Unborn". It states:
An expectant mother can poison her unborn child by drinking milk from a cow that has browsed on forage sprayed by some insecticides, an official of national health and welfare department said yesterday.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
Addressing 65 pilots attending an aerial pest control conference sponsored by the Ontario health department, A. B. Swackhammer of the technical advisory unit, food and drug directorate, said careless crop spraying can have far reaching effects.
Chlorinated hydrocarbons used in some pesticides have the longest effects and can be stored in fat deposits and milk in cattle. He said, "Insecticides, coupled with the effect of radioactive fall-out, could produce babies with two heads and six fingers."
A survey of shorthorn cows found a ratio of 30 parts of insecticide to one million parts of milk. An infant child does not have the resistance to insecticides that an adult has, he said. Mr. Swackhammer also said it would be difficult to deny that use of pesticides has caused death in fish and seagull populations. D.d.t. deposits have been found in fish and the situation is of concern to government wildlife and fisheries departments.
It is now evident that with the indiscriminate use of insecticides there is a danger that man eventually would not be able to find relaxation in fishing because the fish would be contaminated; he would not be able to enjoy hunting because the wild fowl and wild animals would be contaminated and the oceans would fail to be a source of protein because even the oceans would be contaminated. One of the means of combating the population explosion was based on the amount of proteins we could extract from the oceans, but now we no longer have the oceans.
Another speaker, Dr. Keith Ronald of the University of Guelph, said insecticides have reached the Antarctic and penguins are being affected. Dr.

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
Ronald said the Antarctic was once considered the sterile part of the world. "It isn't any more. It is polluted with insecticide."
Dr. Ronald said that the day is coming when insecticides will he sold in the same manner as poisons with purchasers signing a poison register.
Another consideration that should not be overlooked is revealed in a statement by Professor Lamont C. Cole of Cornell University's division of biological sciences. He contended that certain pesticides like d.d.t. which can kill both helpful and harmful species actually "make life easier for the pests." And he followed that thought with the warnings that d.d.t. and other persistent type pesticides carry perhaps the greatest potential long-term hazards to mankind.
United States Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, said in reference to pesticides:
We have strained mind and dollar to bend nature to our satisfaction. Yet we do not know what the effects may be, nor do we anticipate possible consequences. Blithely we carry on our multi-billion dollar programs in the pesticide field with wholly inadequate research. We could be building our own fool's paradise. The day of reckoning may not be tomorrow, but who knows about the day after.
At this time I would like to refer briefly to the case at Grand Forks, B.C., more specifically known as Sunshine Valley, where several farmers had their hogs, cattle and milk declared unfit for food by the federal food and drug directorate. This was the result of contamination caused by aldrin which had been used for the control of wireworm in potato crops. It was found that the effects of this material remained potent for a long period and would kill wireworm nine years after being administered to the ground. The residue of this chemical was passed on to livestock through forage grown on the potato ground years after being treated with aldrin. Much of Sunshine Valley, which is two miles wide by ten miles long, has been rendered useless by contamination. Several farms have had their complete production declared unfit for food. This is a glaring example of permitting a pesticide to be made available before sufficient research work was carried out so that the end results would be known.
In Sweden, Mr. Chairman, plans are being made to cut down the use of insecticides and weed killers to prevent food becoming polluted by chemicals whose long term effects are not known. The Swedish natural sciences research council, which is working on the problem, has called public attention to the lack of knowledge available on what biocides do to human beings and whether they can

produce cancer. For some time Swedish recommendations have discouraged the use of chemicals on food crops for a "safety period" before harvest. The period varies from three to 45 days depending on the chemicals involved. It is calculated to give them time to disperse before the plants are used. The council now is withdrawing spraying. Carrots grown in such soil can contain a higher percentage of diel-drin than the soil surrounding them. Poisons can also enter the human system through eggs. Grain treated with mercury compounds has, when fed to hens, produced eggs containing the same substance. The Swedish government has now forbidden the use of dressed seed as feed for chickens.
I come now to a matter in which I undesirably became involved. I refer to an experience of having our breeding herd of mink exposed to stilbestrol, with disastrous results. Stilbestrol is an artificial female sex hormone; it does not occur in nature. A female sex hormone is a biochemical substance produced by glands within the body. It circulates in the bloodstream and causes female sex characteristics. Stilbestrol cannot be purchased at a drug store without a prescription but pellets of the drug may be obtained readily by farmers at animal feed stores. Stilbestrol is also available in powdered form to facilitate its mixing with animal cereal feed, and is used by farmers and feed lot operators to increase the weight gain in beef cattle. It has also been used in feeding sheep and hogs. Its use for poultry feed has been unlawful for several years.
In our case the stilbestrol entered our mink ration through the cereal which makes up 15 to 20 per cent of the mixture fed to our mink. Of course I should hasten to say we were unaware of its presence. The mink began leaving their feed and this was the first indication that something was wrong. In a few days other symptoms appeared in hundreds of mink. Many had a complete breakdown of the urinary tract from which the most severely affected died. Post-mortems were performed on several animals in the hope that a correct diagnosis could be established.
Dr. Pridham of the University of Guelph recognized immediately the lack of testicle development in the males, which along with other symptoms pointed to sterilization. Stilbestrol was suspected, and after checking all ingredients in the ration chicken waste was blamed. However, Mr. Chairman, when a survey was made of the 15 ranches involved
November 8, 1966

it was found that the source of chicken waste was not common to all and that the only part of the ration with a common source was the cereal. Samples were collected from different ranches and directed to various laboratories for analysis, including the government research station here in Ottawa.
The several samples checked in Ottawa were declared negative for stilbestrol. Two other laboratories came up with positive tests. So as to make a double check on the Ottawa station as to efficiency, a positive sample was presented for checking, and again a negative test was claimed. If we had been dependent upon government employees, compensation to the extent of nearly $750,000 would never have materialized and it would have been "curtains" for some ranches. I trust their technique has been improved so that some dependence may be justified in other important research which they may be called upon to carry out.
In consultation with the company supplying us with the cereal we found they were using the same mixing machinery for both cattle and mink cereal. The cattle ration was supplemented with stilbestrol, and through careless cleaning a trace of the stilbestrol got into the mink cereal when it was prepared. The damage caused by this small amount indicates the potency of stilbestrol. Our experience also proved that there can be an accumulation of the residue in some of the organs of the body.
To further prove my point I point out that the cereal producers through their investigations admitted that our mink had been exposed to the drug daily for six or seven weeks before breaking down physically. However, the process of sterilization began after the first exposure. Mink continued to die six months after exposure. Most of our males were permanently sterilized and only about 25 per cent of the females regained fertility. This information was made known to the agricultural committee in the hope that the chairman in reporting to the House of Commons would recommend legislation prohibiting the use of stilbestrol in the production of food. This course has not been followed and so I feel it is my duty to put this information on the record.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
To further support my belief that stilbestrol in any form is harmful in food production, a very reliable mink rancher near Calgary informed me that he sterilized his
Interim Supply
mink by feeding beef trimmings. This product would include the lips, the cheeks and other head and carcass trimmings. Here again is evidence that the residue from stilbestrol has accumulated in the meat.
Ten milligrams of stilbestrol per day is prescribed for each beef steer. However, recent experiments indicate that faster gains and greater feed savings have resulted when the level of feeding stilbestrol was increased to 20 milligrams during the last three months of the feeding period. There is always the extra hazard created by over-enthusiastic dosage by farmers and feed lot operators on the theory that if a little hormone will do a little good, then twice or, better still, three times as much will be that much better.
Equally harmful is the implantation of the stilbestrol pellet at the base of the ear with a special instrument. Each pellet contains 12 milligrams and two or three pellets are used on each steer, but here again more could be used. They are absorbed over a period of 120 to 180 days. This is a deplorable practice inasmuch as the rate of absorption of stilbestrol is entirely unknown and therefore uncontrolled.
I could quote from several letters I have received from across this nation which support my views and findings, but rather than that I will quote from the official records contained in Hansard and in the proceedings of the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development which met on July 5.
On June 6, 1966 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare the following question:
Will the Department of National Health and Welfare ban the indiscriminate use of stilbestrol in the feeding of livestock used for food since the United States food and drug administration have recently recognized stilbestrol as a cancer causing agent and, if not, for what reason?
I received the following answer:
The Department of National Health and Welfare has no evidence of the indiscriminate use of stilbestrol in the feeding of livestock. Market surveys of the meat of cattle administered feed containing stilbestrol have been made and no residues of the drug have been found in the edible tissues of the treated cattle.
I will now read from the proceedings of the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development. This is an excerpt from the discussion that took place in that committee. I will start with the question which I asked in the committee and I think

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
that from it hon. members will be able to get the gist of the discussion. I said:
Mr. Chairman, I have a related question. We have been informed of all the precautions taken in respect of human tolerances of various adulterations. To your knowledge, Dr. Wells, has any product been ordered off the market because of their diverse effects detected by the researchers?
Dr. Wells made this reply:
I could answer part of that question at least. There certainly has been quite large quantities of different products from time to time ordered off the market or ordered destroyed because they contained various chemicals or one or more chemicals In amounts above tolerance.
I followed his answer by this question:
I would like to follow that up with this question. How do you arrive at what is the tolerance level, especially when there is a possibility of an accumulation of such residue to a point of trouble over a period of time?
The chairman then interjected by saying:
Well I take it, Mr. Noble, again this would be a food and drug responsibility so far as that goes.
Dr. Wells then said:
Well, as an example, and I think Mr. Noble is aware of the example, we had a situation not too long ago where our meat inspectors in one plant suspected by post mortem examination of a group of swine that they had been fed diethylstilbestrol which was discussed fully the other day. In this case samples of the swine were held in the plant, samples were taken and the meat inspector's suspicion proved out to be true and, of course, the total group of swine involved were all condemned. This is the way the thing worked.
Mr. Chairman, the answer I received from the Minister of National Health and Welfare was not correct, and the statement made by Dr. Wells to the agricultural committee supports my argument. This difference in the information is understandable when one realizes the very limited research which has been undertaken in the whole field of adulterations of our food.
I think I have proved conclusively that animals exposed to stilbestrol accumulate the residue in various parts of their bodies and that meat from these animals can be a hazard to our health. Humans should not be exposed to this hazard for the purpose of financial gain to a very few people. The information I have reviewed on the dangers of pesticides should not be taken lightly. In fact, these dangers should be considered with much concern. In fairness to all Canadians this government will have to do extensive research to bring out the true facts so that concrete knowledge may form the basis of legislation which in my view is necessary to correct the whole problem of adulterations of food.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak again in the debate on interim supply, but when I came into my office this morning, a telegram from Mr. C. A. Edwards, provisional president of the P.S.A.C., was waiting for me. It was dated November 7 and addressed to Raoul Caouette, instead of Real Caouette, leader of the Creditiste party, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario.

