1966-02-22

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay on the table copies in English and in French of the report of the organizational meeting of the recently formed Canada-France Interparliamentary Association held at Ottawa in August, 1965.

Allow me also to table French and English copies of the report of the eighth meeting of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group held in Ottawa in May 1965.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, some 27 objections pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which have been filed with me have been printed from time to time as appendices to Votes and Proceedings.
It has been suggested that the convenience of hon. members would be better served if these objections were brought together in one publication. If the house will agree I will make the necessary arrangements to have these objections printed as a separate booklet. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs-Mr. Gray.
First report of standing committee on transport and communications-Mr. Macaluso.
[Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-130, to amend the Tobacco Restraint Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Antonio Yanakis: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this bill to call the government's attention to the direct link between excessive cigarette smoking, which I consider to be a real social ill, and the causes of lung cancer, respiratory ailments and heart diseases, which are confirmed by specialists.
I think that in order to call the attention of smokers to that hazard and to warn the future generation of smokers, the government should urge the manufacturers to print on their packages of cigarettes:	"Warning-
Smoking a package of cigarettes can be dangerous".
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUEBEC-INVESTIGATION INTO THE FIRE THAT DESTROYED THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S RESIDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Has the Prime Minister during his private conversations with the Quebec premier yesterday, asked him for an investigation into the fire that destroyed the Lieutenant Governor's residence and has he offered the help and the co-operation of the federal government to hold this investigation?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, no such request was made. I discussed with the Prime Minister of Quebec the question of the appointment of a successor to the late Lieutenant Governor, and at that time learned from the Prime Minister of Quebec something of the circumstances of the fire. He is going to report to me in greater detail. I agree with my hon. friend that the
February 22, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry circumstances, in so far as I know them at present, would seem to warrant an investigation into the origin of the fire. I shall be glad to discuss this matter with the Prime Minister of Quebec.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. At a press conference last week United States Commerce Secretary Connor said that before imposing the United States guide lines the reaction of the Canadian government had been sought at a high level. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if there have been any discussions with him or with any of his ministers regarding this question, and if so, which ministers were consulted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance has already indicated that discussions between the two countries took place last autumn, not only in respect of the guide lines but on other aspects of financial policy as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if the United States Secretary of Commerce is correct in indicating that at that time there was no indication of any unfavourable reaction from the Canadian Government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the Minister of Finance who took part in these discussions, will deal with that question.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I gave a full account of the discussions that took place between the Canadian government and the United States government at both the ministerial-secretarial level and at the official level. We made it quite plain to the United States government that we did not think that the guide lines on direct investment were in the interests of either Canada or the United States.
[Translation1



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
[Mr. Pearson.)
Can he tell us whether or not an agreement has been reached with the Quebec Minister of Labour with regard to Quebec's withdrawal from the joint manpower development program?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, no agreement has been reached as there has not been any negotiation; there have been no problems other than those found in newspapers.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the minister. Can he tell us if the Quebec Minister of Labour has expressed the intention of withdrawing from that joint manpower development program?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I would have to know exactly what this joint manpower program really is, because I know of no plan or program by that name.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, mine is a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If the province of Quebec does not participate in the manpower policies of the federal government, as members of the Quebec legislature have indicated, will it be the intention of the federal government to give financial aid to the province of Quebec in lieu of its participation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we had a federal-provincial conference in January. At that time the province of Quebec agreed to participate in agreement No. 5 entered into under the vocational training act. They did accept, so I do not see the problem. I think the Minister of Labour was referring to the mobility program, which is strictly a federal act. That, of course, has been enacted very recently and I do not know what the actual attitude of Quebec will be.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday by the President of France, General de Gaulle, outlining a policy involving the removal in the near future of NATO forces from French soil, I would ask the right hon. gentleman whether he has received any communication from President de Gaulle or
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
has there been any communication to the government of France from the Prime Minister in relation to this policy as it affects our armed forces in NATO?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been no discussion between the two governments as such, though the Secretary of State for External Affairs did see the French ambassador yesterday morning and discussed with him the observations made by President de Gaulle. Those observations of the day before yesterday were made at a press conference, and they develop the same view which the General has expressed in previous press conferences. However, an important new feature was an indication that after 1969 there would be a change in the command arrangements applying to foreign military elements on French territory.
All General de Gaulle's observations were, however, expressed in general terms, and we would expect that in due course the French government would make precise proposals to which Canada and other NATO governments would respond. At that time we could discuss within NATO any precise proposals which might be made. Such discussion would be inevitable in any event, because in the North Atlantic Treaty there is provision for a reexamination of the basis of the North Atlantic agreement after 20 years, and that 20 year period ends in 1969.
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, arising out of that question and the answer which has just been given, would the Prime Minister say what is the attitude of the Canadian government toward the suggestion attributed to General de Gaulle that in the first place the NATO mechanism is too rigid, too ponderous and too slow; and the General's view that troops on French soil would have to have French commanders? Can the Prime Minister give some indication of the view of the government on this, and also the suggestion attributed to the General that he would welcome a bilateral, direct alliance between France and the United States involving mutual assistance, defence and a "hot line" between Paris and Washington? Would the Prime Minister not say, in the light of the attitude reiterated by General de Gaulle, that the time has come for the fullest consideration to be given by the Atlantic countries to bringing about an Atlantic community?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As far as the third question asked by the right hon. gentleman is concerned, I do not wish to comment on any 23033-101
DEBATES	1583
Inquiries of the Ministry reported statement which may have been made about arrangements between Paris and Washington in respect of a special alliance. I have heard nothing about that.
As far as the first question is concerned, let me say that I think the NATO collective security arrangements since they were drawn up have been of great value in the preservation of the security and freedom of western Europe and the Atlantic community. I do also feel, however, as I am sure the right hon. gentleman does, having followed these developments, that at the end of a 20 year period it is a good thing to re-examine the coalition and perhaps make changes, if changes should be made, in order to make the coalition more effective.
As a matter of fact when the organization met here a year or so ago I myself made a statement to this effect, and the Canadian government had already instituted a reexamination of the alliance pending the end of the 20 year period. But I think the organization has been effective, and I hope we can make it more effective. It is a coalition which involves questions of collective security, and Canadian troops are in Europe as our contribution to this collective agreement. That is the only reason they are in Europe. They are not under national command nor would they be under national command in the future. They are there as part of the NATO arrangement, just as French, British and Norwegian troops would be in Canada if the NATO allies agreed that this should be done. That is why we are in Europe, and that is why we should remain in Europe.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I largely agree with the general concept advanced by the Prime Minister, but I come back to the question of the view of the Canadian government in answer to the suggestion by General de Gaulle to the effect that rather than improvement in NATO there may actually be disintegration if not complete dissolution. What is his answer to the earlier question? Though making this examination of NATO, desirable as it is, as a consequence of General de Gaulle's very strong and definitely truculent views having been expressed in this connection, what is the general attitude of the Prime Minister toward negotiations or discussions being commenced now to bring about an Atlantic union?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe General de Gaulle meant his observations to be considered as either truculent or
February 22, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry final, and we certainly do not consider them so. I do believe that a re-examination of the NATO alliance-indeed, we have been carrying on such a re-examination for some time-is desirable, and far from this re-examination resulting in the disintegration of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization I should think it would result in strengthening the alliance by making it, if possible, less of a military alliance and more of a political and economic alliance.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Due to the callous attitude shown by the C.N.R. to some 200,000 people who may travel by rail between Gaspe and Ma-tapedia, would the minister consider ordering an immediate inquiry into the situation?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to inquire into the matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I am wondering whether over the week end he reconciled his differences with the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Alberta, and nas he now received an official request and will he give consideration to additional assistance for farmers in northwestern Alberta?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisler of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have never had any differences with the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Alberta-


Hugh Macarthur Horner: That isn't what he says,


John James Greene: -who is a most courteous and charming gentleman, but I will say, Mr. Speaker, that there have been no new requests. The original request was made last December for payments supplementing P.F.A.A. payments. I have already made my statement in this house with regard to the impropriety of preferring one P.F.A.A. area over another, and I do not believe there has been any change in this situation.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Then would the minister get in touch with the P.F.A.A. officials and try to speed up the issuance of cheques for inspections which were made last December, payments that have not yet been made in my area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made his point with the minister.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafffey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a single question to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
Is the federal government still considering the creation of an all-party parliamentary committee to study changes to our Canadian constitution and can we anticipate an answer in this connection in the near future?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister has already answered that question by saying that the possible creation of a committee was under consideration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister advise the house whether the speech of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was reflecting government policy when he said higher taxes are inevitable and that a capital gains tax is on the way?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the statement of my hon. friend which he has attributed to the minister, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister been correctly quoted when he is reported as having said he expects higher taxes and he is himself in favour of a capital gains tax?
February 22, 196S	COMMONS


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I never said I would agree to increased taxes. When I was asked whether I would eventually object to them, I said that if higher taxes could be afforded, I would have no objection. This is a relative rather than an absolute position. As far as a capital gains tax is concerned, I said, pointing out that I was speaking for myself, that I was in favour of it. I have not changed my mind today.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is there now a government policy evolved by which ministers take on a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde identity?
(Translation]



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Further to an answer on the order paper to the effect that family allowances had increased 9.4 per cent since 1945 and that the cost of living was up 87.7 per cent, is the right hon. Prime Minister considering increasing the rates of family allowances on the basis of the cost of living index?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question is of a general nature and could be placed on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the statement of Senator Ful-bright, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee in Washington, in which he announced his support for the position taken by Senator Robert Kennedy with regard to the inclusion of the Viet Cong in any negotiations and in any future interim government in Viet Nam, and if so is the Canadian government prepared to support Senators Ful-bright and Kennedy in that position?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to examine what both senators said.
23033-101J
DEBATES	1585
Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who will become the minister of Indian affairs and northern affairs. Has the twelfth annual conference of the Indian and metis association communicated to him its resolution recommending the setting up of an Indian and Eskimo rights commission and, if so, what is the government's intention in this regard?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think I would prefer to take this question as notice.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the urgency to the city of Winnipeg, and since the previously indicated publication date of January 31 is some three weeks past, can the minister now say when the Thompson commission report on Winnipeg's aviation future will be published?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As soon as it is available.


Mr. Churchill:: You have said that for months.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. The answer "as soon as it is available" has been given in respect of frequent inquiries over the past eight months, and I request a more explicit and definite date if possible from the minister.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister be clear on one point; does he have possession of the report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the people of Winnipeg may assume that the Air Canada overhaul and maintenance base will be maintained there in full force and effect and with full employment.
February 22, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pickersgill:	The undertaking given
by the government with respect to the maintenance base in Winnipeg are being carried out and will continue to be carried out.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Will the recommendations made by the commission appointed to look into the possibility of moving the Air Canada maintenance base to Montreal be implemented by Air Canada and the present goverment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether we are engaging in a debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are trying to get an answer.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
The hon. member put a question and the minister has answered it after a fashion. The hon. member must be content with the answer he got.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, and I hope I do not receive the same answer he just gave my colleague. Could the minister tell us what progress he is making in arranging for the meeting with the interested parties that he mentioned on February 17 with reference to safety on the St. Lawrence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very good progress, sir.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
HAL BANKS-INQUIRY AS TO PROSECUTION On the orders of the day:
['This question is very important but I doubt whether it is so urgent as to preclude its being put on the order paper.']
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of an answer he gave recently to the hon. member for Kootenay East in respect of certain documents seized relating to the S.I.U. and the question of whether there will be a further indictable charge laid against Hal Banks. Has an application been made to obtain those (Mr. Churchill.]
exhibits from the supreme court so they may be examined to see whether another indictable offence can be laid against Hal Banks in view of the recent developments in the United States in respect of that gentleman?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: I have already stated that the documents have been released by the supreme court and are now being studied.


Erik Nielsen: Can the minister inform the house whether this matter has been referred to the law officers of the crown in his department or whether it is the intention of the government to retain independent counsel, as was done previously, for the purpose of assessing the evidence?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The investigation is not yet completed.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Further to his statement that the Montreal Symphony Orchestra will go ahead as a cultural exchange between France and Canada, is the minister in a position to advise as to what artistic group France will be sending to Canada in exchange?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is very important but I doubt whether it is so urgent as to preclude its being put on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquetie (Loibiniere):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader. In view of the fact that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act has been amended so as to extend to 45 days the time allowed to study the objections, does the minister intend to take advantage of that time to introduce, or have an hon. member introduce, a bill to abolish capital punishment?
Could he also tell the house if the meetings between the representatives of each political party have given any results to date?
February 22, 1966	COMMONS


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the present plan for submitting business to the house is, first, to complete the estimates now before the house. Then, depending on what day of the week these are finished, we will call a supply motion for the purpose of entering the estimates of ten departments and referring them to the appropriate standing committees. This will be followed by a debate on the abolition of capital punishment, which will be presented in the form of a private member's measure. The government has indicated that it will make government time available for that debate.
[Translation1


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Can he tell us if the representatives of each political party in this house are still meeting to elaborate the procedure which will be followed when the bill to abolish capital punishment is considered?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the precise form in which this business will be placed before the house has not yet been finally agreed upon. I do not think it would be helpful for me to say more than that about it at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the suggestion made by such a close supporter of the government indicate that the government is giving consideration to the opting out provision in so far as capital punishment is concerned?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REQUEST FOR DELAY IN HOUSE OPENING ON FEBRUARY 24

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of presenting this suggestion to the Prime Minister earlier this day, but some of my colleagues have suggested that I should ask whether, because many members of the house would like the opportunity to pay their last respects to one of our colleagues, the late Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, the Prime Minister could give consideration to having the house open on Thursday at 4.30 in the afternoon, enabling members to attend and be back to carry out their duties. This would also provide members generally with an
DEBATES	1587
Inquiries of the Ministry opportunity of paying their respects to one who enjoyed the affection and admiration of us all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think that is an admirable suggestion, which I am sure can be agreed upon.



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Does the statement made by a Liberal member of the British Columbia legislature favouring federal subsidies for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway mean that this government is prepared to negotiate such a subsidy program with the government of British Columbia?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not even aware of the statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BOARD OF TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. During the consideration of his estimates the minister indicated that at an early date he would present to the house the findings of the Board of Transport Commissioners regarding the telephone rate increases it has been considering. Has the minister received that information as yet?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I have not as yet received word from the Board of Transport Commissioners in this regard. I will get in touch with the chief commissioner again.
[Translation1



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Labour.
February 22, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
Can the minister tell the house whether he has received any communications or telegrams from various municipalities asking for the extension of the winter works period in view of the temperature and the severe weather conditions experienced this winter, which delayed the carrying-out of those works?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, with all respect I think the question should have been addressed to my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I put my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Jean Marchand: Would the hon. member be so kind as to repeat his question?


Raymond Langlois: Has the minister received, from different municipalities, communications asking for the extension of the winter works period in view of the delays brought about by severe weather conditions and inclement temperature which prevailed recently?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have no information at this time, but I shall inquire of the department and give an answer a little later.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received any information regarding a reported accident and serious explosion at the construction site of the Warkworth penitentiary this morning, which took the life of one man and injured several others?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This may be an important matter, but I suggest it is not the type of question that should be submitted at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with deference, I wonder whether Your Honour might allow the question asked by the hon. member for Hastings South, since there has been loss of life and since it is the

responsibility of the Solicitor General to answer questions of this nature.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair must reach a decision each time a question is asked as to whether the question should be allowed and an answer given during the question period. Even though there may have been a loss of life my decision was based on the general principle that this was not a matter of national urgency. However, if it is the general feeling of the house that the matter should be considered at this time and the Solicitor General wants to reply to the question, I will allow him to do so.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the question was not addressed to me originally. I regret, however, that I am unable to help the house in this regard. I will make inquiries immediately and communicate with the hon. member.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may expand on the reply I gave to the question asked by the hon. member for Hastings South. I have just been advised that a propane gas tank exploded at Warkworth, injuring one man and killing another. I have no more details, except to say that the control of this institution has not yet been turned over to the penitentiaries service.



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF JOINT RESTAURANT COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the house leader because of certain discontent in relation to the operation of the restaurant and other facilities of that type. Can the house leader inform the house when the restaurant committee is to be established?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell when that committee will be established, but a notice has been prepared and has gone forward today to be placed on the order paper.