Understand that due to debate in house with respect to armed forces unification, interim supply motion has not been passed. As all civil servants will be affected by delay in delivery of cheques, the Public Service Alliance protests most strongly this apparent lack of concern for the welfare of the government's own employees. We request assurance that your party will not delay the passage of the interim supply motion.
C. A. Edwards,
Provisional President, P.S.A.C.

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for civil servants and labour organizations, but to take the liberty, for instance, of bringing pressure to bear on Canadian legislators, federal members of parliament-by telling them or asking them to give those unions or those employees the assurance:

"That your party will not delay the passage of the interim supply motion."
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)

That is cornering us a bit too much. I know civil servants need their pay, everyone knows it. I also know that the Treasury Board can give instructions tomorrow morning when their offices are open, to distribute the civil servants' cheques. There is no need to hold the sword of Damocles over our heads and say: "If you do not pass interim supply, civil servants will not be paid."
We meet employees in the halls of the parliament buildings who tell us: "It is your doing if we are not paid; the responsibility rests with members of parliament, who hold up interim supply, if we did not get our cheques on the 5th or the 6th, that is the day before yesterday."
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that that is placing hon. members at the mercy of the decision of a few, not civil servants, but the Treasury Board. If the government would say tomorrow: "We are sending out all the civil
November 8, 1966

servants' cheques, would a single bank in Canada refuse to cash them? Everybody knows that eventually in one, two or three days, even if it took 15 days, interim supply will be passed and the cheques will be honoured. The banks will not refuse to cash a federal government's cheque since they always need the parliament and the government to back up, at any time, the loans they grant here and there, either to crown agencies or to private companies.
Mr. Chairman, I do not like people to tell us: "Pass the supply bill, otherwise, you will be responsible if we are not paid. I say that if the civil servants have not yet received their pay, if it is two, three or four days overdue, let the government order that the cheques be sent out. It is the only way. Then, when the interim supply bill is passed, then banks or the Bank of Canada will be reimbursed for the amounts which would have paid the federal civil servants. It is imperative that those civil servants be paid. There is not a shadow of a doubt about that.
For several days, we have heard mostly about the unification of the three armed services: the navy, the air force, the army. It is believed in some quarters that this unification will greatly hurt the Canadian army, that the government is making a mistake by working towards the unification of the three services.
Personally, I admit that there must be in the three services men with great knowledge in military matters, either in the field of aviation, navigation or land warfare. And since we are talking about unification, there is no doubt that heads will roll somewhere. There will not be three admirals or three generals to head that unified army. Two will have to disappear eventually and that will not suit everyone. We all know that.
But when one thinks of Canada, instead of thinking about one's job, when one thinks about the possibility of our having a more efficient army, an army which will give a better performance, an army which will have more cohesion, and an army where expenditures will be better controlled, an army which of course will cost the Canadian people much less to maintain than three different services, it seems to me that it is quite an easy thing to understand, even if some some heads must roll, as I said earlier.
Mr. Chairman, we must consider the benefits which the Canadian people can derive from the unification of the three services.
Interim Supply
I insist on these four points: greater efficiency, better cohesion, better control over expenditures and a substantial saving for Canadians. This is what I see in the proposition for unifying our three armed services.
And when we see members speaking out against the fact that the soldier or the sailor or the airman will be wearing identical' dress while on furlough, I say these people are being childish, Mr. Chairman; this is simply wasting the time of the house. The enlisted men we meet, whether they be with the navy, the air force, or the army, appear to me to be very well dressed, very well sheltered, and very well fed. In fact, not one of them is excessively thin. Even the admirals or the generals seem to be treated quite well, and some of them even receive fairly generous pensions and they are not complaining. Furthermore, they have the right to such pensions granted to them by the authorities or the Canadian government.
Mr. Chairman, I do not see why there is so much opposition from the Conservative members. I understand that they are patted on the back once in a while by certain Canadian ex-servicemen for defending the pseudodemocratic rights of those army people.
Mr. Chairman, I agree in no way with this fight and filibuster in which the Conservatives are presently engaged in connection with this unification plan for the three armed services. Moreover, the bill has not yet been introduced; when it is put before the house, then will be the time to discuss it and we shall see what its implications are and, then, we can discuss the bill. But, at this stage, it cannot be discussed, since we do not even know exactly what it contains. Therefore,-


Mr. Regimbal:: Have you read the speech made by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois)?


David Réal Caouette: What was that?


Roger E. Régimbal: The member for Megantic suggests the opposite.


David Réal Caouette: That does not matter to me. As an individual member, are you not free, within your party?


Roger E. Régimbal: He was speaking on behalf of the party.


David Réal Caouette: Oh. He was speaking on behalf of the party, was he?


Roger E. Régimbal: Yes.

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply


David Réal Caouette: Well, I speak on behalf of the movement, absolutely.
Mr. Chairman, those were the comments I wanted to make in this house; when the bill is introduced, we will discuss it, it will get the attention it deserves, according to its implications, but I see only political considerations in opposing unification, under the present circumstances. Even if a member of my party chose to oppose unification, on the grounds brought forward by the Conservatives, I would not agree with him, because I feel that the army must be organized as simply as possible, cost as little as possible, for it has been biting off about one fourth of the national budget for many years in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, those are a few comments I wanted to make on this proposed unification of the armed forces.
I would now like to take up another subject or, rather, to come back to a question already discussed in this house, and to which has been referred to quite often, day after day, so to speak, namely the question concerning inflation.
I received, also this morning, an editorial entitled "Quebec Television" from CFCM station, where it is stated that 365,000 television viewers watch its broadcasts daily. Now, the *commentator in question writes, under date October 27:
Is anybody going to give a thought to consumers?
As far as inflation is concerned.
One could wonder. In the last several months, we have known the effects of an inflationary economy and nobody does anything to check it. In the last few weeks, consumers have absorbed price increases In clothing, food, services, etc. Some products rose so much that they are now beyond the purchasing power of thousands of Canadians.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Recently, the price of cigarettes went up, the price of clothes increased by 10 per cent, the price of cars has gone up, and the price of a gallon of gas increased by 2 cents. Yesterday, we had a threat of a 10 per cent tax increase from the federal government which is short of money to meet provincial demands and, today, haircuts cost 25 cents more in the Quebec city area. The prices of butter, milk, bread, meat, etc. have also gone up. Tomorrow, it will be something else.
In spite of appeals to common sense by the Canadian Minister of Finance, in spite of the consumers' protests, such as the boycott of supermarkets by housewives, nothing works. Prices keep on increasing and there is no indication that this upward trend will stop. It seems everybody wants to hit the jackpot, regardless of consequences.
IMr. Regimbal.]
Everyone seems to forget that following price increases, labour unions will in their turn demand wage increases and, in so doing, will contribute to inflation. If a union obtains a 20 per cent increase, the manufacturer, the industry which granted it, will necessarily increase the price of its products and the wheel keeps on turning with increases occurring in other sectors of the economy. There is too much money in circulation.
That is the statement of the commentator.
Contrary to Mr. Caouette, we feel that the federal, provincial and municipal governments as well as the school boards are mainly responsible for inflation.
Credit has also become much too easy to get. It is possible to buy with a piece of paper, an I.O.U., thus creating money which does not exist.
At last, here is a commentator who recognizes that with an I.O.U. or a piece of paper, it is possible to buy things and thus create money which does not exist. The bankers do not want to admit it yet to the committees where we have been sitting for some time.
The governments themselves spend lavishly and pile up deficits, thus contributing to devaluating the money in circulation. Governments are mainly responsible for inflation, by starting unproductive projects, such as the Grand 'theatre de Quebec, etc.
It is the responsibility of governments to put a stop to inflation. They have created it by putting on the market a large but artificial money supply whose value goes down each time government deficits increase.
The Ministers of Finance are advising the taxpayers, the consumers to live within their means, and they are the first to disregard that advice. It is time for the governments to assume their responsibilities and impose restrictions, otherwise the country's economy will turn into chaos and the consumers, the taxpayers will have to bear the consequences.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, that commentator is telling the truth but he forgets or does not know the other things which he does not mention. For instance, in his press release sent to all the federal members, all the provincial members, the municipal councils, the school boards and practically everywhere in the province of Quebec, he says that the governments alone are mainly responsible for inflation, that the governments should live within their means. But what is the meaning of means and what does this commentator mean by that word? If he is talking about financial means to develop something, build a school, a hospital, a road, to develop a province, a municipality, a school board or Canada as a whole, if he is only talking about financial means, then I will say that the commentator is right, just as some hon. members in this house are right to say the same thing.
November 8, 1968

But if by means we understand the physical means to build a road, a school, a hospital, to develop our natural resources and the men, the technicians, the men capable and trained to develop what we can develop right here, then, Mr. Chairman, I will say that Canada is the wealthiest country in the world, because we have those means. There are enough engineers, enough materials, nothing is lacking. And the federal government, the provincial governments and the authorities, whether municipal administration or school board, are all right in wanting to develop sectors under their jurisdiction.
But only one government can give them the financial means to develop everything they can, that is the federal government. It can do so because it has the means.
The federal government, the Canadian parliament, can legislate on financial matters. The Canadian parliament has all the means at its disposal, because it can legislate on this matter. It can order the Bank of Canada to coin all possible developments and true resources in this country. Only the federal government has the means to do this. The commentator says:
They are the ones who created inflation by putting on the market a large but artificial money supply.
Who has this money supply, Mr. Chairman? Let us consider the various strikes now taking place in all the provinces. There is talk of an impending strike of postal workers, and the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) cannot answer us. The Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) cannot give us an answer. But what is at stake in this labour conflict, if not money? What do the postal workers really ask for? They want adequate pay, that is all. It is a financial problem. In the gold mines of my region of Malartic-Val d'Or, there is talk of a mid-November strike. What is the reason, what are the motives behind a strike in my region, the region of gold mines? Is it that the miners cannot work? No. Is it that the mine cannot be operated? No. It is a matter of finance. The miners in gold mines are still earning $1.45 an hour, and that, in areas where the cost of living is far higher than in Montreal or in Toronto and other large Canadian cities. Mr. Chairman, $1.45 an hour, you will grant me, is roughly $50 to $55 a week. Now, how can a family of five, six, seven or eight live on $50 to $55 a week in this day and age?
Interim Supply
What does the commentator mean here by an impressive monetary supply which does not serve the worker, nor the farmer, since the farmer complains about not being able to make more than $2,000 to $2,200 a year? And this same farmer has to work 12, 15, at times, 18 hours a day to manage on his farm. The farmer does not earn as much as a city employee, and the latter does not earn enough to make a decent living.
This means that the money supply to which the commentator refers here is not at the disposal of the Canadian people. At the disposal of whom is it, if not at the disposal of those who have created our money supply.
The chartered banks of Canada, those which coin the wealth of our country, those which, this year, will get out of the national budget, $1,215,000,000 in interest only, those are the ones which have our money supply at their disposal, but not the people.
And we still hear some of those commentators tell the taxpayers to tighten their belts, the consumers to try and put a stop to it. However, what solution will they suggest? They will suggest price control, a freeze on salaries, they will suggest anything. But keep your hands off the financial system which is the cause of the evils of our whole society.
Lincoln was right when he said a long time ago that prosperity cannot be achieved if initiative is discouraged.
Now, this system discourages initiative. We hesitate, we are afraid to do anything, we are afraid to take a chance for fear of being taxed more heavily. Prosperity cannot be achieved if initiative is discouraged, you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. And that is a fact. And even when, one day they cut Samson's hair who was the strongest man at that time, the king did not get any stronger for that. He himself disappeared without getting any strength.
It is impossible to help the poor by destroying the rich, it is not by taking away from those who have that we enrich those who have not. That is not the way to solve problems.
This is so true, Mr. Chairman, that we see people stir up one class of society against the other. We see people appeal to human passion by saying to the poor: If you live in misery, if you are not successful in life, if you cannot make ends meet, it is because

November 8, 1986
Interim Supply
the rich man who lives on top of the mountain is too rich. If you destroyed his castle, if you burnt his cars, if you burnt everything he has, then you would probably be all right, you would have solved your problem.
Mr. Chairman, those things have happened in other countries of the world. But it is not by destroying the castle of the rich man that the hut of the poor was improved, but the rich man could not, live in his castle, for instance, and he was forced to live in a hut among the poor. That might have brought relief to some, but it did not bring any to the poor, because his standard of living did not improve in those countries.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
You get in trouble when you spend more than you earn. That is obvious. It is impossible to establish a lasting security on borrowed money. Everyone knows that. But it is strange, for instance, that the government does not realize that it is impossible to establish a lasting security with borrowed money, and all the money now at the disposal of the federal government is borrowed money, and nothing else.
The provinces are in the same predicament. The school boards, the municipalities are in the same mess, Mr. Chairman. Money is borrowed for administration for periods of 30, 40, 50 years, with the belief that lasting security is established.
Lincoln himself said that it was impossible to establish lasting security with borrowed money. It is impossible to mould character and courage by depriving man of his initiative and independence. It is impossible to help men indefinitely by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
We often witness nowadays governments acting as dispensers of public favours, dispensers of blessings to the population, depriving these people of the opportunity to do by themselves and for themselves what they can do. Governments rob men of their initiative. It is impossible to raise the employee by lowering the employer.
When an employer is not liked, he is usually replaced by a government and wherever a government becomes an employer, it is a worse employer than any private employer. It is impossible to help the small people by crushing the big fellows. It is impossible to help the poor by destroying the rich; which means about the same thing.

One may get a diabolical satisfaction out of crushing or cutting down the big fellows, but that does not help the small people. That may cut down the big fellows; if only it improved the lot of the small fellows, if it made him a little bigger, but no, it does not. Then, why always pick on the "haves" to try stirring up the "have nots"?
Our country, Canada, can provide each and every Canadian citizen with the necessities of life without taking anything away from anybody, without taking anything away from the big fellows or the rich; security can be guaranteed to the small fry, to the family of the worker, the farmer, the labourer, the white collar employee. Security with liberty is the birthright of each and every one in a country as rich as ours. But it has to be achieved with our own means, not by means of the dollar sign, but by our physical possibilities and then the dollar sign can be adjusted according to the actual physical means we have at our disposal for developing our country and guaranteeing security with liberty to each and every Canadian.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the time of the committee for a few minutes this evening. I may say first of all that I do not intend to talk about Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. However, I am a veteran and a wounded veteran but a veteran of the coal mines, having been carried out of them twice in my lifetime as a very young man. After that I spent a great number of months in a hospital bed and a wheel chair, but I have no service record. So, with my vast knowledge of defence matters, I do not intend to speak on national defence either, as the minister will no doubt be pleased to learn.
I should like to discuss some bread and butter issues. I refer to them as such, and in point of fact they really are bread and butter issues. Some months ago I had correspondence with regard to the employment, or lack of employment, in certain areas of Cape Breton Island. I am sure I will be forgiven by the committee if I am parochial, but this is a most important matter.
I was interested in the telegram which was read by the hon. member for Villeneuve urging us to get the interim supply bill passed so that people could get their cheques. Those people are very fortunate. They will get cheques. The people on whose behalf I intend to say a few words tonight will have no cheques forthcoming and no sign of any
November 8, 1966

employment from which to earn cheques. Therefore I have no apologies to make to anyone for taking the time of the committee.
Before I proceed with the substance of my remarks I might say that since this government came to power it seems that their idea has been to do everything possible to reduce employment in the Atlantic provinces and in Nova Scotia in particular. As my hon. friend from Cumberland said last night, when the Grits get in the Atlantic provinces go down. It would appear that this is so.
A few months ago I received a letter from a parish priest in my constituency with reference to employment at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park on Cape Breton Island. I should like to put a portion of this letter on record. It is dated May 12 and reads:
Dear Mr. Muir: I don't know if you will remember me. We met just a few weeks ago at Neil's Harbour.
That is a village a few miles from Ingonish Beach from where this letter came.
To get right to the point, I am writing about the terrible conditions at the national park here as far as hiring and firing the workers is concerned. I know that you are well aware that in the past the manner of treating the workers left much to be desired. God knows that there is lots of work for everyone if only they would do it. The whole thing has come to a head lately and some of the things which have been going on are unbelievable. It is impossible to find out much from the men themselves. Those working are terrified to open their mouths and those trying to get work are afraid to say anything for fear they will lose a chance for work.
It would appear we are back to a police state with regard to work at this park as a result of the injustice there. This clergyman ends by saying:
We would indeed appreciate it if you would see if something could be done to give our people some security instead of hanging around like dogs waiting for the scraps someone might throw to them.
Yours sincerely,
Rev. L. J. O'Keefe, P.P.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I followed this up with the minister's office, but the reply was not at all satisfactory. Later I received a letter from this same clergyman, dated October 10, in which he advised:
We have close to 50 on relief here already and no one seems to have any hopes of work. There was a lay-off at the park just last week.
Further on in the letter he says:
The election last year was the only time they got work, but there's no sign of one this year-
Interim Supply
Following receipt of that letter I brought this matter to the attention of the House of Commons. The minister concerned was not present and my question was replied to very courteously and co-operatively by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is like that on most occasions. Certainly the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Transport could take a lesson from him so far as conducting themselves when replying to questions in the house is concerned. He took notice of my question and said he would refer it to the minister concerned.
At that time I mentioned that 50 families were on relief in the small village of Ingonish Beach. Then, on October 19 I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but the Speaker ruled my question out of order. I do not know why, because when people are hungry and need employment I should think it would always be in order to raise the matter. I rose on a point of order and finally was allowed to put my question. As recorded at page 8864 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development replied as follows:
Yesterday the hon. member asked me If I had an answer ready to this question he had asked previously. I told him I did not have it ready yesterday, and I have not got it ready today, but I hope to have it ready soon.
Following this I received another letter, dated October 17, from Rev. O'Keefe who wrote:
Since I wrote to you there have been 34 more men dismissed from their work. You can imagine what that is going to do for morale here.
The worst part of the whole thing seems to be the lack of concern on the part of those who can do something. Your question being publicized has given the men some hope, since someone finally seems to care enough to try to help us get some work.
Thank you again and I hope you will keep after them until we get some help. Work is what we need and there is lots to be done. These handouts of relief and unemployment are the ruination of the people here. They need work to put them on their feet.
God bless you,
Rev. L. J. O'Keefe.
This is a man whom I do not know but, as indicated in his first letter, I met him once. On November 3 I brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. I thought if I continued to climb up the ministerial ladder I

November 8. 1966
Interim Supply
would perhaps get some action. On that occasion the Prime Minister very kindly said, as recorded at page 9475 of Hansard:
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.
I should point out that prior to that last reference, on October 20 I had originally brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister who said he would be glad to look into it. It is all very fine to be told that the government is looking into things and that things are under consideration, but this does not provide pay cheques and does not pay for the groceries. I cannot understand why people in this area should be relegated to the rank of peasants just because these great men who sit opposite are not interested in trying to do something to assist people except at election time. Then they have great words on television and radio and wonderful newspaper advertisements saying they have all the answers and are going to do everything that needs to be done.
I think a man like this clergyman should be honoured for the great humane concern he has for the welfare of his people. In another of his letters dated November 1 he said:
I am not sure but I have been told that there are about 90 receiving relief in this area now. This is not counting anyone north of here.
This is in reference to the areas of North Ingonish, Neil's Plarbour, Dingwall, Bay St. Lawrence and other smaller areas, the residents of which sometimes receive employment at the park, although on occasion it depends on who they are and what political colour they may adhere to.
Now I should like to put another letter dated November 1 on the record. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Muir:
We wish to write you on behalf of the children of Ingonish Beach consolidated school. The matter of concern is the serious lay-off of men from the Cape Breton Highlands National Park. Cannot something be done?
Most of these men cannot even draw unemployment insurance benefits and must rely only on municipal welfare. This, of course, does not even cover the cost of groceries let alone provide money for winter boots, jackets, other heavy clothing and Christmas gifts. And, also, no man wants to be dependent when he is able to work.
It seems to us that this matter is sufficiently serious to warrant action from the federal government. Conditions certainly cannot be left as they are.