EXPO '67 REPORTED WITHDRAWAL OF PARTICIPATION BY IRELAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Regimbal (Argenteuil-Deux-
Montagnes): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There were several radio
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
reports in Montreal during the past week end to the effect that Ireland had withdrawn its application to participate in Expo '67 because of the fact that some $1| million worth of sweepstake tickets had been seized by the R.C.M.P. in recent weeks. My question is, has Ireland actually withdrawn its application to participate in Expo '67?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question be placed on the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Solicitor General a question. A few weeks ago the minister in reply to a question said he would announce the policy of the government regarding parole prior to the vote on capital punishment. Can the minister tell the house when we may expect his announcement on this important matter?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I used the exact words quoted by the hon. member. I believe I said that the question he raised would be met during the course of the debate. However, I will take his question as notice now.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government yet reached a decision as to what air line will be permitted to fly the route between Toronto and Los Angeles?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May we assume that it will be Air Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can make any assumptions he likes. The government will make the decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government or the minister?


An hon. Member:: Liberal arrogance.
DEBATES	1589
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It was intended to be supplementary to one already asked but Your Honour could not hear me a few questions ago. In view of the amazing statement the minister made a short while ago, that the government makes the decisions as to air routes, will the minister see about changing the DC-9 air routes so they stop in Regina and Saskatoon-


An hon. Member:: And Halifax.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: -and Halifax, as my hon. friend has said, since the minister apparently has this power?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the government has the responsibility given to it by parliament for deciding which route will be assigned to an air line, but it does not have the responsibility for deciding what kind of equipment the air line will use. That is a matter for the management of the air line.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of that answer, and since apparently no decision will be made about the DC-9's at this time, would the minister consider allowing the C.P.R., or rather Canadian Pacific Airlines to fly these routes as well as Air Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the C.P.R. will be glad to learn it has one friend in the
house.


An hon. Member:: The question was about C.P.A.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneli (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, after that last reply I shall not address a question to the Minister of Transport but will try the Minister of Fisheries. I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he can give the house any report upon the proceedings of the North Pacific fur seal commission, which is meeting at the present time in Ottawa.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisier of Fisheries):: This meeting started yesterday, Mr. Speaker. It is much too early for me to give a report. The meeting will proceed practically all week.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether it is the intention of the
February 22, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry government to take advantage of the presence in Canada of representatives of Japan, the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.S.A.-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I mean the U.S.A. Is it the
intention of the government to take advantage of the presence in Canada of these representatives to explore the possibility of extending this four power treaty arrangement to other areas of the Pacific fisheries?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary, to the Minister of Fisheries. I am wondering whether the minister has received a brief from the fisheries delegation here and whether he has now studied it. I understand he is meeting them later tonight.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received a brief and I will have a meeting with the delegates between five and six o'clock this evening.


David Vaughan Pugh: Has the minister already studied the brief? This is very important.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, I have been studying the brief for some time as I received a letter from the secretary of the group advising me of the points that would be raised this evening.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as nearly all the subject matters in that brief have been pending for the last two years, I wonder whether the Minister of Fisheries would mind referring the matter to the decisive Minister of Transport so that we may get some decisions.



JUDGES ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, after the correction made by the hon. member for Timiskaming I have a nonshocking question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received a request from the Attorney General of Nova Scotia to proclaim amendments to the Judges Act, and if so what action is being taken?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this question is on the order paper, and it will be answered in due course.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the blame placed on him by the Minister of National Defence with regard to supplying weather information at Rankin Inlet last December?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the Treasury Board, for total commitments of $2,560,546,715 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,044,262,000 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $5,204,855.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion to the government house leader in view of the fact that the Minister of National Defence is not present for the consideration of his estimates this afternoon? I realize that he is expected to return but it is doubtful when he will arrive. May I suggest that the government consider standing the estimates of the Department of National Defence temporarily and perhaps we could go on with the Department of Justice. I know that the Prime Minister has been waiting to make the statement he promised to the house on the Spencer case. If this course were followed he might be released to attend to other pressing duties. Could we have agreement on that suggestion?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, we had expected the Minister of National Defence to be here by now. His plane must have been delayed.


Mr. Fairweather:: It must be one of those F-5's.


George James McIlraith: The Minister of Justice is here and if this is the wish of the committee
February 22, 1966

we are content. I am told that the Minister of National Defence is just arriving and I should like to check on that. Perhaps we could proceed for a few minutes.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to speak for very long, but I intend to take up the case of the volunteer militiaman and the local armouries. In the past these armouries have been training centres for the militia. Many of the militia units have been disbanded and the armouries have been closed. For example, the armouries in Nap-anee and Picton have been closed and are up for sale.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. The Chair has some difficulty in hearing what the hon. member is saying. Hon. members on both sides of the house should refrain from loud conversation and conduct their conversation in undertones.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, many of these armouries which have been the headquarters for our volunteer militiamen in the past are being closed. Ever since confederation this country has depended on volunteers for defence. The policy of this government has been to adopt something untried, something I do not believe will serve us well in the future.
Since the minister adopted the policy of tearing down these local armouries he has built an elaborate, multi-million dollar armoury in Toronto. He would, of course, close and tear down the armouries in Picton and Napanee. I wonder what the reason for this is. The Prime Minister can go to Vancouver and very suddenly announce that he will give $2 million for a rink in that city. However, he has done nothing for the volunteer militia in the small towns of Ontario.
In perusing the minister's speech last night I noticed, and I want to bring this to the attention of all hon. members, that he did not say one word about the volunteer soldier, nor did he say one word about the volunteer units which have always been a part of the defence of this country. It seems to me ironic that in this very building, a part of which is dedicated to remembrance of those volunteers who have fallen in the defence of this country, and indeed within the shadows of those stones which are solemn to their memory we should be obliged to speak in defence of the principles for which these men stood and the facilities that made their service possible. We should recall that it was the local armoury that made the service of these volunteers

Supply-National Defence possible. I believe it is as accurate a statement now as it has been for many years past that Canada's defence is based on the hypotheses of a small but intensively trained regular army to act as an instructional cadre for citizen soldiers forming a well trained and competent militia which can be brought quickly to full strength and training in time of war.
Modern weapons and their technology have complicated the soldier's equipment and his drill. Surely, however, the will and the skill to defend is still the most important defence and deterrent this nation possesses. How can we foster these talents without a continuous emphasis upon proper training of our youth within the various localities as a healthy and normal activity in conjunction with home and school? Surely we all agree that for many years past the local militia units and the armouries in which they have trained have stood for that will and that skill. Indeed, they have been the only means of implementing the nation's determination to act when faced with the hard shock of war.
In my own constituency the two militia units at Picton and Napanee have been disbanded and if I interpret the signs correctly the armouries are to be disposed of. In all likelihood these worthy buildings will be torn down. Is it true that these local units and their quarters are simply to disappear? It is well recognized and no one is going to take issue with the fact that militia reorganization is necessary from time to time. Some units must merge with others and their members must change from one corps to another and be assigned to other tasks. There would be no serious disruption if this were the case.
What has caused the storm of protest is the fact that not only have the units been disbanded but their armouries are to go as well. I have received 150 letters protesting this policy. I wonder whether the full implication of this policy is understood by everyone here? I wonder whether they really can appreciate what this means to small communities where communal activity of many kinds as well as military activity is centred around these historic buildings?
In the cities where a number of military formations exist, each with a headquarters, an armoury might be removed without greatly disturbing the overall efficiency of the unit. In a small, largely rural community like ours it is a disaster of no small consequence when these facilities are removed. We should remember that the rural communities con-
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence tributed the greatest number of volunteer militiamen per capita in this country. People should fully realize that, no matter what conditions may exist or for what reason the decision is made, if an armoury is destroyed the military training associated with it and all that it means is forever destroyed in that community. It is a dead issue and cannot be revived. The minister never knows-no minister can know-the day upon which he may feel obliged to call for volunteer service in rural areas as well as urban areas throughout the country.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The most serious aspect of this matter is the fact that the tradition of voluntary military service vanishes with the discontinuance of the armouries. Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, the voluntary participation by our young men in military service, the chief characteristic of Canadian defence, starts first in the armouries across the land. I would ask the minister where he would have these young men drill. On the market square? If voluntary participation does not commence when these boys are at school, then volunteers will not be available the day war is declared.
Coming back then to the young men now engaged in militia training I ask, what of their disposition if the present plans are carried out? On my last visit as a spectator on training night at the Napanee armoury I counted a total of 34 men of all ranks on parade on the drill floor. I have made some independent inquiries in several centres, regarding the number who turn out for training and I find that the figure I have quoted represents an exceptionally good turnout and indicates a healthy activity. Obviously this is not a unit existing only on paper. It is not a unit which can reasonably be discontinued and crossed off the list as is the case with many units in cities which, as we know, exist on paper only. This is a group of young men who have volunteered for military training, the youth that we are talking about and on whom Canada depends in the extremity of wartime need.
By what means did the Department of National Defence measure an effective unit when it decided to obliterate the unit I have described and to decline the service of these young men? What it amounts to, Mr. Chairman, is nothing less than an insult to these volunteer militiamen.
What makes their position even more critical is the fact that as soldiers in uniform they cannot make representations on their own

behalf, as can individuals employed in a civilian capacity. These young men are soldiers and they must quietly accept any disposition made of them by a higher authority. Furthermore, many of them are quite young and the full implication of this action has probably not struck them yet and perhaps never will. All they know is that they like military training, and they are at an age when they can best receive and assimilate it. They are also acting in the tradition of their fathers and their grandfathers.
Let me tell you this, Mr. Chairman, with every moral certainty that it is the truth: Now is the time that these young men can best be moulded and directed. If you decline their service now you may never have them again except at disastrous cost, a cost too great for Canada to afford.
I have no way of knowing how many men have passed through the armouries I have mentioned both in peace and in war, but I do know that the number must be staggeringly large. I know that a respectable number of militiamen were under training in Napanee and Picton. I also know that in the past five years 100 youths have successfully completed the summer recruits training course in both these towns. I only wish we might all find as much enjoyment and enthusiasm in our work as my brief observation of these boys indicated to me that they have in theirs. If I can make any plea at all for these young men and for the young men who will follow them year by year, I will consider it a privilege to do so.
What possible invention could ever fill the need for men if our armouries are dispensed with? The answer is that nothing can replace them. As I asked the minister before, where are these young men going to train in case of necessity? On the market square or outside the town in a field?
Overcrowded schools and overburdened teachers have led to a rapid and dismaying decline in cadet training in our schools and with conditions as they are it is hardly likely that cadet training will reappear in any strength. Even at its best it was too brief and superficial to be of lasting use or interest. Therefore this lends strength to the case for volunteer training of adults past student and cadet age as soldiers. No, Mr. Chairman, there is no alternative to local militia training in a properly equipped and regulated local armoury. History has shown us that Canadian fighting men trained by this system have been the saviours of Canada.
February 22. 1966	COMMONS
I would remind the minister that it is the militia which fights the wars. The professional soldier trains the militiaman and it is he who fights the wars. The role of the permanent force is to train these militiamen. On behalf of the people of Prince Edward-Lennox, on behalf of the youths who are voluntarily training and their parents who know the worth of this training in ensuring the development of alert, strong young men and women with high morals and character, I strongly protest the nefarious and negative policy of the minister and his department of abandoning these volunteer units and closing and disposing of the venerable buildings in which these young people have trained.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate again in the discussion in committee but as I was not able to be here last evening I read with some interest the remarks made by the minister in which he purported to answer some of the questions asked during the course of the debate. It seems to me that he answered all the easy and superficial questions but completely ignored the more serious questions which were asked. I am going to ask him some of these questions once more in the hope that somehow he may be roused from the generalities in which he indulges so easily and persuaded to tell this committee some of the facts about what is being done by his department.
I asked him before and I ask him again, what force goals did Canada commit itself to in the recent discussions of the NATO council? Did these force goals involve the continued maintenance of the brigade group in the forward lines of NATO? Did the force goals to which we are committed involve the continuance of our obligation to maintain our strike reconnaissance force and, if so, for how long, one year or longer? Did the minister or any representative of Canada at any time during these discussions question the continued reliance of the NATO forces on a tactical nuclear response to any trouble which may emerge in Europe? Was there any discussion or suggestion on the part of Canada with regard to withdrawing our brigade group into a mobile reserve, a proposal made, I remind the minister, by the military commanders of NATO as long ago as 1960? Was this a part of these discussions or was it ignored?
Were any proposals made to end our reliance upon the tactical nuclear air strike forces in Europe and to substitute some other less vulnerable strike reconnaissance force? I
DEBATES	1593
Supply-National Defence appreciate the fact that the minister has told us in the White Paper that he proposes to phase Canada out of these operations or to see to it that we do not get involved in them again. Was there any question about the substitution of a less vulnerable response to deal with such a situation?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In short, Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to tell the committee frankly whether he or his government have done anything at all to carry out the pledge made by the Prime Minister before the election of 1963, or perhaps it was 1962, that Canada would negotiate out of the tactical nuclear role. Has any single step by way of notice, by way of discussion, by way of proposal in the NATO council to our NATO allies, been made to redeem this pledge? Or is it the fact that we are continuing precisely in the same roles that existed before this government took office? I suggest that instead of indulging in generalities such as, "We are in favour of a viable force," the minister should answer a few of the questions that have been asked him. When he says that at the NATO council we have realistic and attainable goals I hope that is correct. I hope they are realistic and attainable and, further, I hope it is not necessary to discuss that. But why must he tell us that "We are in favour of this" or "We are in favour of that" and other such meaningless generalities?
I suggest that if the house is to have any real knowledge or any real discussion as to where our defence policy is going members of the house require answers to questions that have been asked instead of being given the generalities that have been handed out. This is not the place for press releases.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The House of Commons is the place for facts. Let us hear from the minister in regard to these matters.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, after reading what the hon. gentleman said there is one observation I might make. It is that I do not think he has recently read the white paper and therefore does not know what we are doing by way of policy in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that relieve you?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In so far as the specifics just raised are concerned, the agreement at the moment is that the country's annual return to the NATO inquiries will be the force goals, for this year. That is the situation. There are
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence no commitments beyond that. In other words, at this moment there is no firm, hard commitment beyond the end of the year, although there are the realities of (a) requirements, (b) the equipments that we have and, (c) the deployment of those equipments and the training that has gone into them. To be more precise, this means that for this year the brigade remains in the forward position in the same role that it has had in the past few years and that the air division, including its headquarters, for this year remains in precisely the same role and precisely the same locations that it now has.
Further discussions by the council of ministers this year, which plans to meet at least two or three times because of the programs of inquiry that are necessary to consider what is best for future years, will include the question of the goals and what the Canadian contribution toward these goals will be for 1967 and for subsequent years.


Francis Andrew Brewin: With all due respect I still do not understand. That is not clear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, last night the house was treated to a spectacle. It was a performance by a minister such as I have never before seen in this house. It was a cheap, tawdry affair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was quite unworthy of a minister of the crown.


Mr. Winkler:: It was a real press show.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The prepared speech, prepared in part perhaps by the minister, was, it seems to me, prepared merely to furbish the image that has been created at great effort and great expense of a boy wonder, of a sort of miracle man who is of clear eye and tight of rein at the helm of a new technique of defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Have you read the speech?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have only read parts of it. I have read those "flack" pieces that one sees in various publications in this country and abroad.
We heard a speech and, if it was not full of invective, full of boastfulness and little else, I do not know what it was full of. Frankly the house was expecting some hard facts and answers to very important questions. After all, the minister acknowledged that his department's estimates and his policies have not been discussed since 1964. Many important

decisions have been taken in the interval. When we wish to examine them what do we get? We get a snide, scurrilous attack on the hon. member for Calgary North, a predecessor in office to the Minister of National Defence. I shall also refer generally to other ministers of defence almost all of whom were ministers of the Liberal party and to whose knees the present minister could not even aspire to come when one considers the decisions and contributions to this country made by those predecessors.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When the Minister of National Defence talks about rubberstamp ministers, does he refer to the Hon. Brooke Claxton? There has been a whole succession of ministers and surely he does not refer to them all as rubberstamps. I refer to Hon. Ralph Campney, Hon. George Pearkes-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are misquoting.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and the hon. member for Calgary North. Were they all rubberstamps?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are misquoting.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What does the minister mean by that statement? Does he mean that the advisers to the Minister of National Defence have been so dominant that ministers have been subservient to them? That is the only interpretation I can get from the use of the word "rubberstamp". Does he mean that a minister's own advisers in the department have made recommendations and that the minister has supinely brought them before cabinet, the members of which then concurred? We are told that there was indecision, ineptitude and stupidity. Is this the way the minister thinks of those with whom he was first associated as parliamentary assistant?
I will mention some names. Was he referring to men like Air Marshal Slemon? After all, we know that Air Marshal Slemon was one of the chief advocates of the CF-104 and the Bomarc. Was this one of the stupid decisions? What about Air Marshal Campbell? Was he another one who was ineptly stupid? What about Air Marshal Dunlap who is now the Canadian representative at Colorado Springs? What about Lieutenant General Graham? What about Lieutenant General Charles Foulkes? What about Lieutenant General Walsh? What about Vice-Admiral deWolfe, and Vice-Admiral Rayner? Among these I have cited a number
February 22, 1966

of men who have retired. What about the man who is presently chief of the defence forces, Air Chief Marshal Miller?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
He was first a deputy minister and a most respected and trusted adviser. He then became chairman of the chiefs of staff committee. Again, he was a most senior adviser to the minister and to the government. Now he is the chief of the defence forces. When the minister says his predecessors were rub-berstamps he indicates that these men whom I named dominated their ministers.
Then we come to this beautiful phrase written by somebody who had more invective in his soul than sense. I am reading from page 1567, quoting the minister as reported at the foot of the page, the second column:
-in 1961 and 1962 when that hon. member was Minister of National Defence and when his government's defence policy was known only for its procrastination, indecision, ineptness and downright stupidity.
These were the men who were advising the government of that day. These were the men for whom the ministers were supposed to be rubberstamps. Now we have a bold, new approach. This minister is not going to be a rubberstamp. Does he mean then that he is rejecting the advice of these senior advisers, some of whom are still the minister's military advisers? If senior military advisers give advice which is concurred in by a minister and the minister can then be described as a rubberstamp, what does that make these men today when the present minister says: "I am not going to be a rubber stamp"? One might almost be tempted to say that the gold braid is about to adorn the corporal's stripes.
This speech, to me, was wrong. Certainly one can hit hard; one can criticize. But the hon. member for Calgary North, the former defence minister, did not indulge in personalities with regard to the present minister although the temptation must have been great. While I may be conducting a direct attack here I do so in defence of a well established practice, crying out against this form of attack.
The minister was living up to form when he was over here on this side of the house and was defence critic. We saw some ineptness then. There was that famous speech of his in 1960 or 1961 which was given to the press-a bold new defence policy. The speech was never delivered but it appeared in the press. This was the sort of non-stupidity to which we were to become accustomed.