We would indeed appreciate it greatly if you would see that this is, once again, brought to the attention of the government. Surely they cannot refuse recognition a fourth time. Thank you.
That letter is signed by James MacNeil, principal of the Ingonish Beach consolidated school, on behalf of the school teachers and himself.
What does one have to do to get action from this government? The government can certainly remove jobs. I hesitate to hurt the feelings of the Minister of National Defence, but I recall the great assurances he gave us regarding Point Edward naval base, assurances such as he is now giving the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings in regard to H.M.C.S. Cornwallis and in regard to all these other bases. On that occasion through his action and government planning 700, if not more, jobs were removed from that area.
With respect to the restoration project at Fort Louisbourg, the hon. member for Cape Breton South has raised the question time and again about men being laid off there. Only recently, as recorded at page 8724 of Hansard for October 17, the hon. member for Cape Breton South inquired as follows:
I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister look into the problem immediately and have it rectified?
The Prime Minister replied, "Yes, Mr. Speaker." The Prime Minister said he was going to have it rectified but it has not been rectified. Men are still being laid off there, and this has happened all down the line.
In the town of North Sydney the famous, or probably I should say infamous, Minister of Transport is making changes there which will remove approximately 700 to 800 permanent jobs, reducing the work force to 150, with respect to the trans-shipment of goods to Newfoundland through the port of North Sydney, and nothing has been done to replace these jobs.
The sad part of it all is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare apparently is not worrying about either the health or welfare of the people of Nova Scotia. He used to be minister of labour. There is an old story in Cape Breton that he was demoted, kicked out of his position as minister of labour and made Minister of National Health and Welfare. The story ran that he could not provide work so surely now he could find welfare for those for whom he could not find work, but apparently he is not in a position to do that either.
November 8, 1966

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The Minister of National Defence said last night-I do not have his exact words but I scribbled them down-there is great prosperity in this nation and men are leaving the services to participate in this great prosperity. In Inverness and Victoria counties on Cape Breton Island the clergymen have to speak out on behalf of their people because they are confronted with a very serious situation and are not sharing in the prosperity to which the minister referred. People there actually are hungry and have no money to buy groceries. They really have a problem. These clergymen have to look at the problems of the soul and also problems of the stomach. Surely the Minister of National Health and Welfare who sits across the chamber is an understanding gentleman and knows what I am talking about when I refer to the fact that clergymen do have other jobs besides looking after the welfare of the soul.
I mention the situation which exists in Victoria county and I am sure the minister from Nova Scotia must realize the serious situation which exists in areas near the national park, including Ingonish Beach and also the western part of Cape Breton where the balance of the park is located. Perhaps the minister is not strong enough in the government and is not able to persuade the Minister of Finance and some of the other strong men in the cabinet to allocate some money for a winter works program in the area to which I have referred. These men need only check the record to find that the previous administration through the minister of northern affairs was able to spend more money on these park projects than has been spent since. Worth-while projects were carried out by that administration which helped to alleviate the poor economic situation which existed there. Surely when this government can find millions of dollars to spend on everything else it should be able to find some money to spend on these worth-while projects. I have heard it said that by 1970 we will be spending perhaps $1 billion on external aid. I believe that is a good thing, but for heaven's sake let us look after some of the people in Canada, because that is important too.
Within the last 24 hours I have received several telegrams from individuals complaining about the poor economic conditions which exist on Cape Breton Island. Most of these came from individuals who are not residents of the constituency I represent but rather are
Interim Supply
residents of the constituency of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Surely the most partisan individuals who sit on the other side of the chamber will not say that these are political telegrams and that Muir is just making a political speech or that Muir gets nasty when criticizing the government. I would never do that, and anyone who has heard me speak in this house knows that I never become nasty with the government unnecessarily.
Let me read this telegram which refers to the labour and economic conditions in the areas to which I have referred in Inverness county which is represented by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. That is the same gentleman who is our Minister of National Health and Welfare and I am sure he is worried and concerned not only about these people in his constituency but about those who suffer difficulties throughout the maritimes. Let me put on record the first telegram which reads:
Labour and economy conditions in north Inverness area at present continue to deteriorate. For two weeks or more request have been made for dredging of harbour and construction of loading pier at Cheticamp to provide an outlet for our forest product to the people of north Inverness area. This is now an urgent matter that requires immediate action. May we be advised what action may be expected.
These telegrams were not sent by the chairman of the Conservative party in a particular area. This particular telegram was sent by Most Rev. George Landry, P.P., Rev. Ron Forgeron, Margaree, Rev. E. Gallant, P.P., Cheticamp, Rev. George Arsenault, P.P., St. Joseph Du Moine and Rev. D. F. Roberts, P.P., S.W. Margaree. These people are in close touch with the ordinary individual and are not up in an ivory tower like some of our cabinet members who forget after an election who elected them. These people are faced with the cold hard facts of families with eight, nine, ten and eleven children trying to exist without an income. These people must make some effort to assist these families, and are confronted at times with some cold hard facts.
I am not going to take the time of this committee to read all these telegrams, which are in the same vein, but I should like to place on record the names of the individuals who have signed them and the areas from which they were sent. This telegram is from Amedee Boudreau, president of the Cheticamp Society L'Assomption. The next is signed by Louis Bourgeois, president of the

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
Cheticamp Co-operative Society. The next is signed by Peter J. Larade of the Cheticamp Board of Trade. I have another signed by Arsene Chiasson, president of the Lemoine Co-operative Society Limited. The next is signed by M. Kelly, president of the Mar-garee volunteer fire department.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As I have said, I do not wish to take up the time of the committee in this way, but I wish to place on record the names of the people and organizations who sent these telegrams. Perhaps I can just read the names and the areas from which they were sent. They are: Caliste Leblanc, president of Lemoine Society L'Assomption; Elie Joseph Chiasson, president of Grand Etang Agricultural Society; Henry Roach, president of Society L'Assomption, Margaree; Simon Lefort, president of Margaree Co-operative Society Limited; Patrick Thompkins, president of Margaree Credit Union; and Patrick Chiasson, president of the Grand Etang Fishermen Co-operative. I also have telegrams signed by Milton Au-coin, president of the Cheticamp Royal Canadian Legion; Wilfred Boudreau, president of the Cheticamp Knights of Columbus; Edmond Burns, president of the Cheticamp Society, St. Pierre; Simon Boudreau, president of the Cheticamp fire department; Madame Alphonse Chiasson, president of Cheticamp Les Dames de Ste. Anne; Isadore Aucoin, president of the Lemoine Credit Union; Simon Lefort, president of Le Committee de Development, Acadian du Nord, D'lnverness; Victor Deveaux president of the Cheticamp Credit Union, and Peter J. Larade, president of the Cheticamp Board of Trade. If this is not indication enough to the treasury benches that there is something very seriously wrong in the areas to which I have referred, I do not know what is.
All these people want is a job. This government should be able to provide jobs for them in one way or another because time and time again we have heard their brave statements that they have all the answers and the solutions to all problems. Surely, Mr. Chairman, they can find some employment for these people who have communicated with me.
Not only do we have this problem in northern Inverness country and Victoria county in regard to the men who have been displaced at the Point Edward naval base and the men who will be displaced at the North Sydney terminus of Canadian National Railways, but we have the problems presented by the Donald report on coal. This report recommends

to the government the closing of mines. Mr. Donald has said that within a few years he wants to get rid of 6,500 to 7,000 coal miners. No one has said that the government are going to implement the Donald report, but surely they can make a statement in the house so that we will know what will happen to this industry.
Strangely enough on November 5, 1965, one year ago, the minister of labour as he then was, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, issued a statement from his office which referred to government policy in regard to the coal mining industry. The statement said that $25 million was to be provided for the coal industry to modernize and rehabilitate it. Not only were these things to be done but a new mine was to be opened in the Lingan area of Glace Bay. This statement was made a few short weeks before an election. Here we are at November 8, 1966, one year since the election, and nothing has been done. The Donald report has also been available for some time. It has not been available to us because members of the house were denied it for many months. The Donald report was dated in May but was brought forward only recently. Although the report has been available to the government for some time there is still no statement on future policy by the government; yet they are the people who had all the answers to the problems of the coal industry.
I can recall when some hon. gentlemen opposite sat on this side of the house. At that time they had great experts on coal mining. I refer to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries, for example. It would really amuse hon. members to look back in Hansard and read the wonderful things they had to say in those days about the coal mining industry. We were led to believe they could just snap their fingers and all these problems would be remedied. But they have not done this. When will they do something to fulfil the promises they made to the coal mining industry?
I have not painted a very pretty picture with reference to the unemployment situation in the areas to which I have referred. Surely when the Prime Minister reads my speech in tomorrow's Hansard he will see that something is done to alleviate this problem. The Prime Minister said to the hon. member for Queens a day or so ago that if he had not been in the house he always read Hansard the following day and is well posted on everything that transpires in the house. I
November 8, 1966

hope that, as he said the other day, a statement will be made very shortly in this connection. The Prime Minister has been consulting the ministers concerned, I presume, namely, the Minister of Manpower, the minister from Nova Scotia, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under whose jurisdiction the parks fall.
I hope that not too many days will go by before the government takes action in allocating moneys for a continuation of the winter works program. I should not say "continuation", Mr. Chairman, because I doubt that there are many people working at the park. There are so many things to be done in this area. When our party formed the government we called for tenders for a golf clubhouse at the park. Tenders were subsequently awarded. When this administration came into power the minister cancelled that project because he felt it was not needed at the time. However, Mr. Chairman, that was a long time ago and no further steps have been taken since on that proposed project.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Robert Muir: Perhaps the committee would allow me just two or three minutes more.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Muir: I thank the committee for their indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and I shall not be very much longer. This is one project that the minister could revive. It is a small job but nevertheless any job that provides one, two, half a dozen, 20 or 30 positions is very important. I am sure that the minister, with his knowledge of the parks and what is needed in them and the advice given him by his officials, knows that many developments could take place in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park. Year after year the number of people visiting this park increases by thousands. It is not make-work projects that are needed but work to be carried out for the development of the park, and such work is there to be done.
Interim, Supply
In conclusion may I say once again that I hope the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is now in the house and has been out of the house as a result of having to attend to other business, will get cracking with the Prime Minister, the minister from Nova Scotia, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and do something for the people who have sent me all these telegrams and letters. These people should not have to get down on their knees like the peasants of old and beg to the high and mighty here in Ottawa.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. member for Grey-Bruce suggested that the subject matter of the armed forces reorganization bill be referred to the standing committee on defence before second reading rather than following the normal procedure. He made the suggestion in a very reasonable fashion and I intend to reply in an equally reasonable fashion. There are a number of reasons why I feel we should follow the normal procedure. First of all, referring to the committee the subject matter of the bill at this stage would effectively kill the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The procedure is almost without precedent. It has been done when the government has been uncertain in respect of policy and wanted a committee discussion before taking a decision in respect of policy.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is not so, Mr. Chairman. I assured the house today that it was not so and I assure the minister tonight that it is not sc.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not the case with this bill, however. In this case the government's policy has been clearly stated as far back as 1964. The white paper on defence in 1964 stated that policy in unequivocable terms. It said:
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff. This will be the first step toward a single unified defence for Canada.
This policy has also been made clear to all members of the armed forces and to the civilians employed in the Department of National Defence. On April 2, 1964 I stated in a letter issued jointly by myself and the associate minister: "The third and final step will be the unification of the three services."

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply


An hon. Member:: You did not tell the
house that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Furthermore, in the same letter I stated:	. .the end objective of a single
service is firm."
I made this point again in testimony before the special committee on defence.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You are not flexible.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am very flexible. I wish my hon. friend were equally flexible. I made this point again in the special committee on defence on May 28, 1964 when I stated the following:
So far as the ultimate objective is concerned, this has been clearly stated in the white paper, and I think this is a fair recognition that this is the first step toward a single unified force for Canada.
The policy was therefore stated in 1964. There have been 44 meetings of the defence committee since that time. The policy of the government has been clear and consistent and it is quite willing to accept its responsibility for the policy recommended to this house.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Will the minister permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member mind waiting until I finish?


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is a very brief question. I would like to ask the minister whether he does not agree with the foreword in the white paper on defence policy as well as with the conclusion in which it is clearly stated that flexibility is the theme of the entire policy?
Does the minister not think that in rejecting this he is abrogating his position by not allowing us to take this bill to the committee at this time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. I think our promise has been fulfilled completely. We have been most flexible at every step. I do not know how anyone could have been more flexible than we have been in the implementation of this policy at each stage.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Nothing could be further from the truth.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Second, this House of Commons is perfectly capable of accepting its responsibility in this matter. I think it is indicated in the parliamentary guide that 68 members have served in one or other of the armed services. Many hon. members have served on special or standing committees on

defence. More information has been made available to these committees in the last three years than at any time in Canadian history. Precedents have been set. Serving officers have been permitted to appear in great numbers. More than 2,300 pages of evidence have been given during 81 meetings. More than 100 witnesses have been heard. The Associate Minister and myself have appeared to answer questions on 63 different occasions. It is clearly an unprecedented record.
I am prepared to present at considerable length the background of the policy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the minister permit a question at this time? He suggested that a little over 2,200 pages of evidence have been presented. Why is he now afraid to hear another limited number of questions, let us say another 500 pages of questions?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The minister has to follow procedure.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to hear the answer from the minister. Is he now prepared to cut off further questions absolutely with regard to the very important matter of the unification of our armed forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly not. I have no fear whatsoever of further questions, and I fully expect that when we reach the committee stage hundreds of questions will be asked. This is a perfectly logical thing to happen.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary question for the minister. If the minister is not one bit afraid of permitting questions with regard to this very important matter, why does he not call the defence committee to study evidence and examine witnesses before the bill receives second reading in the house so that we can ascertain whether or not we will be doing the right thing in approving this legislation in principle?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the reason for not doing so is that none of the learned suggestions which have been put forward so far in the debate by my hon. friends opposite give me any reason to believe that this course, which is not the normal one, is necessary.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I have a further supplementary question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of good reasons, including one or two that I mentioned tonight, why I think this would not be the proper course to follow.
November 8, 1966


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the minister permit a further question? Does the minister assume that Colonel C. Merritt's suggestions which have been reported in the press and the suggestions of the admirals and the air vice marshal are not worth anything? These very great Canadians who have fought and were prepared to die for Canada are strongly opposed to this stand and are against the principle of unification.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Quite the contrary. I respect their views. However, their views are well known and they are available to my hon. friend and his colleagues in debating the question of principle in this house. I would urge them to take full advantage of all the material available to them so as to keep the debate on a high level.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Were these views well known before the defence committee ceased its hearings? In other words, did Colonel Merritt and the air vice marshals who recently announced their position with regard to the defence bill brought forward by the minister last week make their position known to the committee? It is certain that Admiral Landymore's position became known only after he was fired. Surely the minister will not stand before the house and say that the views of these gentlemen do not need careful study and that their opinions were known before the minister's decision on the amalgamation of the services. Surely the minister does not want to force it down our throats.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give the specific dates on which various views were made known but I assume they are known now in advance of second reading and therefore are fully available to my hon. friend in making up his mind in respect of the principle involved in this bill. The hon. member is therefore fully capable of taking his responsibility as a member of this house and in the knowledge of all the factors involved making a responsible judgment.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Will the minister permit a question? Can the minister say whether the controversy between himself and his chief advisers whom he has subsequently discharged or forced into retirement was a controversy over the question of amalgamation which he suggests will be a revolution in the military thinking of the world? Is he referring to the amalgamation which was tried out in world war II when untrained groups in khaki, ack-ack personnel, REME personnel 23033-6141
Interim Supply
and ordnance personnel were forced into battle without battle experience and training? Is he proposing this revolutionary measure against the advice of those people who saw its results, who saw the casualties and who saw what happened when this amalgamation took place in the second world war? Is this what he is proposing for the armed services of Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend knows that is not so.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not know that is not so. I want an answer from the minister.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have said throughout that we should discuss this issue dispassionately and not get involved in personalities and side issues. In so far as the suggestion put forward by my hon. friend is concerned, the lack of preparation for military tasks assigned from time to time by the government of Canada is precisely one of the areas in which we are seeking improvement. One of the reasons that I suggested last night why I felt it was important to continue with our present policies was in order to equip our whole force to be able to perform their tasks and not to have, let us say, three-quarters of the land force ill-equipped for any emergency which might occur. This was the policy adopted in 1959. We are trying to develop a capable, responsive military force which will be able to meet any of the requirements that come up from time to time in the interests of the people of this country. I am convinced, and so are my senior advisers, that the course we are following is the one which is best designed to accomplish this.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask another question? The minister has said that he is sure this is the best policy. He may be right, but I am just as sure that he is wrong, though I may be wrong. I want to know from where he gets his assurance. It certainly is not from the military advisers whom he has discharged. As I said before, the controversy which existed between the minister and those advisers must have resulted in their dismissal. Is he so adamant about amalgamation of the armed forces that he will not listen to reason? If he is so sure about it, this question could be settled in ten minutes with no further debate. Let the question go to the committee where we can get these answers and this assurance. In the committee we can ascertain from

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
whom the assurance came. The minister has no divine mandate to look into the future to see what will happen.
I speak from experience. Those people whom the minister discharged also spoke from experience. This concept has been tried before and did not work; yet the minister is insisting that we in Canada put this policy into effect. The minister has said that he has this assurance, and we would like to know its source. We want to know from where it came and want to make sure that it was not just picked out of the air. This is all we are asking. Let this matter go to the committee and let these witnesses appear before it. This debate can finish in ten minutes if the minister will allow the bill to go to the committee before second reading.
As representatives of the people we cannot accept the minister's assurance. The minister says he is sure about this, and again he may be right. We do not know. But we cannot take the gamble of this dangerous experiment that the minister is engaging upon now. All other countries of the world have rejected this policy. The only way we can ascertain where this assurance came from is to let this matter go to the committee. If the minister is willing to do that we can settle this in ten minutes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am certainly willing to let this matter go before the committee in the normal course, and that has been made abundantly clear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? I agree with what the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has just said, but further to that-I assume that the minister is answering the proposal I put to him this afternoon-I should like to ask the minister at this stage whether he believes in the question that he put to the former prime minister in 1962, as reported at page 2282 of Hansard for that year. Let me recall the minister's request as it is reported in Hansard:


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will now agree to the setting up of a special parliamentary committee on defence, in order that all members of the house including, and perhaps more particularly, members of the ministry may have an opportunity to inform themselves.
That is all we are asking tonight. In 15 minutes the minister can conclude this debate and be granted supply.


Mr. Deachman:: That is just what he did. He-


Eric Alfred Winkler: We do not want to hear from you. Make your own speech or be quiet. We had your smart-alec observations earlier this week so we have no reason to listen to you. I want the minister to answer this question because those were his own words to the prime minister of that day.