Supply-National Defence
I want to give one example of the so-called bold decision-making by this minister who charges others with indecision. It relates directly to the CF-5 aircraft. Late last fall and in the early winter kites were being flown to test opinion with regard to this new aircraft which was to be purchased. The minister visited the R.C.A.F. Association in Edmonton late in February and of course he was invited to speak. He told them about this great new plane which was to be bought. A decision, he said, was to be taken within the next few days. As a matter of fact, it was to be taken early in March.
I asked the minister about this when he came back. He said "Yes, we are going to take a decision soon, within the next few days". After some time had passed I asked the same question again. Again the reply was, "Soon". When was the decision made' Some time after parliament had been dissolved, in September when there was no chance to examine the decision. We know it was not so much the political advantage to be gained by announcing this purchase after parliament had been dissolved which motivated the minister and the government; it was the fact that they could not make up their minds about this aircraft.
Delay may be legitimate. This is a major step to take. There are many factors to be considered. But surely to goodness the minister also knows that on other occasions too there are many factors to be considered. I recall hearing in this house his extravagant phrases when he was in opposition. That is why I wish to nail down this speech of his for precisely what it is worth.
Why would we get such things as this in a newspaper report by some reporter who has not been present in the press gallery for any length of time? How did he get this copy in time to write this article for an early edition of the Globe and Mail? I wonder.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Explain that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is the opening paragraph:
Defence Minister Hellyer turned on his critics last night and slapped them all round the ring.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When it comes to slapping critics around the ring the minister is indulging in a little toy game with toy soldiers. That is all. We have listened to a lot of the criticisms made by the minister in the past. "Slapping critics around the ring?" In this house? This minister?
1596	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence
We still want to get the answers and I suggest to the minister that it is far better for him to give them if he anticipates getting his estimates through. This is the sort of thing the minister wanted when he was sitting over here in the past. I did not question his motives when he wanted information then. Ultimately he got it. The hon. gentleman could be a little obstinate, a little difficult. That is why we are being a little difficult at the present time. We want this information. The minister is asking parliament to commit itself to a vast program of expenditure, a completely new program so far as the CF-5 is concerned and a completely new program so far as the destroyer escorts are concerned. As the hon. member for Greenwood said, we want an explanation. We do not want these glorious generalities.
Let the minister tell us what is in his mind with regard to all these matters. We are entitled to this information. The government's defence program must be assessed on the basis of the reasons, the rationale, advanced. He makes statements about the navy which none of us are prepared to accept merely on the strength of his say-so. Already he has obscured a number of factors. He has obscured the requirements of SACLANT. All these matters have been raised and the best course for the minister to follow is, I suggest, to take these questions seriously and give factual answers. Had he done so earlier we would have been through with this discussion a long time ago. I would have thought the minister had been around parliament long enough to know that the type of speech he made last night is not one calculated to get his estimates through with dispatch. He should know that, or is this part of the new boy-wonder conduct?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am going to yield the floor to the minister to give him an opportunity to answer now about the mobile command. Let him give us the rationale for the CF-5 and not just simply say it is a cheap aircraft that might land on certain length runways. That may be the case but we have not seen it yet. There are some modifications to be made. It will not take to the air until next year. It will be quite some time before it comes into use.
We want to know the reason for the change to tactical air support for our ground forces. Why does this make our forces more mobile?
It may add another arm to their effectiveness but we want to be able to judge that on the

DEBATES	February 22, 1966
basis of the information and the reasons advanced by the minister.
We also want to know a great deal more about our performance so far as SACLANT is concerned and also about the reorganization of the Maritime command. A great deal of credit is claimed for the fact that this is all going to be under one man. Let the minister explain the reasons that he feels this should be so and not just give a mere statement that such steps are going to solve all our problems. On that basis I now invite the minister to give us the answers and then we can get on with his estimates.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: No nonsense, now. Get down to earth.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Always. On item No. 1 it is quite appropriate to discuss general matters of policy and philosophy so far as defence is concerned and I am quite prepared to do that. But when it comes to matters of detail I think we should pass on to item 15 when I can have the officials before me and answer any specific questions hon. members would like to ask. The philosophy behind the mobile force is very simple. It is out in the white paper-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I really believe hon. gentlemen should reread it because there is a lot of good information in it that is just as valid today as when it was written. The philosophy is that in the world of today the likelihood of limited conflagrations, riots, insurrections, small wars and the overthrow of civil governments will continue as has been the case for the last 20 years. These things can occur in any part of the world and from time to time it might be in the real interests of this country to send a force of some kind or to participate in either a United Nations force, a Commonwealth force or together with any other group of nations with like interests. Therefore it is the capability to do this, to have forces which are air portable, with equipment not just to training scale but to a scale for fighting if required, which we are planning.
Probably of equal importance to the equipment that such forces must have is the strategic mobility to get them to their destinations, both sea and air mobility, air mobility to transport a force or what part of it is required in the shortest possible time and then sea mobility to bring such heavy equipment and support as may be required if the
February 22, 1966

particular operation or mission is of an extended nature.
This is the philosophy of mobile command and it is being organized in such a way that a single commander will have the responsibility for the whole mission, for the training of the group, for exercising them in different component blocks, for having with them the support elements which may be required to be extracted from time to time and made available for United Nations operations, for training them in such a way that they are ready to respond with the least delay, for having a ready force which is always available to go anywhere in a matter of hours' notice, a company at least with an almost instantaneous reaction time, a battalion with a very short reaction time and then an air portable brigade with a very fast reaction time.
This is the philosophy and this is the reason the force is being mobilized in this way. This is the reason that the force is being equipped because if we are going to maintain an army on the scale which I think is right under present circumstances, we believe that having learned the lessons of pre-world war I and pre-world war II it is right and correct to maintain a force in being of this modest size. And if it is worth keeping, if it is worth paying the cost of maintaining it, then certainly it is worth providing the equipment. Then, having done that, it is not effective at all unless it is possible in this modern world to take it where it is required and when it is required within a reasonable time frame.
This is not easy. My hon. friend was quite right when he said last night that this is not yet accomplished. No one claims it is accomplished. It has just been organized and now it is starting out on its task. When the Standing Committee on Defence meets I shall be glad to bring before it the officers who were responsible for evolving this particular organization who will explain in detail the units of which it will be composed, the reaction time which we hope to achieve, the equipments that are needed in order to make it effective, the whole concept of mobility, how these forces will be working together under one command and at the same time from which one can extract any block or unit which is required to meet special circumstances.
So far as my hon. friend's question about the tactical air force is concerned this is, as he suggested, an addition. This is another arm. This is extra firepower. This is more effectiveness because these airplanes can do things artillery cannot do. It is to round out

Supply-National Defence the force and give it greater capability to operate under the various environments that we envisage. It does not increase its mobility. The object of the exercise, and this is all we intend to meet, is that the air arm will have as good and probably better mobility than the ground force it will support. That is all that is required for the concept we have in mind. We will be able to move the ground elements and the air support simultaneously so that they are ready to go into action in either peace keeping work or a limited engagement.
There is no guarantee for all time that it will not be necessary for our defence forces to engage in some limited emergency. If that is a possibility, even a remote possibility- my hon. friend will remember it has happened several times in the last half century-then the object of the exercise is to learn from the mistakes of the past.
Last night my hon. friend was interjecting things about Hong Kong and he also mentioned Sam Hughes. He might have mentioned the problem of the Ross rifle, the problem of training soldiers with broomsticks and a lot of other things which one can recall to mind.


Erik Nielsen: Like horses on the payroll.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, horses on the payroll. That is right. There are a lot of things that could be recalled to mind, but surely there are some things that ought to be learned from the lessons of history. If my hon. friends opposite think they are the wrong lessons from history, then let them tell us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you answer a question, Mr. Minister?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Of course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Did you observe the fact that last night I pointed out that in 1954, which is a long time ago, I outlined the mobility required for a brigade in Europe? It is not a new idea on your part at all and yet you have not fulfilled that obligation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I want to make it very clear that I do not claim credit for the idea.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry, I thought you did. I beg your pardon.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not claim credit for the idea of tactical mobility and flexibility. I do not even claim credit for the idea of integration and unification or any of these things. Some of these ideas are 20 or 30 years old.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This humility is refreshing.
1598	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: But I do say that we might claim some credit for getting on with the job of accomplishing some of these things and in this area I think our record has been pretty good. The idea of integration of armed forces is 20 or 30 years old but only now for the first time is somebody seriously embarking on it. My hon. friend had a chance when he was minister-
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Would the minister permit a question in respect of unification? Would he answer the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre last night. What does he mean by unification? Does he mean one force, one uniform? Would he explain this more fully?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Unification means one force. I think this is understood.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One uniform too?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think my hon. friend will agree there can never be one uniform that would cover all situations.


Mr. MacEwan:: The kilt?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I could envisage no force without a kilt and I know my hon. friend would agree. I am quite happy to have the opportunity to answer hon. members' questions but, I would suggest that we might pass item one and get on with item 15.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why did you not come to the house in time today? Why were you in Toronto?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There was the press release.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the house will have viewed with pleasure the change in attitude of the minister since last night. I have known the minister over the years. I have heard him make statements of various varieties but I doubt that at any time any minister has done a more thorough job of casting doubt on his administration than he did last night by the arrogance and insolence of some of his statements and by his aspersions on those who had served as successive ministers of defence, coupled with ridicule and contemptuous utterances. I cannot imagine anyone, no matter how much he might disagree, casting specious and contemptuous aspersions against ministers like General George R. Pearkes, V.C., C.B., D.S.O., M.C. Yet that minister, as well as some of his successors, was mentioned. Mention was made

DEBATES	February 22, 1966
of Hon. Brooke Claxton, D.C.M. These ministers were rubberstamps; these ministers had no backbone; they had no appreciation of the needs. When one sets himself apart in that way as belonging to that select group who are certain that whatever viewpoint they hold is the right one, naturally a review of some of the statements made in the past by the hon. gentleman would not be remiss, because he was just as certain then as he is now.
The minister's attitude last night as I read Hansard, and I was not privileged to be here last evening, was that he would answer when he got to the standing committee. Mr. Chairman, he is going to answer here and now the questions of importance. If he has any idea of anything to the contrary, he will learn differently. His attitude toward this house and the committee was one of supercilious contempt. Today he has started to answer questions. If he follows that course, we at least will know what he stands for. His extramurally prepared document of last evening was not such as will commend itself to him, I am sure, in the years ahead. It certainly will not win the approbation of this house. Members endeavouring to obtain information were met by an attitude of pompous bluster. What does the minister say?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is in the script.


John George Diefenbaker: Any time the minister wishes to interrupt I hope he will let me hear the interjection because I do not want to miss any of his words. I do not want to read his words in Hansard and not have the opportunity to answer.
I should like to deal with a situation at the moment which will commend itself to the Associate Minister of National Defence. It has to do with a serious situation in the area surrounding Valcartier. There is a village there by the name of Shannon which has been in existence for 100 years. The Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph and various people in this area have been in touch with me. I very seldom quote an editorial but I am going to quote this one in the issue of February 17:
Some 100 residents of Shannon face the prospect of being dispersed to the four winds. This is a fact about which little has been said either here or in Ottawa. . . . Their land was needed for enlarging Camp Valcartier, they were told. About 25 families have been told their land is due for expropriation . . .
Shannon's residents do not doubt they will be paid compensation. What they object to is being pushed around. They cannot understand why an army in peacetime, has to dispossess people in order to provide more room for itself. If this were a
February 22, 1966

small country with space at a premium, such a procedure would perhaps be normal. But there's a lot of land in this country. Camp Valcartier could be extended in some other direction without having to disturb the lives of so many.
To Ottawa, the whole business becomes an impersonal operation. Leo Cadieux, associate minister of defence, even allows himself a grim little joke; he refers to the 10,000 acres of Shannon land that his government is planning to expropriate as the Shannon Corridor which the army must take.
This is not a joking matter. This is an attitude toward Canadians which cannot be justified. They have been living there for generations. Why are they to be shoved out finally?
The future is very dim for the 100 or so persons facing eviction. Many of them are too old to begin learning a trade. Others know nothing but farming. It is highly unlikely they will ever be able to buy enough land to settle down again as a community.
. . . . Shannon is not just a matter of dollars and cents as the letters from Ottawa suggest. It is a human problem. The federal government is trying to work its Operation Shannon Corridor by remote control .... Surely, somebody at Ottawa, must care.
I ask the government to look into this further. There can be no justification for an Irish dispersal of this kind. There are other portions of Valcartier which could be used for the same purpose.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Surely those who opened up this country, the pioneers who have been there for generations and whose ancestors came even before the potato famine, are entitled to be treated in a way that has not been accorded them. I ask this government and particularly the associate minister not to make grim jokes about their situation by referring to it as the "Shannon corridor". These are human beings, they are Canadians and I hope this government will have some recognition of the inhumanity-of the "inhumanity" I repeat-that is inherent in a mass evacuation from an area when there is land available on either side which is not settled. I will say no more than that, but I am going to come back to the subject again tomorrow to find out from the minister what is going to be done for these voiceless Canadians. They suffer the indignity of a community being shoved and pushed about with no regard paid except a reference that can only be interpreted as not being in keeping with the seriousness of the matter. I want to deal with certain things now because the minister saw fit last night to give us what might be called in official language a tour d'horizon. He covered everything; he went back over nuclear weapons and Bomarcs and spoke as one who