Robert Muir: Listen to the "big leak" over there.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is my request to the minister. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, for the rise in temperature just now but I think it will be understood when you realize where the remarks came from. All I ask the minister tonight is whether he still subscribes to the statement he made in his question to the prime minister of that day. If he does and is honest with himself we can conclude this debate tonight in three-quarters of an hour.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, it is well known that the prime minister of that day did not comply with my request at that time and the committee was not set up. However, after this government was formed, because I believed in what I had suggested I agreed with the Prime Minister and my colleagues that the committee should be set up.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is not in accord with the question to your Prime Minister that I put on the record today, and the minister knows it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The facts speak for themselves.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You bet they do.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The previous government set up no committee to discuss policy, but after the new government was formed committees were established to discuss all matters relating to national defence, not just expenditures or estimates but all matters of policy too.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Who misled this committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: For the first time in years, in order that there should be an intelligent policy discussion a white paper was written and presented to the House of Commons. The various proposals contained in that paper were discussed before the special committee on defence at very great length. Outside witnesses were called to give their points of view in respect to many matters, including the integration of the armed forces.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Unification is another matter.
November 8, 1966


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A most useful discussion ensued. Therefore, in answer to the hon. member's question, we have done what I suggested when I was on the other side of the house; and I think my hon. friend should be grateful for and take full advantage of the information which was given to him.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I thank the minister for those remarks, but the responsibility for this week will rest upon the minister's shoulders.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The responsibility for following the proper procedures of this house must fall upon the shoulders of those who permit them to go forward. If, as my hon. friend seems to suggest, he prefers a procedure which is not the normal one, then it is his responsibility and he will have to accept the consequences of it.
My hon. friend raised an earlier question and I should like to deal with it. Although he made a useful interjection, I think that he, being experienced as he says, should rely to some extent on that experience and do some research of his own. I could give him some excellent books to read. He should then talk to people who hold contrary views to ours and get from them in precise details the reasons, if any, that they think this is not the right policy. When the bill is read in this house and the debate takes place, my hon. friend should then rise and give us the advantage of his experience, his research and his judgment because, as a member of parliament, in the final analysis it is his judgment which must stand the test.
This, Mr. Chairman, is why we are elected members of parliament. We cannot abdicate our responsibility to serving officers or to officers who have served in the past. We have to exercise our own judgment having listened to the advice of all of them, having obtained from them their best advice and having had the advantage of their experience and point of view. But having done that, there is no substitute under our system for taking our own responsibility seriously, for making up our own minds, for electing in our own minds to take what we think is the proper course and, in the final analysis, voting accordingly.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the minister is not for one moment gullible enough to think that what he reads in a book or what he reads about theory is necessarily the best course to take in practice. As I said the other day, he has gone through 13 senior advisers so there must have been some conflict of
Interim Supply
interest, some conflict of decision, vis-a-vis what those advisers were trying to tell the minister.
Let me tell the minister again that he may be right in his view. But these 13 senior advisers-I understand the figure has now increased to 40-were dismissed or asked to resign because according to their experience they were trying to tell the minister that this bill would not work in practice. There are many reasons why it will not work in practice. I can show you casualty lists which will demonstrate that it did not work. Those lists are for army personnel only, not trained in battle but forced into a particular situation because of necessity. Those people lost their lives.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It is this sort of thing that senior officers want to tell you, because the path you have launched yourself on is or may be wrong. All that we in the opposition are asking tonight, and have been asking for the past several days, is for the committee to be called so that it can question qualified witnesses. That cannot be done in the house. The minister insists that we not deal with this matter in comit-tee but give second reading to the bill. He knows as well as anybody that that would put us into an impossible position because once it is approved in principle what we advocate cannot be done. The minister said that the Canadian people were not concerned about this matter-I see the minister shaking his head.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I did not.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I would ask the minister what his strong supporter, the Winnipeg Free Press, has to say about this. The people are becoming concerned. With respect to policy the minister may be wrong, but if he is wrong possibly none of us here will be alive to say that he is wrong.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has my hon. friend finished with his question?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: If it is a question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This, I realize, affects my hon. friend very substantially, and I appreciate this. The books I was referring to are not about theory. They are the records of military experience in the last 50 years.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Their names?

November 8# 1986
Interim, Supply


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will send my hon. friend a list. There are many lessons to be learned. We, as individuals elected by the people of this country to do the best job we can, are perfectly capable, after having listened to all the arguments pro and con, of making up our own minds.


An hon. Member:: But you will not let us.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are free to go and talk to the people who are opposed to this concept. They will give you all their reasons, and you will find that those reasons can pretty well be grouped under two headings. They are identity and esprit de corps. I am prepared on second reading to deal with both these headings, and I think my hon. friends should also be prepared to deal with both. The opposition have not made a real case showing that what we are doing will affect operations detrimentally.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You cannot prove it until you try it out.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is true of everything ever developed, including a flying machine. Someone has to take it off the ground to see if it will fly. There is a time when it has to be tested. That is right. But there is also a time when there is a procedure to be instituted which will lead to finding out whether, to the best of people's judgement, something will or will not be satisfactory.
As I started to say, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to present at considerable length the background of the policy as set out in Bill No. C-243. The appropriate time to do this is on second reading. I thought, probably correctly, that if I presented this information in advance I should be accused of being in contempt of parliament. Some of this information I should like to have sent through service channels to serving members. This information is ready to be sent through service channels, but it has been held pending release of the information to parliament at the appropriate time on second reading. This information will explain the reasons for the policy when that policy is being discussed in the House of Commons on second reading.
The arguments which have been put forward in the last seven days are, I think, substantially fictitious. The arguments of those opposing the principle of the bill have been available to those arguing all along. They have not taken advantage of those arguments and injected them into the debate.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You are not an authority on this and neither am I.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could it be that those who suggest reference to a committee at this stage-and I do not ask my hon. friend this question rhetorically-are concerned that their case against the bill will not stand up to examination in this house?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, come off it. Why
not send it to the committee and prove we are wrong?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are not displaying passion tonight. We are all calm, cool and collected.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is one more night on which you hate to be cross-examined.


An hon. Member:: "I the great".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have been ready while the discussion continued, largely on irrelevan-cies-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -to put the case for the government policy on second reading-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do not insult the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -as soon as the house is ready to proceed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Third-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister accept a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has said that the discussion up to now has been largely on irrelevancies. I wish the minister would answer the speech I made the other day which was far from irrelevant. It was an accusation that he had deliberately misled the House of Commons. Is that irrelevant? There is nothing irrelevant about that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It would not be if there were any substance in it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Read the speech. Read the quotations cited to you. You deliberately misled the House of Commons and the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Keep your temper.
November 8, 1986


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Third-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mild and meek
Hellyer deliberately misled the House of Commons.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Third, I suggest that to refer the bill at this stage would be unfair to serving officers who might be expected to appear and give testimony. This bill has become a matter of considerable controversy. It is quite in order for retired officers to appear and give their views at any time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You know better than that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is quite a different matter for serving officers, and I think it is only proper that this parliament, before asking them to appear, should take its responsibility and deal with the principle involved in the bill.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You obviously did not listen to my speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish they had written you a different speech.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wrote if myself.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Throw it away.
Throw away the script. Get down to the facts.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This permissive legislation is important. It is important to allow the government to proceed in an orderly fashion with a longstanding program. It is necessary to allow our extremely capable military staffs to continue with their carefully planned program of unification. They must know that the necessary legislative authorization is available for steps not possible without it.
I have already indicated what we are doing through the total cycle is to take a series of interlocking steps. It is essential to have permissive legislation at this time in order that the series of interlocking steps should continue at the planned rate being worked out by the military staffs. Failing to provide this permissive legislation will bog down this whole process and impair a most imaginative and longstanding program.
Finally, I appeal to my hon. friends opposite to permit the bill to be discussed in the House of Commons in principle in the normal fashion and then to have it referred to the committee for thorough and exhaustive study
Interim Supply
when, at the will of the committee all the witnesses that the committee wishes to appear can give their expert testimony. There it will be possible to ask some of the senior staff members to appear to give the members of the committee the detailed proposals and/or plan. The committee would not be limited to factual detail only, as some journalists suggest, but to detail in relation to policy as a whole.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I must admit that I believe members of parliament are competent to deal with this issue and that it would be an abdication of our responsibility not to proceed in the normal fashion.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Too late then, if you are wrong.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will deal with that point because I think it is a good one. It is not too late if I am wrong. If the committee is not satisfied-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you withdraw the bill then?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -the normal procedures are available. If the committee is not satisfied I am sure it would not return a recommendation to this house which would result in third reading. This is the procedure which has stood the test of time for 300 years and there is no reason why we should not follow the normal course and then have the exhaustive examination in committee which is required. If we fail to do this, then, of course, parliament will have to take its responsibility.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If that is the case and the minister is sincere in the proposal he has put before us, why is he afraid to send the bill to committee now?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I have indicated, it is not a question of fear. It is a matter of following the correct procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are very good reasons for thinking it would be preferable for members of parliament, for serving officers and for others if these correct procedures were followed and not abrogated.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister says that if the recommendation from the committee were not favourable the bill would be dropped. Does he realize that recommendations from

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
one committee on which I served in 1963, the veterans affairs committee, have not yet been acted on by the government? In other words, we wasted our time in that committee. The minister knows that as far as we in the opposition are concerned, if we give second reading to this bill we accept the principle of the bill, a principle to which we object.


An hon. Member:: Then vote against it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, but there is more at stake than that.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is correct. What about
the witnesses?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said he would direct a question to the minister. Would he put his question now?


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister stated in his white paper that defence policy is closely linked with foreign policy. Is the proposal which he has put forward at the present time connected in any way with the announcement over the C.B.C. last night that Canada would be the co-sponsor of a resolution to admit red China to the United Nations at the expense of nationalist China?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be glad to deal with those two points. First, the situation described by the hon. member with respect to the committee cannot arise. The bill cannot be read for the third time and become law unless the committee report is dealt with. It would be impossible. If the committee's report were unfavourable, I am sure the bill would never pass third reading.