Supply

National Defence had always been blessed with that superior wisdom voiced by him last evening.
What did these former ministers know and who are these people? Mounted on his steed of knowledge, their problems are nothing to him. Let us look over the situation. There was petulance in his words and obvious contempt in his attitude. What has his record been. I am not going back to the time in 1960 when the house had the added advantage of being able to read his speech while he delivered it because he had turned it over to the press in advance, but at that time the minister did not get all that he thought he would get. He read his speech, and I remember how impressed we were with the emphasis on applause and one thing and another described in the account. It was tremendous, and the minister admits it, because never before had he ever received so much applause as he received then.
The minister went into a lot of detail last evening about the past but everything has changed now. Everything is "B.H.", before Hellyer, and "A.H.", after Hellyer. That was the story and I have read every line of his speech. I found it tremendously revealing. I would not say it was informative but it certainly was revealing as to the change of mind. Let us go back now and find out what he said with the same certainty in 1960 as he now reveals in 1966 but with a different amanuensis. This is more or less the prelude. On August 4, 1960, as recorded at page 7572 of Hansard the minister said:
If we believed for one moment that the Bomarcs provided any real protection, with or without nuclear warheads we would concur in their use, but we do not believe so.
You cannot get more authoritative words than those. He then said:
On the contrary, we think they are nothing but an added liability. We think they would put in jeopardy the survival of the people in the immediate area because they would in fact become one of the few priority targets in the country.
Six years ago they were targets, six years ago they were in danger areas. However, six years thereafter these missiles are in existence under the authority of this government.
I do not want to pick and choose but I want to keep the record straight in view of the fact that the minister has a mind with definite views. On September 13, 1961, the minister said, as found on page 8296 of Hansard:
A dozen Bomarc squadrons and a dozen squadrons of Voodoos would not begin to provide us with any protection.
1600	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence
Then he frightened everyone when he said:
As a matter of fact, the fall-out from these so-called defensive weapons alone, if they are equipped with nuclear warheads, would be sufficient to wreck tremendous havoc amongst our civilian population.
Was he speaking the truth then or was he merely talking? Let us carry on because we want to get the complete record. He said:
No, Mr. Chairman, we have no protection from these devices: we are as exposed as Babes in the Wood.
I remember him saying that and it was frightening. What a picture he created with all the certainty of his ideas as he presented them. Let us go on, because these are literary master-pieces. First he frightened us with fall-out and then he said they were no good; now he keeps them.
On September 15, 1961, as recorded at page 8431 of Hansard, he said:
It is our opinion, therefore, that it is not necessary to have two Bomarc squadrons, nor is it necessary to arm our defence squadrons with nuclear weapons.
At least then there was consistency, but suddenly he changed his mind. What did he say after three years of denunciation? On February 4, 1963, he said, as recorded at page 3429 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, as of this date, I have changed my mind.
What brought about that change, because there was a metamorphosis of that definite, knowledgeable mind? Let us read on because I know the minister is anxious to have the record of what others said about him after his change of view. I intend to place their views on the record.
Mr. Charles Lynch on July 14, 1965, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen, revealed what took place. He was referring at the time to the Heeney-Merchant doctrine that was enunciated, that Canada in relation to the United States should be seen and not heard. Certainly we have had some wonderful examples of that in connection with guide lines and the like in respect of which Canada did not speak out.
Dealing with the declaration of the former ambassador, Mr. Merchant, this is what Mr. Lynch said:
Mr. Merchant will claim that he had nothing up his sleeve and that he practised no sleight-of-hand on our Mr. Heeney. If Mr. Heeney's striped trousers are missing, Mr. Merchant will plead innocence. Just as he did when, years ago, he was secretly briefing members of the Ottawa press corps against the anti-nuclear-weapons policy of the then Diefen-baker government.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
DEBATES	February 22, 1966
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I wonder whether the minister was one of those students who received the inoculation that brought about the change of viewpoint and heart. I ask him to deny that and say he was not in touch with Mr. Merchant, the United States ambassador. He has every opportunity to deny it now but there will be no denial. Was he briefed on the manner in which to undermine the government because that government would not bow to the determination of another state?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Listen to this, Mr. Chairman:
Nobody who attended those basement sessions will ever forget his-
Mr. Merchant's.
-earnest logic and "good-sense" approach as he administered the hypodermic.
Certainly Mr. Lynch reveals that those who were of the elect were given instruction on how to answer the government of that day. And I have something more. There were meetings that took place in Ottawa in the offices of officials of the United States. At those meetings there was first the entertainment-they were given lunch and the like- and thereafter full instruction as to how to answer. That is why I gave the minister an opportunity earlier to deny that he had been in touch with Mr. Merchant.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: He wants to deny it now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -I should like to deny it. I had not heard of it until I read of the dialogue between Mr. Charles Lynch and the right hon. gentleman. That was the first I heard of it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not talking about the minister hearing dialogue; I am talking about his hearing what Mr. Merchant said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I deny that.


John George Diefenbaker: I am pointing out the fact that it is a singular circumstance that the minister turned a complete flop from one stand he had adopted for a period of years and suddenly changed just at the time the American ambassador was giving Canada the hypodermic treatment on Canada's policy. Let me pursue that matter, Mr. Chairman. What do some of the followers of the hon. gentleman say? I have before me a few quotations that are of interest. They reveal that this was
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
normal. I have before me the viewpoint expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. This also was "B.H.", before Hellyer. Let me read what he said, because he has been promoted:
For a long time, it has been clear-
I am reading from Cite Libre of April, 1963, and this is the translation:
For a long time, it has been clear that the U.S.A. did not like Mr. Diefenbaker. From the beginning, he had proposed to strengthen the ties with the Commonwealth and decrease those with the U.S.A.
. . . He had chosen an External Affairs minister who loved peace more than he loved the Americans. He was selling wheat to China . . . traded with Cuba . . .
Mr. Kennedy's hipsters could not tolerate this . . . The word was passed around, Diefenbaker must go.
These are not my words. These are the words of an hon. gentleman who today is in the shadow of the Prime Minister. I read on, Mr. Chairman, because these revelations are extremely interesting. They are honest revelations, because the hon. gentleman is just that. He said:
So it was easy for the Americans-
These are not my views; these are the views of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister of today:
So it was easy for the Americans to give a helping hand to defeat a government already wavering since the first day after the election.
The helping hand came from the Pentagon, and demanded that Mr. Pearson betray his party program-


Erik Nielsen: Sold out.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not utter those words. They were from a man who was brought in by this government. He is not the only one but I do not want to cover everything in one day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: But, Mr. Chairman, I do want the record to be clear so there will be no misunderstanding. He said:
The helping hand came from the Pentagon, and demanded that Mr. Pearson betray his party program, along with the idealism with which he was identified. Funds were plentiful.
I did not say that. We knew it but we needed corroboration:
Funds were plentiful.


Erik Nielsen: There is the reason.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a revealing thing, Mr. Chairman:
Gallup indicated that a pro-nuclear policy would not lose him the majority of electors. Power was within Mr. Pearson's reach-he had nothing to lose, except honour.
DEBATES	1601
Supply-National Defence
Mr. Chairman, those are the words of an acute observer. Then he ends by saying:
And he lost it-and his whole party lost it.
This is an amazing statement. Again, in the issue of April, 1963, we And these words:
Since I have observed politics, I do not remember ever having seen a more degrading spectacle than all those Liberals who became "turn-coats" with their Chief, when they saw a chance of regaining power... Once the leader had shown the way, the flock followed with the grace of animals headed for the feeding-trough.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: This is an amazing revelation but I do point out to some of the sycophants opposite that it indicates the way to power and position. I go on, Mr. Chairman, because there are others who made statements too. This is another one:
The events of the last month have at least one advantage.
This is again in April.
They allow us to observe very clearly the decline of Canadian political thinking.
The hon. gentleman was concerned with that too. He was one of those whose political thinking underwent that change that beggars description. Let us go on from there:
But what we have not realized is the degree of political decay we are headed for. So, Mr. Pearson and the Liberal party decided to show us; the most serious questions are only important to them in so far as the number of votes they will bring-


Mr. Monfeifh:: Typical.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the minister will explain that tremendous change in his thinking.
-and within that party there does not seem to be one man left for whom principles are more important than political power.
These are strong but honest words from an honest observer. Then he goes on to say:
The political philosophy of the Liberal party is simple: "Say anything, think anything; better still, think nothing, simply put us in power, for we can govern better".
This is an amazing revelation because it sets out what an honest observer concluded on the basis of things that have only been revealed in their entirety in consequence of statements that have recently been made. Then there is this:
I remember the federal Liberals of 1957. They were cynics who believed power was their right, and they had come within a hair's breadth of muzzling parliament. Six years in opposition should have had a purgatory effect on these Liberals, unfortunately the events of the last two months proved the contrary.
1602	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence There is a great deal more in these quotations, Mr. Chairman, to which reference can be made on another occasion. But it is an amazing statement. We have the benefit in the House of Commons of a pundit in our midst.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Chairman, would the right hon. Leader of the Opposition permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I seem to remember that some time in October the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, when he was asked about some of his straying ministers coming back to the fold, said to the press that the nuclear problem was no longer an issue at that time.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition why he is raising this issue now.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a perfectly good question, perfectly reasonable. He should have spoken to the minister who took this up last night. He took it up and he filled the record with a lot of stuff last night, so I am just clearing it up. I hope that the hon. gentleman will get in touch with the minister and just whisper in his ear quietly, because it must be done quietly, to take care where you lead us.
I go on from there because these new members certainly know their stuff. The hon. minister of manpower to be-he is not here now-


An hon. Member:: Yes, he is.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes; he also took part in this testimony. This is a report in he Devoir, and I am only going to give part of the quotation today because I want the hon. gentlemen to realize that these are just a few of the morsels that are available. What did this hon. gentleman say, because apparently the path of criticism leads to glory since the hon. gentleman has now become a minister? The article reads:
Mr. Marchand deplored the extreme weakness and chronic instability displayed by the central power when the country needs a strong government capable of having a suitable dialogue with provincial authorities.
The syndicate chief said that this weakness is taking on really disastrous proportions.
This statement was made last March. Certainly it is of interest to know his viewpoint. Then there is the hon. member for Hochelaga. I see he is not here. He is usually present so I shall reserve that quotation for another day. He dealt at length with this 
DEBATES	February 22. 1966
question. It is tremendously interesting, is it not, because none of these things would have come out if it had not been for the minister's decision last night to smear the opposition. All I am doing is getting the record clear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely no one will say anything to the contrary when I quote Liberal members of today, the reform group. I must make a reference to the hon. member for Hochelaga because he would object if he were not included. This statement was made in October, 1965, quite recently. This was a joint effort by the member for Hochelaga and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister:
Without being alarmists . . . the undersigned nevertheless believe that there is a certain urgency in Canada. If federal affairs continue at the rate they are now going since the last two years, within a short time the results would be harmful to Canadian political unity.
Who was in office when they wrote that? Then, in 1963 the hon. member who daily excoriates members of this house and who sits in solitary splendor as he contemplates the failings of democracy and writes about them, said on August 17:
Sam Lubell, political analyst, naively thought that once in power, a politician still owed a certain respect to logic and decency. He did not know Mr. Pearson; nor did he know us.
I have quite a number of further quotations and I will use them on the appropriate occasion, but I just wanted to lift the curtain a little so that the minister would know that when he attacked us last evening it made it possible to clear up the record, and not from the bps of those who sit in the opposition but those who are close to the powers that be.
After those few preliminary remarks I may say that I am going to reserve for later any attempt to deal with some of the matters to which the minister referred. I can just see him as he looked towards hon. members sitting in the opposition, whether within this opposition or those to the left, and said that morale was never higher in the armed forces. I say to the minister: If that be so, then why the letters that are received on every hand, why the fear in the hearts of people in the armed forces that unless they qualify to be kept they will be removed? The rules regarding removal are tremendously interesting.
I am going to ask the minister to table the rules and regulations that provide the basis for removing men and women from the armed forces. There is nothing in those rules that will do any harm to national security.
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
The members of the forces have had their hopes of having a career in the armed forces dimmed and frustrated because of the fear that, no matter how efficient they may become, the finger of the minister will be pointed to them and to their removal. They are frightened. On the one hand, the minister says that while we are not getting as many recruits as we did there are all kinds of explanations. When there was a suggestion that in order to bring back trained men and women fully able to carry out their responsibilities there should be some kind of bonus paid, the suggestion was ridiculed. Last September and October the minister ridiculed that suggestion, according to reports. Now he says he did not; he just gave an interview.
The Ottawa Journal of today seems to put the matter very well.
The $50 million to be spent in re-engagement bonuses in the armed service in two years will not solve the basic problem . . .
One common cause of discontent is the uncertainty caused by government policy. In the last 18 months servicemen have been encouraged to retire and paid grants to do so before their term of engagement expired. The total in the service has been cut about 15,000 in three years-and now there are not enough men, especially in categories of special skills.
Near the bottom of the article I read this:
The re-engagement bonuses will not be enough to hold many of the most thoughtful and valuable servicemen.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I pointed out that we have had no answer from the minister regarding some of the criticisms in the Auditor General's report respecting periods of service. We would like to know who these gentlemen were who enlisted at nine years of age. That just shows, Mr. Chairman, the appeal that the minister has. According to page 55 of the Auditor General's report, during the year six cases were singled out in which officers and men were released on pension.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure that the right hon. gentleman is not suggesting that I was minister when they enlisted.


John George Diefenbaker: No. But I ask the minister, does he seriously say that these people enlisted at the ages of nine and eleven? If he does, then there can only be one conclusion.


Erik Nielsen: Present the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; we are here to get information. The Auditor General's report says that these people had been credited with pensionable service dating in one case from
DEBATES	1603
Supply-National Defence the age of nine and in five other cases from the ages of 11 and 12. I want to know who these people are.
The report goes on:
File documentation in respect of the early service was fragmentary, statutory declarations being accepted.
Was it under this minister that these statutory declarations were accepted in order to increase the amount of pension? I ask him again who these people are. Did these matters come to his attention?


Gordon Minto Churchill: At least his Associate
Minister should know.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly. There is only one real minister now. The matter has come to his attention and there will certainly be no disagreement about that.
The report continues:
In response to an Audit Office query about the officer whose service began at age nine, departmental officers replied that while enlistment at this age was contrary to regulations, the officer had not been discharged as being under age and consequently they were satisfied that he had served.
I want to hear something about this man, Mr. Chairman. This is an officer we want to hear about. Even the honorary colonel of the Essex Scottish is interested in that. Who are these people? Speaking seriously now, what nonsense is this? This is a matter about which we want to know.


Erik Nielsen: Horses and children.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister, there being some retirements I do not understand, to give us a record of the number of officers in the three services who have been retired in the last three years and who received, first, $6,000 to $7,000 retirement allowance, second, $7,000 to $8,000 a year and, third, $8,000 to $10,000 a year. I want the names of those who were retired, their ranks and their ages.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When they enlisted.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think they come within this group of juveniles but I do want this information now instead of waiting for the defence committee to meet. The minister has brushed this off on other occasions; he has said: ''Wait till we get to the defence committee". We want this information now and I would ask the minister to procure it.
These are just a few matters about which we want to know, Mr. Chairman. How many motor cars are there in Ottawa which were used by the defence department during each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966 and
1604	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence who is it who uses them? Anyone living in this city knows that in the mornings cars flit here and there on unofficial business. We would like to have a record in this regard. The Canadian people want to know whether their defence dollar is bringing the greatest possible return. It is no wonder that the minister of manpower to be, said yesterday that he believes in a capital gains tax.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: If hon. gentlemen opposite can win over the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, then they will have two of this belief.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will win him over to this side first.


Mr. Crouse:: You have lost three already.


John George Diefenbaker: These are just a few matters about which I should like to know, as would the people, and I know the minister has the information available. Later we will get answers to these questions, and to other questions asked by hon. members which as yet have not been answered.
The hon. member for Greenwood pointed out with unusual clarity-I mean that; he is always clear but this time he made it pellucidly clear-that he wants information which all of us want. I would ask the minister to take off these cloaks and answer these questions. If there is one thing in military science that the hon. gentleman is qualified at, it is in creating a smokescreen to conceal facts. We want to remove that smokescreen and get the facts.


Mr. Laflamme:: Mr. Chairman, I will only say a few words at this time because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke a minute ago of the risks involved for the people of my riding affected by expropriations now under way for the expansion of Camp Valcartier.
I want to tell him that during the last election campaign, municipalities affected by the expropriations knew about this expansion project and supported me in a proportion of 9 to 1 as compared with the Conservative candidate.
There have never been any constituents without representation in the Quebec-Mont-morency riding, now or at any time, and the editorial writer of the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph has only to inquire of the mayors

DEBATES	February 22, 1966
of various municipalities who keep in constant touch with their representative to have their interests protected.
X merely wanted to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that, in my opinion, it is sheer play-acting and partisanship to refer to old churches when it is necessary to provide essential requirements to Camp Valcartier, an important military camp in the integration of our armed forces.