An hon. Member:: We are not so sure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The committee is controlled by the government?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot conceive of a situation such as the hon. member has envisaged.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You are putting us in an impossible position.


An hon. Member:: You are in an impossible position.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I asked about red China and whether-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. If you will permit me-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The minister's time has expired.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -there is no connection.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to participate again in this debate as I am greatly concerned about the view the minister has expressed. In his speech the hon. gentleman expressed the hope that those opposed to his unification bill would accept the fact that he is following the normal course.
Let us be frank in this committee. Let us be bold. Let us admit the facts to one another. This is not the normal course. This is a bill requiring a grave change in the defence system of Canada, a grave change even in the peacetime force of Canada. I am sure the minister will admit this is true. This is not the normal course. It has nothing to do with the normal course.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It is the normal course.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not the normal course. I am sure the minister would not agree with the Postmaster General when the hon. gentleman says it is the normal course. It is not the normal course.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It is.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is
proposing to do away with the navy, to disband the army, to do away with the air force and create from an amalgamation of the three something to be known as the armed forces. This is not the normal course. This is a grave departure from the normal course. Let us face it as members of parliament and as representatives of our constituencies. This is a grave step which we as Canadians are asked to take.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: An important step.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An important step, as the Postmaster General has said. Let us share that measure of agreement. Let us agree as long as we can. This is a grave step which Canadians are asked to take today.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Very progressive.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now we are agreed that this is a new venture. The minister and the Postmaster General agree with me in this regard. Mr. Chairman, I ask you and all members of this committee: Should we embark on this venture without a thorough examination of what it entails? Should we accept this departure from the normal course without further question? In a sense that is the key to this problem which parliament has to decide.
November 8, 1966


An hon. Member:: That is what we are here for.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of
National Defence says we should accept this in the normal course of events. In a meek and mild voice he tells us it would go to a committee and then we could examine his proposal. All this would happen after we had shut the door and barred the way to any further consideration of the measure. What kind of poppycock is this? We are sent here as representatives-


An hon. Member:: To take decisions.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I agree with the Postmaster General that this is a big decision. I myself would say it is a grave decision and one which faces all Canadians. It must be considered in the light of many things. I speak as a taxpayer and one who has concerned himself with defence when I say this is a grave decision, because no matter how high my taxes may become I want to be able to hold my head proudly and say I am prepared to pay my share of the cost. As a Canadian I want to be proud to say that Canada is prepared to pay its share of the cost of the defence of the free world. This is what it boils down to.
What will the minister produce as a result of the amalgamation of the three forces? A handy police force to be prepared to run here and there, hither and yon, to squash brush fires? That may be so. But will Canada be able to hold its head high in any association of the nations of the free world? Can Canada hold its head high and say, "We are paying our share of the cost. We are a sovereign nation prepared to defend our rights and hold our own in the defence of the free world"? This is what it boils down to. The minister says and the Postmaster General says-
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I did not say a word yet.


Mr. Nowlan:: You said too much the other day.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is a grave departure from our present defence forces. This is the amalgamation of our three forces. It may be said that this is peacetime and that in peacetime anything goes. That is the essence of what the minister is saying to us.
Interim Supply


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It does not seem like peacetime here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I remember the speech I made on this subject last Friday and I remember the minister saying, "Don't quote me but I helped confuse the nation." That is what he said. I thought to myself that the minister was being very frank with the committee. I appreciate his frankness but I am surprised that he is continuing to assist in confusing the public.
The minister says that this is the normal course of events and the opposition should accept the government's view that after second reading of the bill there will be ample opportunity to debate it. He does not stand in his place and deny altering the testimony which Admiral Landymore wished to give to the defence committee, but on November 3, as recorded at page 9515 of Hansard, he said:
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.
This is what he is bribing us with when he asks for second reading. He is pleading with the House of Commons to give the bill second reading and saying that he does not wish to alter or restrict in any way the evidence which witnesses may wish to give to the defence committee. But he did not say that before Admiral Landymore gave his testimony. Yet some years before that the minister advocated the establishment of a defence committee which should discuss and determine defence policy.
Anyone in the defence department who has spoken out against unification has been fired. I do not have to quote newspaper articles in this regard, but several military men have said that if they desire to remain in the defence forces they must watch what they say. They must adhere to the minster's position on unification or else their desire for advancement will be ruined.
The minister has retired some 40 admirals, generals and air vice marshals at a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of over $800,000. Yet he has the gall to stand up and say that the whole purpose of unification is to lower our defence costs and give better value for our defence dollar. But the early retirement of senior officers has cost the Canadian taxpayer over $800,000. Nearly $1 million has gone down the drain. We talk about the brain drain to the United States. What about the

November 8, 1966
Interim Supply
brain drain from our armed forces? No one has spoken about this, and we are so stubborn that we fail to call upon the advice which these people could give.
What is the minister trying to hide in this regard? He says he is doing his utmost and wants the bill to proceed in the normal course of events. I say once again that this is not the normal course of events. It is a departure from the normal course of events. The minister says that every country is going to follow us, even the United States, if we give them time. Can we believe him since he has fired everybody who opposes him? He will not let us call as witnesses before the defence committee those people whom he has fired and who disagree with him. This is the whole crux of the problem.
I want both sides of the question brought out. Members who know me realize I am always flexible. I am ready to accept any rational argument in any regard, but I must hear both sides of the argument. This business of hearing only one side and asking members of parliament to accept it is not the normal course of events. It is only right that members of parliament stand and say, let us hear both sides.
It really only became clearly evident to us after Admiral Landymore was fired that there was another side to this whole problem. In this respect I would point out that there is a series of articles appearing in the Globe and Mail by that very distinguished columnist Scott Young. I think it only fair that I quote from the one which appears in today's issue and which indicates that there will be another one following tomorrow. His article is headed "Merritt Versus Hellyer" and it quotes Cecil Merritt, who won the Victoria Cross, as follows:
One of his statements was that he believed Defence Minister Paul Hellyer's plan for unification of the armed forces to be wrong in principle and that ". . . in war ... if you are wrong in principle, you won't find out until you are trapped." . . .
"In my respectful opinion the worst case facing a cabinet and a minister who is planning an organization for the defence of Canada is . . . mobilization for a world war. I believe that unification will break down if put to this strain, and that we will then have to start again, ad hoc ..."
In other words, what he is saying is that it is fine if we can get along with such a force in peacetime but woe betide us if we are faced with a world condition in which Canada as a proud and free nation feels it must contribute to the defence of the free

world. Woe betide those who amalgamate our defence forces and place Canada in an ad hoc position. That is what Lieutenant Colonel Cecil Merritt has suggested in correspondence with the Minister of National Defence. That is what Scott Young wrote in today's Globe and Mail.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I think all Canadians are proud of this country because of the initiative it has taken in approaching world problems at the United Nations. We have gained a degree of respect because we have asserted our independence and sovereignty in our approach to these problems. What will happen if we deplete our armed services by this proposed unification and end up with an ineffective and perhaps insufficient United Nations police force? One can always find respect for Canadians in all countries of the world including Asia, western Europe and even in Poland, Russia and Czechoslovakia. Canadians can feel proud when they wear the insignia of this country which suggests that Canada is independent and not a satellite of the United States.
To back up my suggestion let me remind hon. members of the fact that many people in other countries of the world mistake Canadians for citizens of the United States and when they are corrected they immediately smile because they are pleased to meet Canadians. This is so because we have asserted our sovereignty and independence in respect of how we think every nation represented at the United Nations and other world associations should be treated. We have not been boastful or over-zealous in regard to our dealings with other countries, which has been suggested as being a fault of the United States.
By amalgamating our services we will do away with our navy, and I should like to know who will defend our coastal waters. As a Liberal member said to me the other night, who do we think will shoot at us? But that is not the question. Our coastal waters, including the Arctic ocean, represent over 50 per cent of the coastal waters of the North American continent and these waters are in close proximity to the United States. No one could possibly think that if we do not provide a defence of these coastal waters the United States will not do so.
Let us consider the consequences of such a defence of our coastal waters, and let us not be children in this consideration. This whole area will be defended by the United States if we do not assert our sovereignty, and let us
November 8, 1966