The Chairman:: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, before it carries I would have thought that the Minister of National Defence would answer some of the questions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he is preparing these answers, in which case I can throw in a few more questions so that he can answer all the questions at the same time.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I think the member for Greenwood posed the real question which is that this house ought to be able to assess Canada's role with respect to nuclear arms. Where are we going?
The Minister of National Defence in his reply said that he could not see beyond this year. In other words, he knows where we are going this year. From there on he has not projected his vision, he has not looked into the crystal ball, or he dare not tell this house what he sees for the future. I think the question of nuclear arms is very important and certainly this house and this country should know what our role is. Are we going to continue to have a nuclear force? Are we to continue to have a nuclear role in NATO?
In yesterday's Journal there was an article to the effect that President de Gaulle will order everybody out of France or take over the forces. Surely this is not news to the Minister of National Defence. He has known of this for some time because I know that the members of the armed forces in Europe have known of it for some time. What decision is the department making on this matter and where are we going with our defence policy? In the January 1965, edition of Canadian Aviation the minister had this to say on the second page about Canada continuing a nuclear role:
Speculation that the Canadian forces would continue to assume a nuclear role, despite the traditional Liberal government's opposition to this course, was heightened by Canada's support of the French position of maintaining an independent nuclear force. Questioned in the House of Commons, Defence Minister Paul Hellyer said government
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
policy as outlined in the 1964 White Paper would be maintained "until some announcement is made to the contrary."
I want to know about the words "until some announcement is made to the contrary". The minister said today that he is not prepared to make an announcement to the contrary but he knows that we are only going to continue in our present role for this year. What is to happen beyond then?
In another edition of Canadian Aviation magazine, August, 1965, there is an interesting statement with regard to Canada's nuclear role. In his speech last night the minister spoke at great length about Canada's defence force having become a flexible, mobile unit designed to participate in keeping world peace. His speech on Friday dealt with the fact that he sees Canada's participation as being in keeping world peace. He does not think there is the slightest danger that Canada will find itself at war. We are to participate in a mobile force to keep peace in the smaller countries throughout the world.
I refer to the article by John Gellner in the August, 1965, edition of Canadian Aviation where he writes about the suitability of Canada's role in defence.
Nobody really believes any more that a limited nuclear war is possible.
The question before the defence committee some time ago was whether limited nuclear war was possible. I am sure that all members of that committee came to the conclusion that it certainly was not possible.
If we had been convinced in the first place through the warnings of those who did not believe, we could have saved upward of one billion dollars for the nuclear weapons systems Canada has in her arsenal.
What a huge amount of money we could have saved the taxpayers as far back at least as 1963 or perhaps as far back as 1961 if we could have foreseen that a limited nuclear war was not possible and that Canada had no place in any other type of nuclear war. The article goes on to say:
The wars that have been fought since 1945, that are being fought now, in Viet Nam, on the Malay-sian-Indonesian borders, and in the Yemen, and that we have to be prepared to fight if we must, are conventional wars of all sizes and shades.
That certainly does not mean a nuclear war. If the minister is not prepared to answer this question now, I think it should be one of the initial questions that the Defence Committee should settle. I should like to have the minister tell the house now that this whole question of Canada's participation in a nuclear role of any description will be put on
DEBATES	1605
Supply-National Defence the doorstep of the defence committee and that he will say to the committee: This is your first problem.
Bring in the experts, call in whoever you like. Call in the military experts of any other country, but let us quit wasting money. Let us not waste again the $1 billion wasted in the past five or six years in the gathering together of the nuclear weapons systems that are in Canada's arsenal today. Surely we can decide this question rationally without further expenditure of the taxpayers' money.
I was interested last evening when the minister in his reply dealt with the CF-5. For a while he talked about the CF-5A and although he did not mention the CF-5M I gathered from his remarks that several modifications were to be made to that aircraft. The minister did not assure us that his cost estimate for the CF-5 would not escalate, as was the case with the Avro Arrow. I believe that in 1952 the Avro Arrow had a certain projected cost but I do not know the figure. However, that cost figure finally escalated into something like nine times the original estimate. The minister in his description of the CF-5 last night kept saying: "Well, with modifications and with the superenlarged engine it will require a shorter takeoff run," and so on. I was disturbed by those remarks. Can the minister assure the house that there will not be an escalation in the cost of this aircraft, if he is prepared and determined to buy it?
I noted with interest that in talking about the CF-5 last night the minister kept saying "I have been informed" or "I have been so advised". He was describing the aircraft which he is purchasing. The minister has been bargaining for this aircraft and is spending something like $250 million but what I am really wondering is, did he buy the aircraft or was he sold it? This is the whole question. I should like to think that he made some attempt to buy it. All the evidence that I can gather, however, points to the fact that he was sold it. This aircraft is not new. It was first on the drafting board in 1955, 11 years ago. In the final result the United States government turned it down. Whom are we to believe, as the Ottawa Journal points out? Are we to believe the minister and his experts or the members of other parties who have stepped into this debate and who have their own sources of information?
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence
As found in yesterday's Hansard, page 1566, the Minister of National Defence had this to say:
Mr. Chairman, experience with the F-5 in Viet Nam indicated that the Canadian CF-5 will be absolutely first class in the ground support role.
What are the facts about this airplane? Something like ten countries have bought it. They include the Philippines, Spain, Norway, Canada, and South Viet Nam. What was the actual result of the experiment in South Viet Nam? To answer that may I quote from the August, 1965, edition of Canadian Aviation, page 16:
The need became apparent for a supersonic aircraft that could operate from rough short fields, was undemanding in terms of manpower as well as of money, and was cheap to operate and maintain. This has revived hope for a U.S.A.F. order for the F-5.
The article continues:
It was reported last month-
That would be in July:
-that a special U.S.A.F. unit equipped with 18 of these aircraft is to be deployed in South Viet Nam this fall for combat evaluation. It is expected-
Here is the important point of this quotation:
-that an initial U.S.A.F. order for about 200 of the improved F-5's will result.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Now we know the facts. What happened? The minister could not wait for the evaluation of this test. He could not wait to get exact results. The article states they were in use in South Viet Nam as early as July. The minister, as nearly as I can gather, announced his decision to buy the planes on October 19, 1965. What action did the government of the United States take? Did they go ahead and buy 200 of the improved F-5s, as this article suggests, because the 18 planes which were in Viet Nam were so successful? No. The United States government on June 24 passed sentence. In President Johnson's message to Congress sentence was passed on the F-5. Did this alter the position of the Minister of National Defence? He could not wait until January before buying these planes. He could not wait until a proper evaluation had been undertaken.


An hon. Member:: He got a discount.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think he was sold a bill of goods by Northrop Aviation. How good is this plane and can Canada use it? That is the question. The minister dealt at great length last night with the refueling equipment possessed by this aircraft. He told us how the F-5 could be refueled in the air. I

suggest that this equipment had better be good and that we should be certain the plane can be refueled in the air because it has a combat range of only 300 miles according to the specifications set out in the August edition of Canadian Aviation. I would like to ask the minister to tell us how many times this plane has run out of gas and how many crashes have been caused because it could not get back to base and there was no other plane in the sky to refuel it. Surely before the minister plows ahead spending the taxpayers' money he should take a second look now that the United States has so coldly turned down this plane.
The article continues:
There are of course some disadvantages. For example, the limited range of the F-5 is only partly compensated by inflight refueling facilities.
Remember, this is an article very much in favour of this plane, an article intended to convince the public that this is the plane Canada should be buying. Even so it contains an admission that there are some drawbacks. After listening to the minister's explanation last evening I suppose we should all be thoroughly convinced that this is the perfect plane in every way.
The second question which the defence committee should study is the whole matter of the purchase of these planes at a cost of some $215 million. We do not even know whether this will be the final price because the minister spoke of many modifications which would be incorporated during the manufacture of this aircraft. At no time did he say the cost would not escalate.
I should like the minister to tell us before this estimate passes that the whole nuclear question, in addition to the purchase of the F-5, will be referred to the Committee on Defence. We have seen in this country on past occasions vast expenditures incurred for military equipment only to find that a year or two later the equipment had to be scrapped and that the money had been wasted. This is precisely what is pointed out in the article I have before me. It says:
The poeketbook of the longsuffering taxpayer who In the past has often shelled out money for military hardware of doubtful utility must be spared as much as possible when a modern weapons system is being purchased.
This is the whole basis of our argument with regard to this aircraft. This is why I say the minister should in fairness to himself and to the public allow the Defence Committee to study this question. The Defence Committee should call in experts from the United States
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
Air Force so they can explain why that plane did not suit them, why a plane which was not suitable for them in Viet Nam would nevertheless be suitable for the Canadian air force. The least the minister could do would be to refer these important questions to the Defence Committee which has been given such a high rating by many newspapermen as a body that is doing great work. If the committee were given these questions to consider it could, I am certain, do a lot of good for the Canadian taxpayer and perhaps in the long run for the defence of Canada as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Defence Services-
15. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment for the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force and $1,850,000 for grants to the town of Oromocto, $1,382,244,000.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 
Paul Theodore Hellyer: With respect to procurement for the navy some of the major equipment items involved the construction carried on of the Mackenzie class ships, the St. Laurent class conversions, the Restigouche class conversions, advance equipment for the refit of
H.M.C.S. Bonaventure, conventional submarines, some advance expenditures on the DDH destroyer helicopters, drawings and engineering testing, mechanical and engineering equipment, some small boats and miscellaneous.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With regard to aircraft there is $21 million listed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes. That is practically all for helicopters, the CHSS-2 which is being operated from the ships and which is part of the weapons system.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does this represent the
Voyageur or are the Voyageur and the Buffalo in the future?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This item does not include the Voyageur or the Buffalo.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I should like to ask the
minister a question arising out of extensive remarks he made regarding minesweeping, as recorded on pages 1562 and 1563 of yesterday's Hansard. I take it that what the minister was saying was that the minesweepers
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence which the navy possesses would be too costly to refit for modern minesweeping due to the new type of mines being developed. I also gather from what he said that a Pearl Harbour type of war outbreak is considered unlikely by the department. At least, he stated:
The probability of a conflict in which a potential enemy would mine Canadian coastal waters is extremely remote. Certainly a potential enemy would have to weigh the consequences of any such overt action and it seems very unlikely that he would risk all-out war through such an act.
One could debate that statement but all I wish to do is to ask whether there is any equipment available to the navy by which mines, if found, could be removed from coastal waters?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At the moment we do not have any minesweeping capability for the reasons I gave. It is true to say that conditions could arise where we might need minesweeping capability but the probability is extremely low. All of our expenditures and roles are chosen on the basis of probability. It is just like taking out insurance of any kind. You have to insure againt the greatest risk and this involves a matter of judgment. Although there is not unanimity, in the judgment of the majority of the people who have studied these matters the probability is rather low. The hon. gentleman is quite right that the ships we now have in reserve would require extensive alterations in order to sweep modern mines but it is not felt that the probability is sufficiently high to justify the expenditure.
As I indicated, we have asked for another study to make sure there is no significant change in thinking since that decision was made. For example, some experiments have been carried out in sweeping mines with helicopters. Is this a real possibility? I cannot tell my hon. friend whether or not it is effective because I have not got the information on which to base a reply. But I know some experiments were carried out and we are examining the matter to see what new techniques have been devised.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I should like to direct a brief question to the minister. I am not certain if the subject comes under this item and if it does not perhaps he can direct me to the correct item. It deals with the movement of the Albro Lake signal station from Dartmouth to Mill Cove in Lunenburg County. When the Conservative government was in power it was decided to move this station

due to the fact that there was too much interference with the signal in the Dartmouth area. In the past year progress has been rather slow in this matter and I would ask the minister whether the transfer has now been completed, what is the total amount of money his department intends to spend in this area, the approximate date when construction will be completed, and when the final movement will be made from Albro Lake to Mill Cove?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I shall try to get that information and give it to my hon. friend.


Michael Starr: Is the minister prepared to give answers to the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to cars in Ottawa?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are trying to get the information on that. The Leader of the Opposition also asked for the names of the servicemen who were retired and who were referred to in the Auditor General's report. These are Wing Commander W. G. Taylor, Flight Sergeant J. C. Baker, Lieutenant Colonel W. M. Alton, Major R. W. Hampton, Sergeant D. W. Hopkinson and Flight Sergeant C. F. Page. These six persons involved were recruited in the non-permanent active militia in the ranks between 1926 and 1933 when Kings Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Militia, 1926, authorized enlistment of boys between 14 and 18 years of age and in special cases at the age of 13. In the cases in question the fact that the men served in the militia during the periods claimed, in other words, that they were in fact enrolled under age, was supported by statutory declarations from the contributors themselves and in each case from independent persons who also signed statutory declarations to the same effect.
There is one other bit of information on this same subject. As hon. gentlemen probably know, until 1947 one-half of militia service could be counted for retirement purposes. The law was changed, I think in 1947, to reduce that to one-quarter of militia service that could be counted. The member of the armed forces might elect to count the service within one year of becoming a contributor under the Act.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: In other words, what the minister is saying, on the basis of the Auditor General's report, is that some people whom he has named and whose names I will not repeat in effect have committed perjury. I am wondering whether procedures are going to
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
be taken under the Criminal Code. Will action be taken against the persons involved?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, in fact these persons enlisted under age and they did serve and therefore they are entitled to the benefits under the law. I think if my hon. friend were to check the records of all the people who served in world war I and world war II and in between he would find a rather large number of people who enlisted under age by one means or another. Although one might raise a question in respect of this, I think it was almost common practice with young men who wanted to get into the services.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: As one who enlisted at age 17, and there was some collusion about it,
I know whereof the minister speaks but I did not attempt it at age 9, 10 or 11. That is what I am referring to. The Auditor General refers to people of that age. I do not think anyone worries about the year.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Did the hon. member get the point that at the time they were enlisted they were entitled to enlist at 13?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The Auditor General
speaks of nine-year-olds. Some of us were fairly sizeable people at 13 but I am not sure how many people could serve Canada well at nine years of age.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I suspect, that like the hon. member and myself they must have been big boys.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I should like to ask the minister relating to the R.C.A.F. airbase at Penhold, Alberta. At present this base is being held on a maintenance status only until its role in the new training program is determined and it has been so held since the time of the actual abolition of the jet flying training program.
Can the minister inform us whether the department has decided to turn over the actual runways and related flying facilities to the Department of Transport, with the intention of providing much needed and urgently demanded municipal airport facilities? If this is so, until the negotiations between the city of Red Deer and the department are completed would it be possible to use the runways for civilian planes inasmuch as it will perhaps be some time before the negotiations between the Department of Transport and the city are completed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the situation is that we would be willing to turn over the runways to either the Department of Transport or the 23033-1025
DEBATES	1609
Supply-National Defence city or the two together if they were interested in entering into some kind of joint arrangement. In so far as interim use is concerned between now and the time agreement can be reached, provided we still have personnel available there I would be willing to take this question as notice to see whether it would be possible to extend the use of the airfield for civilian purposes.


Robert Norman Thompson: The minister says he will be willing to turn over to either the Department of Transport or the local authorities the runways and facilities. Has there been any formal notice given to the Department of Transport of the department's willingness to do this?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot say whether or not it is formal but certainly there have been informal discussions to this effect. I cannot say whether any paper has passed between the two departments but in fact the airfield is available to the Department of Transport if they wish to take over and operate it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to return to the question of the six persons whom the minister named in response to the question concerning the Auditor General's report. Will the minister inform us as to the age on enlistment of each one of these persons and the length of their service in the militia and in the regular army?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not have that information readily available but I would be more than happy to provide it either at a later time or obtain it and make it available to my hon. friend if he would agree to that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we not have the name of the person whose enlistment dates back to age nine?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not sure which one it is offhand but I will find out.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why can we not find out right now? This was in the Auditor General's report and it appeared in the papers and was raised in the house several weeks ago. It was specifically asked for by the Leader of the Opposition. Surely we can have the answer immediately instead of being left with the answer that we will receive the information in some roundabout way at some indefinite time. Let us have the full facts instead of the flippant answer the minister gave the hon. member for Royal that perhaps some of them were big boys. Let us pin it down specifically. The Auditor General has specifically mentioned these persons. Are we to neglect his
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence report? I say no. Let us have the information.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 15 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If we are not going to have the information I suggest that the item stand until we get the information.


Michael Starr: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that surely the minister and those in the department, having read the Auditor General's report, would have looked up this particular case to satisfy themselves that the Auditor General had a case that was legitimate, because he did bring it out very forcefully. The minister cannot say that they do not have this information. If they do not have it then there certainly is some neglect on the part of somebody in not looking up this particular case to see whether the Auditor General's criticism is legitimate.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the information is available. We just do not happen to have it with us at the moment. The case was checked out, as my hon. friend would expect in the circumstances.


Michael Starr: Then I would suggest in the circumstances that we stand the item and go on with others in the hope that before we pass the item the information will be forthcoming.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be agreeable, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to support the remarks of the previous speaker. Strangely enough, this one item has captured the public's imagination more than information in respect of weapons and that sort of thing. This item is in the same category as horses on the payroll. I think we should stand this item so we can have an explanation placed on the record. This is a most intriguing thing.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has agreed that this item should stand and that we go on to the others so that we can receive some information about this situation before passing the specific item.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to a matter which I believe comes under the purview of the Associate Minister rather than the minister and has to do with the land expropriation currently being carried out by the department in the vicinity of Camp Valcartier.