have no doubt about that fact. Canada will then be in the position at the United Nations or at any other world association or organization of a satellite nation of the United States. I suggest no other conclusion can be reached because the United States will defend these waters in order to protect itself. How could we then hold our heads up as an independent people and fight an independent cause for those friends with whom we are associated at these various world bodies?
If we adopt this legislation proposed by the Minister of National Defence we will sacrifice our sovereignty. Let the members on the other side say "oh, oh", but I hope they will eventually think as Canadians and be as proud of Canada as I am. I should like to think that they are prepared to defend Canada.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Some hon. member says "hear, hear", but why does the government of which he is a member insist on disbanding our navy and ruining our national defence services? Why does this government pursue this unification bill without first sending it to a committee for consideration after hearing evidence from experts on all sides? The associate minister said in a speech in the House of Commons that he had some doubts about this procedure until he spoke with some experts. I should like to know who those experts were.
Why does the minister insist on destroying our navy and grounding our air force through this unification proposal which will do nothing for the defence of Canada? What effect will this have so far as the nations with which we are friendly are concerned? It will have no other effect than convincing those co-operative nations that we are contributing little to defence forces.
I realize that it is very close to ten o'clock, but before I conclude my remarks I should like to make a plea to the minister to let us examine this whole situation after hearing from expert witnesses. Let us do that before we approve of this bill in principle. Let us do that before this house is asked to vote in this regard. Let us call the expert witnesses and make up our own minds about the advantages or disadvantages of unification. It is now a little after ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman. May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.
Business of the House
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the concurrence of the house to revert to motions to say something about the adjourned debate on the motion to concur in the twelfth report of the standing committee on transport and communications which will stand as item No. 108 on the order paper. I respectfully request that this order of business not be called tomorrow and that debate on this item stand adjourned until Friday, November 18 next. If this is agreeable to the house I would ask that it be made an order of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree that this item of business stand until November 18?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to a Friday in November, but I would ask him to repeat the date.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I confess that the copy I gave to the house leader of the official opposition referred to November 7, which has already passed. I apologize for that error.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that there shall be an order of the house in this respect?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, could the house leader indicate what business will be undertaken tomorrow?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the government proposes to call interim supply, to be followed by item No. 101, second reading of Bill No. C-241, to amend the National Housing Act. Then we will deal with item No. 83, second reading of Bill No. C-220, relating to an immigration appeal board.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
9724	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, on October 26 last, I directed the following question to the Prime Minister:
Has he received any protests against Bill No. C-170 and does his government intend to amend it in order to make the right to strike less illusory within the public service?
Tonight, I would like to make a few observations before the house is given a substantial answer.
Among the numerous protests against Bill No. C-170 coming from trade unions, I should like to submit the following suggestions:
1.	It is suggested that Bill No. C-170 be amended, taking largely into account the federal legislation on industrial relations as regards collective bargaining, conciliation procedures and resorting to strike. The government would thus show, in a non equivocal way, that it is not afraid to impose on itself, as an employer, the obligations that the employers of enterprises under federal jurisdiction have to fulfil, as the parliament of Canada wills it. It would also be a token of trust toward federal civil servants, who would surely appreciate the fact of being treated like adults.
2.	It is believed that Bill No. C-170 shows unacceptable preference for trade union structures that are extremely rigid, even totalitarian, and that it places the right of association and union freedom in the background. It seems as though Canada were a Unitarian and homogeneous country. It seems the government is creating a negotiation unit system of so-called "national units". Such structures and units could be of a discriminatory nature and constitute a blatant infringement on sound and proper union freedom.
3.	The arbitration system is perfectly understandable for the duration of a collective labour agreement. In other cases, it is felt that the use of arbitration should be voluntary, without imposing any restriction on its application, as does Bill No. C-170. It should be possible to subject to arbitration any work or employment condition, except perhaps conditions of admission to the public service, if parties agree, when collective bargaining has proved unsuccessful. This should also apply to matters referred to in the recommendations

DEBATES	November 8, 1986
of the Freedman report, when parties are unable to agree, especially if matters relating to technology and automation are involved, which could not be foreseen when the collective agreement was entered into.
It is felt that employees' unions should be represented on the Public Service Staff Relations Board and on the Public Service Arbitration Tribunal. Otherwise, this is implying that only non-unionized employees can deal objectively with the work and employment conditions of federal civil servants.
Finally, it is felt that all officials and members of the board and tribunal should be bilingual with due respect and consideration for both nations which almost a century ago joined in building Canada.
It is suggested that it be clearly established that employees of separate employers should in no way be classified under some groups directly responsible to the Treasury Board as negotiating agent on behalf of the federal government.
I wish to point out to the Prime Minister that the government would be well advised not to ignore such suggestions. The grievances submitted by the employees concerned are numerous and the government would make a bad mistake in imposing Bill No. C-170 in its present form.
The following grievances have also been pointed out to us by unions:
1.	The bill is needlessly restrictive and complex and could only create difficulties in the establishment of sound relations between the government of Canada and its employees.
2.	During the first 28 months following the passing of the act, the employees would be prohibited from selecting the bargaining units they want, which constitutes a serious interference with their right of association.
3.	The employee organizations, even before their certification, are obliged to decide how their grievances will be settled, a choice which is then in force for three and a half years, that is subject to restrictive procedures.
4.	The opportunity to submit grievances and follow them up to settlement by arbitration is seriously limited, thus giving the government unilateral control over a variety of matters such as promotions, demotions, transfers, staff reduction and discipline.
5.	Conciliation, arbitration and arbitration procedures are seriously limited and can lead to delays and unavoidable legal interference
November 8, 1366
COMMONS DEBATES	9725
by the Labour Relations Board in the civil service.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are considerations which warrant amendments to Bill No. C-170 on the civil service.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Sherbrooke on his ability to deliver more words per minute than I have heard for a long time in this house. My slow delivery in answering the hon. member may result in a fair average.
As hon. members know, Bill C-170 is being examined by a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. The committee has been holding hearings and receiving representations from a number of employee organizations, some of whom have criticized various provisions of the proposed measure.
As it stands, the bill would provide employee organizations with a choice of two separate and distinct methods of dispute settlement, one providing for arbitration binding on the parties, the other for the procedures that normally apply in the private sector, including conciliation and ultimately the right to strike.



TRANSPORT-RESTORATION OF NAVIGABILITY OK GRAND RIVER

Mr. J. E. Brown (Braniford):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 7, I asked the following question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill): Could the minister advise the house whether his department, either alone or in conjunction with the provincial authorities of the province of Ontario, would institute an engineering study of the cost of the restoration of navigability of the lower Grand River between Brantford, Ontario and Lake Erie for recreational and pleasure craft?
I asked this question because of the importance of the Grand River to one of the most heavily populated regions of Canada partly situated in the area which I represent in this house. I have spoken in the house on this very matter on more than one occasion since 1962. In addition, I have communicated with the Minister of Transport several times in respect of this subject, first with the former minister of transport and later with the present minister, but on all occasions as member of parliament for Brantford.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Grand River, since earliest times, has been a navigable stream as far as Brantford, and considerable sums of money were spent on its development for navigation prior to confederation, Brantford having been in those days one of the chief ports of entry into Canada. In the 1860's, following the advent of the railways, this most beautiful of rivers flowing through a majestic part of Ontario, beloved of those living in its valley, was neglected. In the meantime millions of dollars have been spent by this parliament on the Trent valley canal system and also on the development of the Rideau waterway system.
I am asking that the minister now direct his attention and that of his department to the redevelopment of the lower Grand waterway system, unparallelled in this country and situated in a heavily populated area. Only today it was announced over the C.B.C. that the minister's department, jointly with the provincial authorities of the province of Ontario, will spend a great deal more money than ever before on an engineering survey of the Rideau water system. All I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister agree that either his department alone or his department in conjunction with the provincial authorities undertake an engineering study of the redevelopment of the Grand. I am asking for this tonight, Mr. Speaker, but the time will come when the minister will be beset with all manner of representations from different bodies toward this end.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
As a conservational project the redevelopment and restoration of the Grand River is absolutely essential to the area I represent. As a source and place of recreation for the inhabitants of the Hamilton area and for the citizens of the great "Golden Horseshoe", as it is called, around Lake Ontario this beautiful stretch of water is of unmatched importance. I therefore plead with the minister, not only on behalf of my own constituents but on behalf of all people in the area of the Grand River, to give immediate attention to its restoration and redevelopment.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this interesting question has been raised repeatedly both by the hon. member for Brantford and by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, and I understand that it has been indicated that the Grand River is under provincial jurisdiction.
g726	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion As the hon. member for Brantford has intimated, the Department of Transport has been authorized to head a study group of federal departments to work with a delegation from Ontario in reviewing all existing information and studies concerning the Rideau canal, with a view to making recommendations to the two governments concerned for an orderly development of that area. The results of that study may be of value to the province in assessing the Grand River navigation potential.
I do not want to dispute the glowing words with which the hon. member described the Grand River; certainly he made it seem extremely attractive. But I do want to suggest to him that it would be inappropriate for the federal government to initiate engineering studies in an area of provincial jurisdiction.



AIRPORTS-CHIBOUGAMAU-CHAPAIS, P.Q.- CHOICE OF SITE

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) whether his department had taken a decision on a site for a regional airport in the Chibougamau-Chapais area.
Several months ago, the Minister of Transport requested his engineers to make a survey of the area and to suggest to him the site most appropriate to serve that area now under full development which lacks facilities for fast communication with the outside.
There are many mining prospects in the Chibougamau-Chapais area, in addition to the mines now under development, and there is also a road more than 80 miles long to Albanel lake through a region having numerous mining prospects, which only have to be developed. Many areas also wait for prospectors, but the present airport no longer meets the requirements and the lack of modern communication facilities stifles the development of the area.
The minister knows that an airport in that area is necessary and justified. Furthermore, it would serve not only the mining industry, but also the development of the tourist industry in that beautiful region strewn with lakes where fish are abundant.
During this summer, Mr. Speaker, I visited the Northwest Territories and found that the 
DEBATES	November 8. 1986
slightest community has an airport which is sometimes very modern.
On that point, the Eskimos are better served than our people back home. And it is unthinkable that the present situation should continue in that mining area. I do not say that the Eskimos do not need airports, but we also need to improve our services in that mining region of Chibougamau-Chapais.
I understand that the department is waiting for the two towns in question to come to an agreement. Of course, it is normal, I think, for the authorities of the town of Chapais to ask that the airport be located close to their own town, where they already have a small airport that could be enlarged and paved. If this site is too close to the town, surely there are other appropriate sites.
The authorities of the city of Chibougamau are also requesting the construction of an airport near their city. There too can be found a site which would appear to be suitable: Lake Cache.
There is no scarcity of sites suitable to build an airport in the area.
It is high time the minister took a decision as far as selecting a site for this airport is concerned; it is not up to the mayor of Chibougamau nor the mayor of Chapais to decide upon such a site. They have already made suggestions in this regard and it is up to the government to select the site which appears to be most suitable.
Therefore, so as not to delay the development of the area, the minister should announce the site he has selected, so that construction of this airport can begin as soon as possible.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport would have been here tonight to deal with this question if it had been possible for him to be here.
The Department of Transport has been studying the matter now raised by the hon. member with a view to providing a conveniently located regional airport to serve both Chibougamau and the surrounding area. In its investigations so far the department has considered several possible sites that might
November 8, 1966
be suitable for the development of a new airport.
The next step in the departmental investigation will be to hold meetings with the regional air carriers who may be expected to provide service to the area. The department will explain its proposals to the carriers and request their views on requirements for airport facilities.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Meetings with representatives of Chibou-gamau and the surrounding municipalities are expected to follow in the hope that agreement can be reached on a site that would conveniently serve the area and have potential for future growth.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.



Wednesday, November 9, 1966