I raised this matter yesterday on the assumption that the minister or his associate would make at least some passing reference to it in reply. I note that the estimates allocate only $100,000 for the acquisition of real property so I assume there is no item in this year's estimates to cover the cost of this specific land acquisition. Nevertheless negotiations are now being carried on and this raises at least one or two questions which I think the minister should attempt to answer. First, is it absolutely necessary that the land of a large number of people be expropriated in order to expand the area of an army camp when there seems to be alternative unsettled land in close proximity to the army camp that could be utilized for this purpose? Apparently the area contemplated for expropriation includes a 150 year old village and a large number of residences.
The other specific point on which I should like the minister to comment has to do with the involvement of an army officer in the negotiations regarding the acquisition of this land. It seems very strange indeed that an army officer should be involved in something that is almost completely a matter for the civil authorities to look after. Would the minister make some comment in this regard?
[Translation1


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Chairman, this whole matter of expropriation under way at Valcartier has been considered at length, first by the civil personnel and later by the general manager of properties of the Department of National Defence.
There have been recommendations to expropriate an area of about 60 square miles. After the limits were considered, we received protests from this community called Shannon, which is described in our services not as a village but as a group of small properties comprising approximately 25 families. We considered, at that time, the possibility of doing without, if you want, that part of the land proposed in the acquisition. Once again, the general manager of properties went back to the site so as to conduct an investigation. Further to this investigation, we asked the military authorities to explain to us why this area should be included in the group of properties to be acquired. They explained to us that if those people-and that is when the phrase "Shannon Corridor" was used-it was not meant as a joke-

It was not meant as a joke.
February 22. 1966	COMMONS

-This was a military expression to show that if these people were not relocated, they would be in a danger zone when there was long-range mortar, arms and cannon fire practice.
Now, in accordance with the recommendations of civilian personnel and of the director general of properties, and after representations of our officers, we do not believe this community can be kept in that spot because it is dangerous.
On the other hand, we are ready to consider any suggestion.
When the hon. member says there are some lots near by that we could use, he forgets that in all this, the enlargement of Camp Val-cartier must be so arranged as to form a whole area for practice and exercise of our soldiers with long-range arms.
I am sure that neither the minister nor I would be unwilling to consider any suggestion which might satisfy the people of Shannon.
As far as I remember, it is quite correct to say that to date, a preliminary investigation has been held and that following representations a second one was launched. During the second one, the military were asked to explain why they needed these pieces of land. It was then, perhaps, that the hon. member found that the military had inquired not into the advisability of expropriation, but into the necessity for them to include those grounds in the expropriated area because they lay within the danger zone.
I trust these explanations will satisfy the hon. members. 1 am sure no doors have been closed; in fact we are willing to consider any suggestion which might be made. I feel the crux of the matter lies in that it is dangerous for the people of Shannon to stay in the firing area.
I am willing to obtain once more detailed information and pass it on to the hon. member as soon as I have it. I am also willing to study how best we can reconcile the interests of the Department of National Defence and of the people concerned.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I accept the minister's reply in the spirit in which it was offered but I have a specific follow-up question. Is it correct to say that negotiations are still continuing with the property holders in the area and that the land is still registered
DEBATES	1611
Supply-National Defence in their names, that is to say, that the land is not yet vested in the Crown?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I understand that when expropriation was decided on, these properties were included in the expropriation and that, consequently, they are expropriated.
Negotiations are currently in progress between representatives of the Department of National Defence and the persons involved with a view to reaching an agreement and setting a price. I believe that is the situation.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, that is a very interesting point. I am not sure what the past procedures are that have been followed by this department but I am disappointed that a procedure is not being followed by which negotiation with the owners as to price could take place first. Apparently the department has filed a plan of expropriation in the land titles office and subsequently commenced negotiations with these owners. It seems to me that a genuine attempt should have been made to negotiate price and reach a settlement before any resort to expropriation took place.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, that procedure is used for a very simple reason: in such cases, speculation must be avoided. If the Department of National Defence were to announce in advance that 60 square miles of land are to be expropriated and then tried to negotiate prices before filing its expropriation plan, prices would go up of course and expropriation would no longer be possible.
But I feel one must presume that the Depat tment of National Defence is not out to rob property owners by offering unacceptable prices. That is the first thing one must accept, in my opinion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one or two questions on the same topic. For what type of range practice is this extra land required?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I thought then that it was for the training of a battalion with long range modern equipment including long range mortars.
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us not talk about long-range equipment or long-range mortars. What is the range of these weapons? That is what I want to know. Give me the exact range.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As my hon. friend well knows from having been minister of national defence at one time, the exact ranges of these weapons are not given.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then could we have the approximate range?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the hon. gentleman would have to be more specific. A wide range of equipment is used at Valcartier and would require different areas of territory. But the amount of land that has been acquired or is in the process of being acquired is adequate to provide battalion exercises, including those for armoured vehicles if required, and has ranges adequate for mortars and so on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for
Springfield and others who have participated in the discussion have got the minister to indicate to us now that the land has already been expropriated and the question of the price people are to receive for their buildings and farms is under negotiation. We have had information that these 25 families have been informed they will be in a danger zone because long-range weapons of some sort or other are going to be used for practice purposes.
Therefore a shotgun has been placed at the heads of these people. They are told, "You are now in a danger zone; it is too bad but in order to protect your safety it would be advisable for you to move". This is a scandalous thing to do. Twenty-five families whose ancestors have been living in this area for 150 years are suddenly to be moved by arbitrary action on the part of the Department of National Defence.
I think this action should cease immediately and for several reasons. I shall give two. One is that Camp Valcartier has been in use ever since the days of Sir Sam Hughes whose actions are now being emulated by this minister. It was found to be satisfactory in the years of the first world war for the setting up of musketry ranges for the first contingent and ever since then it has been found to be suitable. If additional land is required for range practice for rifles, machine guns, mortars or artillery it should be found elsewhere and not at the expense of these 25 families. What is going on in this area? Why is there


this disregard of families? There is a callous indifference on the part of these two ministers.
Neither of these two ministers has said he has visited the area. They have reported that an investigation was made by civilian personnel of the Department of National Defence and then the military side said, "Well, for range purposes the village and the farm homes will be in a danger area so you should do something about it". Consequently the families are now likely to be dispossessed.
I think this is a shocking piece of bungling on the part of the Department of National Defence. It just happens that most of these people are Irish. I am part Irish and I should like to say something for the Irish, as I did for the Toronto Irish militia regiment which was disbanded some time ago. What has the minister got against the Irish? They are the best fighters in the world, and he knows it.
In these circumstances we are going to dispossess people who have been established for 150 years in this area. The reason given is that more space is required for an army camp. If there is one country in the world that has a vast amount of uninhabited land suitable for army purposes it is Canada. The camps I have visited in this country have all been desert areas, sandy and bare, and there are hundreds more like them available.
If the minister wants the troops to try out long-range mortars, whose range he will not divulge because the Russians might find out, let him pick some other spot and let Valcartier be used as it has been over the years for basic training and musketry practice. Why dispossess 25 families in this way? This is a roundabout way of doing it. The department says, "You are now in a danger area; we are so sorry but you have to move". The property has already been expropriated. Why was this information not divulged earlier?
Where were the minister's study groups? Did he receive advice from his senior officers with regard to this matter or is this just another example of his autocratic methods? I say to the minister that he should cancel this program immediately and save these 25 families.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be vindictive in this matter but when the Associate Minister said the reason for expropriation action being taken first and negotiation coming next was the fear of speculation in land I feel this is a very common excuse given by governments when they resort to this kind of procedure in order to acquire
February 22, 1966

properties. Provincial governments through the years have had to expropriate and acquire property for a variety of purposes. Until now the practice followed in most cases has been that they have attempted to acquire these properties through negotiation and only if negotiation reached stalemate did they resort to expropriation.
I suggest to the minister that the real reason they have acquired the property in this way is that it is more convenient from an administrative point of view. It is a rather sad commentary on the action of his department that they should have taken this rather highhanded approach in dealing with a number of small property holders in this particular area of the province of Quebec. I am not aware of any ethnic overtones to this problem but I suggest to the minister that in future when the department has to deal with a number of small property holders it should adopt an approach that is more considerate of the property rights of citizens of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think the government should reconsider this matter. This is a totally unjustified action and has all the earmarks of administrative lawlessness and contempt for the rights of the individual. No amount of excuse can justify the situation created as the result of an arbitrary act by the Department of National Defence. I shall quote some of the observations made in respect of this matter. Is there no heart in the Department of National Defence? This particular area has been occupied for generations. Exception has been made in the case of two or three property owners in the area who have been advised that their property will not be expropriated. I want information on this question. Let me read from the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph, which is not a paper that indulges in sensationalism. This is a shocking disregard of individual rights. The article in the newspaper reads:
The blow fell last autumn.
An emissary of the federal government journeyed to Shannon where he calmly announced that the government had decided to annex most of Shannon -the 6th, 7th, and 8th concessions-to Camp Val-cartier which now straddles the southeast corner of the village.
Soon after, expropriation notices were posted. Some 10,000 acres are involved in the impending expropriation-
Next came copies of a form letter which were pushed in mailboxes. They were signed by Brigadier R. H. Lahaie, commander, Eastern Quebec area.
Supply-National Defence
What a nice cozy letter this is. Let me just read what it said:
During the past two months you have read or heard of the plans for the enlargement of Camp Valcartier and it is natural that people who live in the area around the Camp or who own land in the vicinity will seek information on such matters as the need to move or reinvest their money in other lands or enterprises.
What a cozy, kind way to deal with this matter. The department said in effect, "You have been here for generations" and instead of saying that these people could get out in a certain way they said, "All we want is that you move".
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
As a former holder of an interest in land and buildings, you will receive a sum of money-
Then the article continues:
But this is cold comfort to the Mooneys, Conways, Bowleses, Griffins and Campbells who are now faced with the prospect of pulling up roots put down generations ago.
Then the article gives the observations of some of these people. Surely we are not going to have another Acadian exodus. This is utterly unjustified, and there is no suggestion it can be justified. What is going on here? What are the rights of the people? This great Department of National Defence says, "Get out of here". Families who have not got the best land in the world but have lived there for generations are to be uprooted.
Here are some of the observations of some of the people. John Griffin says:
I quit school at 13 to help my parents on the farm. This is all the work I know. We made a comfortable enough living, but what shall I do now? Become a labourer?
Surely there is not an adamant attitude, a cold, aloof and unjust attitude in this department. The brigadier's letter simply says, "Begone". Let me read what John Griffin goes on to say:
There are far worse cases. Most of the people who are going to be turned out are middle aged. They are too old to learn anything and the uprooting is bound to have a bad effect upon them.
The article continues:
What amazes Griffin is that the federal government decided to take over their land in peacetime. He remembers the time-in 1914-when several families in Shannon were forced to leave their holdings. There was no protest then, for a war was on.
But why in heaven's name do they want to push us around in peacetime, he asks?
The expression is certainly one that is understandable, pushing around Canadians simply because a group has decided that it is

February 22, 1666
Private Bills
in their interests to secure this land. How many members of this house would stand for that?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), Agriculture-Quebec suggestions on crop insurance; the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), Labour Relations-Whiteshell, Man.-strike at nuclear research station; the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), Finance-U.S. tax on rapeseed oil and meal.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wahn for the second reading of Bill No. S-10, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the last time this matter was before the house I was pointing out the problem members faced in dealing with this kind of amendment because of the information available to us as to the splitting of this stock. I should like to refer to several instances where something has been said about this stock on previous occasions. I had an opportunity of looking at the Financial Post survey of oil stocks for 1965. I find that this survey contains the history of this company. Briefly, the company was set up by an act of parliament in 1949 when it was established to transport oil. By 1964 the company had something like 3,475 miles of pipe line in its system. The history of the company indicates that the capital stock authorized was 40 million shares with a total issue value of $5,087,282 and a par value of $5 per share.
The original capitalization of this company in 1949, however, was on a $50 per share

basis. In 1952 the shareholders approved a 10 for 1 split and the stock was changed from a par value of $50 to a par value of $5. It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that the reason for reducing the price of this stock is twofold. Mr. Burgess, Q.C., representing the company in the other place, outlined the two reasons. First, he said-


Auguste Choquette: Carried.


William Arnold Peters: Where are you going to carry it? Since "carrying it" in a pipe fine means moving it from one place to another, I suppose if the hon. member wants that to be considered as his contribution to this debate that is probably all right. I should like to quote what Mr. Burgess said before the Senate Committee:
I think the primary consideration of the board of directors of a Canadian company of this nature is to broaden the base of their stockholdings, in particular to broaden the base of their stockholdings in Canada. This serves an extremely useful purpose in that for the benefit of your existing shareholders as well as for the benefit of others who might wish to buy into the company, you get a much narrower market on your stock.
This may be so.
When your stock is at a price up in the eighties or nineties it is a rich man's stock and many investment syndicates and people like that buy it. but the man in the street is not going to buy very much. You get a buy order that can be a major investment fund or something of that nature, and the stock market accelerates because they are buying stock on what their financial experts have told them. They want the stock then; they buy it; and the price escalates.
He goes on later to point out the second reason, and it is of interest to note that the second reason has now become the prime reason for the stock split. The company is attempting to make this stock available to its employees. He goes on to say there has been a vote taken on this matter and that 90 per cent of the employees voted in favour of question No. 1 and 78.7 per cent voted in favour of the second question. The first question reads as follows:
Would it be more attractive to you as an avenue of investment of your plan savings if the stock were subdivided on a 5 for 1 basis, so that each new share would have a market value of approximately $18?
The answer was yes by 90 per cent.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The second question was:
If you presently allocate your plan savings to cash savings, or are contemplating doing so some time in the future, would the lower unit price of the Company stock encourage you to change your allocation from cash savings to the purchase of Company stock?
February 22, 1966

In answer to that question 78.7 per cent of the employees said yes, which indicates that the rest of them were really less interested in a change.
I have already pointed out that this company has a capitalization of 40 million shares. Only five million of these shares are presently on the market. Therefore the question immediately comes to my mind: What does this company want to do? Most companies would reply that they want to expand and need more capital. In this particular case it is my guess that the company does not want or need a capitalization of 200 million shares, which it has indicated the new split will create. For this reason I intend to move an amendment which I think will probably be acceptable, if I understand correctly the company's proposition; and I am sure that the sponsor of the bill will be willing to accept this suggestion.
There is a second consideration which must be raised at this time. If it is a good thing to bring the value of this stock down to $18 and if that is the purpose of the bill, I suggest it would be much better to bring the value down to $1.80. I can find many people in Canada who would be even more willing to buy the stock if it was 18 cents a share. I would suggest 18 cents is not unreasonable for a company with a capitalization of 200 million shares. This would still produce a very large sum of money. I think that this company is as phony as a $3 bill. This is the way the Imperial Oil Company writes off some of its expenditures and handles the distribution of its dividends.
Let those who deal on the stock market consider this proposition. In 1949 you buy a $50 share and all you do with it is collect the dividend. Last year you will find this company paying a dividend of $3.40 per share which on a $50 share would produce $34. I see people looking amazed but that is a fact. In 1953 this stock was split ten for one which would multiply your original investment by ten. Therefore, instead of receiving $3.40 you would receive $34 on your investment of $50. That is why I wonder that anybody wants to upset this balance. This stock is an excellent investment and continues to be so.
One of the questions for the shareholders is what the company will do with the stock left over in the treasury which in this case will amount to something like 175 million shares undistributed. Is some of that stock going to be distributed? If that is the case this will reduce the price and it will again become a 23033-103
Private Bills
good market proposition. If that is not the case it will mean that there will be a dividend of 70 cents on the stock next year. On a $50 investment this will produce $70 by way of dividend. That is a fairly substantial type of stock to purchase, I suggest.
I suggest that there would be something wrong with us if we passed this bill without giving a great deal of consideration to what stock splitting does in general and what it will do in this instance. I suggest that members of parliament should examine any proposition which will produce a larger dividend each year than the original investment. This is an exceptional sort of proposition. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott):
That clause 1 of Bill S-10 be amended by deleting in line 10 thereof the words "and unissued".
The clause would then read:
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 of chapter 34 of the statutes of 1949 (1st session), as amended by chapter 66 of the statutes of 1932-53, each of the issued shares of the capital stock of the Company of the par value of five dollars is hereby subdivided-[DOT]
And so on. I would recommend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.
I am wondering whether any hon. members have any comments to make on this amendment. Perhaps it is unnecessary because the amendment is obviously out of order. If the hon. member will refer to citation 389 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, he will find the following:
A motion opposing the second reading of a Bill must not anticipate amendments which may be moved in Committee.
The hon. member may move an amendment relating to the principle of the bill before us but he cannot move an amendment which refers to a particular clause at this stage of the proceedings. So, with respect, I suggest to the hon. member that the amendment he proposes is premature and for this reason it cannot be accepted by the Chair.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would rather you had ruled it out because I had not changed the principle. I was of the opinion that I was changing the principle of the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I would say at the outset that this is not the first time this bill has been presented to the house.


An hon. Member:: Nor the last.

February 22, 1966
Private Bills


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As someone says, perhaps it will not be the last; that may be true.
I would not want to be accused of holding up this matter. I am seeking only information and clarification. It is an interesting bill with an interesting principle involved, namely, the selling of shares and whether or not stock splitting really helps the small investor. The shares are selling at nearly $90 and the proposed split would bring the shares down to something in the neighbourhood of $18. We have recently been told that this will make shares much more readily available to small investors.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Yet when the question was asked some years ago before the Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines Committee how many shares are bought at one time, a representative of the company replied, "Well, perhaps 100 or maybe as low as 50". There is the crux of the matter. Anybody who is going to buy 100 shares of this company at $90 a share would have to have $9,000. Surely the stock exchange is geared to accept smaller amounts of money. Surely the stock exchange is geared to accept purchases of many fewer shares than 100 at one time. I suggest there is ample evidence which could be put before a committee or before this house that this is the fact. The stock exchange is geared to accept smaller amounts of money than $9,000 or $5,000; in fact, it will accept amounts as low as $1,000. One thousand dollars will buy in the neighbourhood of 50 shares.
I asked a number of questions of the president and chairman of the board of the company who appeared before the committee and I tried to ascertain whether the company had the interest of the small investor at heart or if it had the interest of the company and those who held large numbers of shares in it at heart. I am not anti-big business, Mr. Chairman. I am not anti-anything really.


An hon. Member:: What about being antiLiberal?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is a very difficult question to answer because I do not know where they stand on any subject.
What I am trying to project and work toward is the bettering of conditions for as many people as possible. This company is operating at nearly 100 per cent capacity. In other words, there is a transmission line from western to eastern Canada transporting oil under near monopoly conditions and at nearly

100 per cent capacity. It is an ideal company operating under ideal conditions.
The question is, where is the interest in the purchasing of this company's shares? That question was asked before the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines. Much to my surprise the answer was, "Well, recent purchases of the company's shares have been by unions with a surplus of money, private pension plans with money to invest in a solid investment and organizations like that". There was no evidence before that committee that small investors wanted to buy the shares of this company. In fact, the evidence before the committee was that the opposite was true.
Unions and pension plans with large sums of money were looking for solid, sound investments and they chose this company. I say that the opposite is true with regard to the small investor who is looking for penny shares from which he hopes to make a fortune. In other words, the small investor is looking for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. He is prepared to speculate with very little money in the hope that he will strike it rich. Persons investing in this corn-pay are not of this type. This company, operating under a monopoly and with its transmission costs and transmission prices evaluated by the National Energy Board, is of such a nature that it does not make an exorbitant profit but on the other hand it does not lose money. In other words, this company has a sure thing. It is a solid investment. Any solid, sound investment has a tendency to entice large amounts of money from investors looking for a sure return.
I say, therefore, to the mover of the bill that whatever committee of the house this matter goes before, and I am not sure which committee it will be, the Interprovincial Pipe Line people should come before that committee prepared to support their claim that there is a real need to split these shares so as to allow the average or small Canadian investor to buy them. The words "average Canadian investors" were used in connection with this measure although two years ago I believe the words used were "small Canadian investors".
What are the facts about this particular company? Imperial Oil owns something like 25 per cent of it, and Shell and British American lesser amounts. We are told that wherever you have share splitting you have an increase in the number of shareholders. However, in 1952 or 1954, when shares of
February 22, 1966


An hon. Member:: What's a million?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a lot of money to me and I am sure Imperial Oil would be interested in it too. They would have no objection because any slight movement in the value of these shares would enhance their position tremendously. I am being frank in this regard. I do not doubt for one moment that the bill will go to the committee. I am putting my fears on record so that when we get to the committee the company can bring ample evidence to set my fears at rest. If they can convince me that my fears are unfounded, that Imperial Oil will not enhance its position, that the other big investing companies will not enhance their positions, I may take a different view.
We were told there were more than 37 shareholders holding more than 10,000 shares. But we were not told now many people hold fewer than 37 shares. This is the figure in which I am interested because the whole purpose of this move is surely to allow the

February 22, 1966
Private Bills
small man, the average investor, to buy these shares. We should have been told how many little fellows hold shares in this company. Had this been done we would have been able to judge more easily whether or not by passing this bill the small investor would continue to be excluded from its benefits. This is evidence which I should like the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company to bring before the committee.
People have said to me: This is a common practice in big business, the bill should be passed rapidly, you are only showing your ignorance by attempting to get information about it. Well, I do not take my duties in this house so lightly. This company has a monopoly. I think parliament should examine this monopoly to see whether it is operating with the intent to benefit as many Canadians as possible.
It is all very well for the mover of the bill to say, as has been said on other occasions, that 80 per cent of the shares are held by Canadians. Again I am using a rough figure; I may be out by 10 per cent. But here is the point: The companies which own the shares are in effect United States companies. Imperial Oil is a United States company. Let us not fool ourselves. We call it "Imperial Oil of Canada" but the recent guide lines set by the United States demonstrate clearly just who owns the so-called Canadian companies. Parent companies restrict and control the so-called Canadian companies. So let us not be fooled by statements that 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the shares of this company are held by Canadian companies. It is not so. Imperial Oil, B.A. and Shell are particularly involved in this company. I think all of them are controlled by parent companies in the United States.
I am putting my fears before the house tonight. I hope that when the bill goes to the committee Interprovincial Pipe Line can bring evidence which will set these fears at rest. If they do I shall readily withdraw any objections I may have to the splitting of these shares.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) who has just concluded his remarks I find myself interested in the bill before us today. The hon. member spoke about dealing with this matter in committee. In this connection, while I do not quarrel with Your Honour's ruling with respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) I feel that the objective he sought to achieve had many

laudable aspects. It is perhaps unfortunate that for technical reasons it could not be dealt with at this stage of the bill. Since the amendment could not be accepted, obviously we must deal with the bill as it has been presented to us.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I listened to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) when he introduced the bill the other day and I was particularly interested in this statement, recorded on page 1263 of Hansard for February 15:
The reasons for the stock split proposed are legitimate.
It has already become apparent that there are strong differences of view with respect to that statement. One of my colleagues suggest that if the hon. member had said the reasons were illegitimate it would have been a statement more closely in accord with the facts of the situation. However, we recognize the right of the hon. member to express his point of view and we have to assume that if he had not held that opinion he would not have introduced the bill. But if the hon. member has been deluded into thinking the reasons are legitimate there is no reason that the rest of us should accept his estimate of the situation. So far as I am concerned the reasons are completely illegitimate.
The purpose of this company in having this bill introduced, as has been the case in the past with this and other companies, is in effect an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of members of the house and of the people of Canada with respect to the real purpose behind the idea of splitting the shares of its stock. In explaining the purpose of the bill the hon. member for St. Paul's said he would confine himself to a reference to the explanatory notes accompanying the bill. Therefore it is important that we consider exactly what those notes say. Reference has already been made to some portions of the explanatory notes, the first part of which reads:
The purpose of this bill is to divide each of the 40,000,000 authorized shares of the par value of $5.00 each of the capital stock of the company into five shares of the par value of $1.00 each. This will not increase or alter the authorized capital of the company of two hundred million dollars.
From an examination of the bill I believe that first paragraph of the explanatory notes is a factual statement of what the bill in its detailed clauses seeks to accomplish. I have no quarrel with it up to that point. But then
February 22, 1966

we come to the second paragraph where it
says:
The reason for the proposed subdivision is that the company considers it desirable that the average Canadian investor be encouraged and be given the maximum opportunity and incentive to invest in the equity of a successful and growing Canadian company.
Here we come to at least one point where the explanatory notes begin to depart from the real facts of the situation. The company may be successful in growing but the splitting of its shares will not give the maximum or any real opportunity to Canadian investors to invest in the company.
Reference has already been made to the fact that only a small proportion of the authorized shares has been issued. Reference has also been made to the fact that, unless there has been a change quite recently, the company has no intention of issuing additional shares in any substantial amount from its treasury. Reference has already been made to the fact that the bulk of the issued stock is held by certain large oil corporations.
In view of all this it becomes clear that the explanatory notes depart from the real facts of the situation. They go on to outline what is considered to be good, normal, corporate practice and the best principles with respect to share values. Then there is quite a long paragraph, in fact the most lengthy one in the notes, dealing with the company's generosity in providing an opportunity to its employees to acquire company stock.
When I read these explanatory notes I thought they had a very familiar ring. In fact I wonder whether somewhere somebody who is in the habit of drafting bills of this kind has a file labelled, "Explanatory Notes Re Pipe Line Company Shares." I say this because I recall that a number of years ago we had a similar bill dealing with the splitting of the shares of the Trans-Mountain Pipe Line Oil Company, with whose operations I am more familiar because its pipe line traverses part of the province in which I make my home. Unless I am very much mistaken the explanatory notes attached to that bill, which I believe was dealt with in 1955 or 1956, were identical in almost every respect with the explanatory notes attached to this bill.
With respect to that previous bill we discovered that the company had no intention of issuing any further shares from its treasury. In statements by the company they clearly said, "No, we have no such intention. We do not need capital for expansion raised by
Private Bills
selling shares. We can do very nicely by the marketing of fixed interest bonds. We are quite happy to keep the share equity in the hands of those who now have the bulk of it. Not only from the point of view of the increase in dividends but from the point of view of the appreciated value of the stock we have no serious desire that our shares in any substantive number be spread among Canadian investors." As a matter of fact, during the particular session of which I am thinking Trans-Mountain was not allowed by parliament to split its shares, though it may have been able to do so successfully at a later date.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the reasons which were valid then against TransMountain Pipeline Company splitting its shares apply with equal force to the proposal which Interprovincial Pipe Line Company is placing before us now. I think that the question of the validity of the arguments advanced for the splitting of shares in general has to be considered in a somewhat different light when we are considering a company which, as already has been pointed out, has in effect a form of transportation monopoly. We did have some discussion in the house recently on the question of the operation of another form of transportation monopoly which was granted certain special rights and privileges by parliament many years ago. I am referring, of course, to the privately owned Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I think that members who participated in that discussion and expressed concern about some of tha activities of that corporation should perhaps bear that situation in mind when they consider the developing and increasingly important monopoly form of transportation that has come into being in more recent years in respect of the transportation of commodities by pipe lines.
The fact of the matter so far as I am concerned is that this form of transportation should be rightfully considered as a public utility for the movement of commodities which can be transported by this means to Canadian consumers at the least possible cost. We listened to the Minister of Transport outline in practical terms his concept of the important role that transportation plays in a country that extends for thousands of miles.
I submit that parliament committed a grievous error in allowing this kind of company to be incorporated as a private corporation in the first place and that there is no

February 22, 1966
Private Bills
sense in our now compounding the original error of parliament by agreeing that these companies should be able by means of this kind successfully to exploit Canadians who are consumers of oil products to an even greater extent than they have been doing in the past.
I have listened to arguments which suggest that the pipe line companies are carriers. Some people argue they are public carriers. Some of them, I believe, are put in that classification officially and some of them may not be. The fact that the stock of this company was being quoted on the 12th of November at a market figure of $88 or $89 is an indication that under the terms and conditions under which this company has been allowed to operate its transportation monopoly its shares have risen and risen and risen and that the reason they have risen to this level is that this company and others like it in fact have been able to earn profits on a completely unrealistic and exorbitant basis in relation to services they are performing as a public utility.
I think these are the sort of considerations we should have in mind when companies like the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, acting as fronts for the major foreign owners of oil interests in this country, come before parliament with these specious reasons and ask that their stocks be split.
It is, of course, legitimate for companies to be in a position where they earn fair and reasonable dividends on the risk capital they have put into a particular venture, but I submit that the members of this house, when this company was first incorporated, should have been, if they were not, fully aware of the fact that the risk capital involved in this company in the first place was not really being risked. In the second place, it represented only a fraction of the financing that was used and because of this situation this company ever since it came into being has been in a position to exploit the consuming public of Canada.
These are the considerations which some of us have in mind when we quarrel with the statement of the member who introduced this bill to the effect that the reasons proposed for splitting the shares of this company are legitimate. I say again, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, that so far as I am concerned this proposal is not legitimate. It is phony and the house should refuse second reading of this bill without any further delay whatsoever. I feel that under the circumstances and in view of the -

[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired and the hour assigned for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
15. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of building, works, land and major equipment for the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force and $1,850,000 for grants to the town of Oromocto, $1,382,244,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we were expecting replies to some of the questions we asked with regard to the six cases in which men have been released on pension, and credited with full pensionable service with their enlistment ages put back to ages nine and, in five other cases, 11 and 12. I refer to the report of the Auditor General at pages 55 and 56. Perhaps the associate minister has that information for us now.
ITranslationl


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I do not have it; I presume the minister will be here any minute now.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I would object to the passing of this item before we receive this information. I had the opportunity, last Sunday, as I am sure other members of this house had, of watching a program which, incidentally, is not my favourite one, "This Hour Has 7 Days", but which presented a story of a woman whose husband, while in the process of his duty as a member of the armed forces making a trip between Ottawa and Toronto stopped to eat, as any sensible person might do, and was hit by a car and killed. This case has been before the pension board on many occasions during the past eight years. Yet that board in its wisdom, acting as my lawyer friends might do, has found reasons on every side of the argument to turn down an application for a pension. I find it difficult to understand how the pension board can be so tough in a case of that kind, while at the same time pensions are being given to people in the prime of their lives through the transparent gimmick of dating
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
their enlistment ages as nine, 11 and 12. I am sure the minister with his tremendous staff could get information in respect of these retirement ages. If he cannot I suggest we ought not pass this item.
Now that the minister is here and before we pass this item I should like him to give this committee some information about the department's directorate of information services which, according to an answer given to a question posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, has a staff of 76. Why does the Department of National Defence need 76 people to staff the directorate of information services who are, in effect, public relations experts? Why does the department need public relations experts, other than for the obvious reason that the Minister of National Defence needs to build up his image so as to become the next leader of the Liberal party? He may be a very good leader of that party, but I do not think his ambitions in that regard should be assisted by the public treasury through the operation of this directorate of information services with a staff of 76. I think we should get some answers to the questions we have asked.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He has not answered any questions.


David Orlikow: He has not answered any questions, that is true. We should also receive some information about these retirement ages and enlistments dating back to ages nine, 11 and 12. That certainly is a good trick if the minister can get away with it. Perhaps we could find other groups in the public service who could be retired in this same way.


An hon. Member:: How about members of parliament?


David Orlikow: Somebody suggests members of parliament, but I was thinking of some of those civil servants who were retired on pensions of less than $25 per month about which my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, has talked so often in this house. I should like an answer to my questions and an explanation about the directorate of information services, or the directorate of public relations or publicity, whatever it might be called. Surely we can expect an answer to these questions before we pass this item.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The directorate of information services is one of the first branches that was integrated after the bill was passed a year and a half ago. Formerly each of the three
DEBATES	1621
Supply-National Defence services had its own information service branch which provided information to the press and to interested citizens of all kinds. They also conducted tours and performed a number of tasks of this nature, including the publication of magazines. As hon. members will recall, each of the services had a magazine. There is now only one directorate of information services on behalf of the three armed forces. This was accomplished after the bill was passed and we reduced the number of personnel by 60 per cent. This represents one of the major savings accomplished at the outset of integration and amounted to over $1 million per year. It was also referred to by the Royal Commission on Government Organization. As a result of the law passed we were enabled to integrate our headquarters and reduce the number of personnel in this area by about 60 per cent, with a savings to the taxpayer of about $1 million per year.


David Orlikow: That savings is all very well, but it seems to me from everything I have heard that each year our defence efforts cost more money while each year we have fewer people in the forces and spend less money on weapons and equipment. Perhaps in this same way we could reduce our expenditures by another half a million dollars or so. Surely we do not need public relations people in national defence. If we need armed forces at all it seems to me we need fighting men rather than public relations men. I am satisfied the fact is that we have cut our expenditures in the way the minister has suggested, but perhaps we should have cut them more.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The people employed at this time in the directorate of information services work very hard. It has small organizations in various parts of the country to which the press and other interested people have access for information, as incidents occur in the normal course of events; for feature articles on the service; and to keep the people abreast of service developments. This includes the overseas staff which is involved in this same kind of work. It also includes the staff who prepare the armed forces magazine, the Sentinel, as well as the people who perform this task for the Department of National Defence.
I can inform the hon. gentleman that the number of people employed in this branch is so small that they must work very hard indeed. I do not think it would be possible to cut the staff any further without reducing
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence below a 'minimum level the services they provide to the Canadian public.
I would also like to say, because I think it is important, that the hon. member is doing these people an injustice if he thinks they are in any way involved in public relations on behalf of the minister. That is not so. This organization is under the direction of the deputy minister and provides information for the public, so far as the department is concerned, and the three armed forces. They are very careful not to get involved in those areas which my hon. friend knows would be outside the jurisdiction of public service.


David Orlikow: It is very nice to know that the minister writes all his own speeches without any assistance from the personnel of his department, if that is true. I take the minister's word in that regard, of course. He is the first minister in any government at any level that I am aware of who does not receive that kind of assistance.
The minister did a tremendous job last night in attempting to destroy all the arguments and criticisms of the opposition. Perhaps he will reply to the criticism of his department by the Auditor General who certainly cannot be accused of being politically partisan. I refer particularly to the criticism in respect of the retirement of service personnel and the method which was used to give them full pensions by dating their enlistment ages as 9, 11 and 12. It seems to me that the minister has a duty to the country to explain his side, if he has one, in this regard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I shall deal with that question later. In the meantime the Leader of the Opposition asked for information respecting the number of cars at the disposal of National Defence in Ottawa for each of the last three or four years. Cars on strength of the No. 9 transport company in 1963 were 37; in 1964, 37; in 1965, 37 and in 1966, 37.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
In addition, there are three limousines on strength which are used to provide transportation for visiting heads of state and dignitaries.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, it is very instructive for the minister to indicate that certain economies have been made in, say, the information services and to claim that this has saved the Canadian taxpayer $1 million a year. But I think he should also disclose that in his own office the number of


personnel has gone up from 630 to 703 and the additional salaries paid amount to $500,000 a year. This is just a little counterbalancing. May I say that some of these additional personnel are at very senior levels. I am referring to the reorganization in the minister's office. This matter falls under item 1, Mr. Chairman; I have gone back just by way of contrast. This is a fact and I think attention should be drawn to it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the principal reason for this is the fact that the chief auditor on the civil side at headquarters has now assumed the internal auditing responsibility for the whole department. This increased staff was required by him.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Are any of this additional staff service officers who have retired and taken on a civilian job? It is all very well to say that the headquarters personnel has been reduced in strength. The minister has claimed that this is one of the great economies that has been made. However, in so far as the exchequer is concerned, quite apart from the question of pay, it does not matter whether the man wears a service or a civilian hat, if he is still there, has a responsibility and is part of the administration at national defence headquarters.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If a service officer competes in a civil service examination and is successful, he is eligible for one of these jobs. In so far as the total number is concerned, if this was the point my hon. friend was trying to make, the figure I gave the other night of a reduction of over 1,000 so far was a composite one of headquarters civil and military staff.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 15 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, two questions I should like to raise concern the Associate Minister of National Defence more than the Minister of National Defence. They have to do with pension problems arising out of the program of integration which has led to certain confusion, as we have heard during this discussion, and it has resulted in one or two pension problems not clarified as to policy.
First of all, I understand that in cases of premature retirement, unless the serviceman concerned has accumulated 20 years post-war service he is not allowed to count his wartime service in calculating his pension. I do not know whether I have the details precisely accurate, but this is one of those problems that arises from time to time in other fields.
February 22, 1966

This problem with regard to pensions arises in public administration when a group falls outside the stipulated category and as a result there is considerable unfairness as far as pensions are concerned. This is particularly true in respect of those in the services who are not able to count their wartime service in their pension benefits.
The second problem also has to do with pensions. This is a long standing difficulty, and I know from past inquiries which I have made that consideration has been given to resolving this particular anomaly. I refer to the difficulty of retired military personnel of the rank of warrant officer and above who are not allowed to exceed a pay ceiling in pursuing a civilian occupation with some branch of the government service other than the military; that would be greater than the pay ceiling corresponding to that which they would have received in the equivalent rank. In other words, Mr. Chairman, they are on pension, and upon retirement are successful in finding employment in some branch of the civil service, and regardless of their qualifications-and there are very highly qualified people in the armed forces today, as we know -they must take an arbitrary cut in pay because of this arbitrary regulation.
Both these matters have to do with administrative procedures and I am sure the minister and the department could regularize them if they so desired. Has the minister any comment to make on those two points?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman,
I agree completely with the first point made by the hon. member and, like him, I deplore the fact that, in the case of some veterans, war service does not count for pension purposes.
That matter is now under consideration. We will make representations to the authorities concerned and we hope to win our case. I do not want to say more at this time. I know that it is a serious problem. I am aware of it and I share the hon. member's views.
With regard to the second question, I must give practically the same answer. An order was issued by the Treasury Board; definite representations have been made in that regard and we are also studying that problem in order to find an adequate and fair solution.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Do I conclude from the minister's statement that both these matters are under very active consideration?

Supply-National Defence [Translation]


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: That is the expression I used.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Very, very active consideration, I would trust.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Associate Minister could say a further word as to what he meant when he said that the first of the matters just raised has been taken up with the appropriate authorities. The minister may or may not recall that I have had correspondence with him about this very matter, and I understood from the correspondence that he at least was sympathetic to making the necessary amendment to the legislation.
Is not the appropriate authority in this matter the cabinet, of which we have two distinguished members before us? Cannot they prevail upon this appropriate authority to take this action, since they now seem to agree with us?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: If the hon. member can recall my letter, I think it told him that I would make a recommendation to my colleagues in the cabinet, but that I could not anticipate the decision that would be taken. That is precisely what I will do: make a recommendation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I confirm that this is what the Associate Minister said to me in a letter. I just thought it should be clear here that these appropriate authorities were not some mysterious people in some other place but that they are the members of the cabinet.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the matter of pensions and their relationship to the individual has been raised. I probably should know something about this question but I must confess that I am always at a loss to understand the relationship between service personnel, the pension board, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the war veterans allowance board. In regard to these bodies I do not know whether there is any relationship with service personnel. The hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned a television program of the other night which dealt with a case in point. This ruling, I presume, was made since the war and therefore, in my
1624	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence opinion, the decision would not be made by the Canadian Pension Commission but would be made by some agency under the control of the Department of National Defence, I may be incorrect, but it seems to me this must be true. If it is true, I suggest the minister cannot hide behind the pension board by saying that the parties have a right of appeal. If I am wrong, and the parties do have this right, then I feel it is within the minister's jurisdiction to change that provision with regard to the discretionary powers of the Canadian Pension Commission, because obviously the commission has never used it.
On a number of occasions the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has requested that these matters under dispute be referred to the courts for a final decision. In other words, the minister should waive the Queen's prerogative by allowing service personnel to sue in the courts for redress, rather than stopping at the Pension Commission. I may be wrong in saying such matters do not go to the Canadian Pension Commission but are handled through another agency under the Department of National Defence. However, I believe that since the question has been raised members of parliament are going to have to settle it now. They are going to have to settle it in the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of National Defence. The minister should be prepared to give us an assurance that he is willing to make that change which will allow service personnel to sue in the courts as a final appeal against a decision of the pension commission, a course that cannot be followed at the moment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This act is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, so that I have no direct responsibility under it. I think the correct place to direct the question would be to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister under what regulation or in what manner we were able to bring service personnel under this section of the veterans affairs branch during peacetime? They are being treated in a completely different manner from the way in which they were treated previously when serving in a theatre of war. We are aware of no changes that have been made in the method of treatment, but there must have been some act or regulation passed which allowed the Department of National Defence to use some other agency for employee relationships. In other words, we were aware of

DEBATES	February 22, 1966
the fact we had to pass special legislation to allow the Korean war veterans to receive pensions for war service. This was a special piece of legislation.
The minister is now saying really that he has been able to put all the service personnel under the veterans affairs branch. I have no objection to this, of course, except that it does not sound reasonable in the light of the experience I have had with a number of cases. Obviously, when service personnel were on duty 24 hours a day in Germany, they were on active duty. There was no period when they were on duty and when they were off duty. They were under the direction of the army.
I have one example in which I was particularly interested. An order was given by a commanding officer to have all the employees bring their families to the base for inoculation because there was an epidemic taking place in that town. The airman in question picked up his wife and young daughter and brought them to the base. They were inoculated by the air officer in charge and taken home. The airman had not completed his eight hour shift and he was on his way back to the air base when he was killed. The argument was used that there could be no compensation paid in this case because, while it was true the airman was under orders and his shift had not been completed, he was not acting in line of duty.
In the war, if you were killed it did not matter if you were asleep or awake, you were still on duty and you were covered by these provisions. I believe the problem raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is a very important one. Every Canadian was shocked and embarrassed to realize that it made a difference whether you were going into the house when you got killed or whether you were coming out of the house. Veterans affairs do not usually play it that carefully; they are usually more lenient about these cases. The decision seems to hinge on the fact that we are not at war. Service personnel in peacetime are not really under the same restrictions as service personnel during a time of war, and this fact has been reflected in the treatment they have received. I think all Canadians were shocked to find that this was so. If it is so, we are going to have to cover them by an insurance policy or through some other method. We do believe that service personnel who may be killed, whether or not they are on duty, should be covered by some regulation or some act.
February 22, 1966

We had to pass some special legislation to bring the Korean war veterans under the Department of Veterans Affairs. I think the Canadian people are really interested in this question now and we should do something about it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In so far as the subject the hon. member for Timiskaming was discussing is concerned, the Minister of National Defence is quite correct in saying it comes properly under the Minister of Veterans Affairs. However, the Department of National Defence has an interest in this problem. I believe it is section 13(2) of the Pension Act, a very troublesome section in my opinion, which covers whether a man is on or off duty. I believe it has been very improperly interpreted over the years. I remember that during the time I was Minister of Veterans Affairs I tried to get this altered, but before that happened the public had different ideas about where I should sit in this house. The matter should be pursued through the Department of Veterans Affairs, and if a revision of the Pension Act comes up this year, then it should be dealt with. It is a very serious and important matter.
I agree with most of what the hon. member for Timiskaming has said. The Minister of National Defence, in this particular instance, is not responsible because it is not under his jurisdiction. There is a moral responsibility on the Department of National Defence to try to solve this problem.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Some years ago we tried to solve it by appointing a joint committee from Veterans Affairs and National Defence to see whether the insurance principle could be adopted, thus removing it from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is the situation as it stands at the moment. Before this particular session ends I hope the house will make certain that that section is either removed from the act and responsibility placed on the Department of National Defence, or else it is so modified that there will be none of this disputation as to whether a man is on duty or off duty when he is obviously in uniform, under orders, and going from place A to place B. We could cite a dozen cases tonight-I have had them myself 

where an injustice has been done to the survivors.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair has not intervened in the argument that has been going on for the last few minutes because it

Supply-National Dejence recognizes that there is a relationship between the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Pension Commission. While at this time I should not like to make a firm ruling, I would suggest to the committee that this item would be more properly discussed under the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to pursue the matter unduly, and I am not arguing that it does not come under the purview of the Canadian Pension Commission. I am wondering what the staff of the Department of National Defence has done and what they are prepared to do to see that this situation which has arisen is corrected.
I am quite willing to accept that it exists in some other departments, but this department is responsible for the service personnel of today. If we are not satisfied with the arrangements we make for them and we object strongly enough, then I think the situation will be changed. I am sure they have thought about this. In the case of peacetime personnel we are really buying service from the Department of Veterans Affairs. They cannot be veterans if they are providing service now, though they may be veterans through previous service. All the department is doing is subletting the responsibility it has to provide compensation for the injured and killed to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I am sure the department must be aware that when the type of accident to which we have referred happens, everybody on the base knows that Mary Jane is left with no support, and that she is put into a position into which she would not be put, had her husband not been killed. On the other hand, if her husband had been working in Toronto and had slipped on a bar of soap in a washroom and broken his neck, he would get compensation. There was a case in the mines concerning someone working from collar to collar, although it did not involve taking a shower. However, in the ordinary case compensation would be provided.
I hope the minister will tell us what he is going to do about this. Surely his departmental officials have considered the alternative of providing compensation out of the government treasury under a compensation act. It is very easy to sublet this responsibility, but if this is done I think there is an obligation to see that the right type of service is provided. I suggest it is of prime importance to many people that this be done.
1626	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence
I am prepared to fight the Canadian Pension Commission and the veterans affairs legislation surrounding it over decisions which the commission make. I am also aware of the limitations of the legislation. But the fact is that we have service personnel who in my opinion are not getting proper coverage. I think the minister should be willing to tell us what he is going to do about this and whether he and his colleague will insist that the situation be corrected or an alternative suggested.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, in the case my hon. friend has described I can only say that I am surprised the situation was not covered. Perhaps he would be good enough to give me the details, and I can inquire into the matter, unless it has already been looked into. We certainly agree that we have a responsibility in these matters to make sure that justice, or more than justice, is done, and that there is the best possible arrangement made for the dependents of the men and women of the armed forces.
It might interest my hon. friend to know that we have extended the coverage to include United Nations operations, such as in Cyprus, where the risk principle applies. It has not been applied in all areas, such as in Europe and here at home, but we would certainly be willing to take this matter under consideration and see whether it would be possible to provide coverage.


William Arnold Peters: The risk principle is not too well known to most people. How is this risk principle applied in Cyprus? It is also probably applied in the Gaza strip, in Israel, and in the Congo.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the hon. member mean, how do we select these areas?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, how do you designate an area?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The extension of the insurance principle to these areas was done under the act by order in council, I think.


William Arnold Peters: Is this insurance then paid to the other department? This principle implies a greater risk which cannot be covered in the normal fashion. Is there an interdepartmental accounting system which gives added protection for certain areas?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No. This is just changing the coverage provided by the act. The application is covered by law under the Canadian Pension Act. There are regulations under the act, and areas of coverage can be extended by

DEBATES	February 22. 1966
regulation. You can extend the insurance principle, as is done in cases of active service, and this same principle would apply in Cyprus and in other areas where we are involved in United Nations operations.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to clarify whose responsibility it is to assess an early retirement pension; and whose responsibility was it in the case of pensions based on service going back to the ages of 9, 11 and 12? Is this not the responsibility of the Department of National Defence, or are such cases passed over before retirement to the Department of Veterans Affairs for handling?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the responsibility for this is set by law. Also, what is received is determined by law. The law was merely applied in these cases as it existed, and was administered by the Department of National Defence.
I am now in a position to give the information which-


Malcolm MacInnis: If the
minister does not mind I should like to follow up that question, instead of his referring to information he has had prepared for him by somebody else.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
Since it is the administrative duty of the Department of National Defence to assess pensions in the cases of early retirement as indicated in the Auditor General's report-I refer to the cases which indicated an enlistment age of 9, 11 and 12-does the minister not feel with regard to men who are now in the forces that he has some responsibility toward servicemen who are killed while in uniform, or in any event while presently serving? I would appeal to him to take into consideration the case of Sergeant Hamood, who was killed in Germany while on his way to work in uniform with his commanding officer. His wife and children have been denied a pension because the Pension Commission insisted that he was not on duty, which is a ridiculous situation. If the minister is fully aware of the fact that he is in uniform, he is on duty.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This matter is governed by the Pension Act, Mr. Chairman. This department may make representations, but it does not administer the act.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the minister make representations on behalf of Sergeant Hamood who was killed while riding with his commanding officer.
February 22, 1966


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We shall certainly be glad to look into this.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, would the minister care at this time to answer questions respecting the enlistment age of persons entitled to pensions, which was mentioned earlier. I am sure the members of the committee would be interested to have that statement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, this is in respect of ages of people who were retired. May I read my information in order to put it on the record.
Wing Commander W. G. Taylor was nine years of age, almost ten, or within a few days of being ten, when he enlisted in the non-permanent active militia on the eighth day of the seventh month, 1927.


John George Diefenbaker: Did he indicate that he was nine years old when he enlisted? What age did he give on enlistment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am afraid I shall have to ask my right hon. friend's indulgence in that. He left the non-permanent active militia on the fourteenth day of the sixth month, 1937.
Flight Sgt. J. C. Baker was 11 years old when he enlisted on the sixteenth day of the tenth month, 1926.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With what regiment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He left the non-permanent active militia on the seventh day of the second month, 1936. Apparently he rejoined the militia on the thirtieth day of the third month, 1936, and left again on the second day of the ninth month, 1939.
Lieut. Col. William Alton was aged 12-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The church lads brigade.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -when he enlisted on the twenty ninth day of the eleventh month, 1927. He retired from the militia on the eighteenth day of the seventh month, 1938. Major R. W. Hampton was 12 when he enlisted on the first day of the tenth month, 1926. He retired from the militia on the first day of the seventh month, 1931. Sergeant D. W. Hopkinson was aged 12 when he enlisted on the third day of the fifth month, 1933. He retired from the militia on the thirty first day of the eighth month, 1939.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What was his rank on enlistment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know what it was officially called. I suspect it would be private, or perhaps boy or apprentice.

Supply-National Defence
Flight Sgt. C.F. Page was aged 12 when he enlisted for the first time on the fifth day of the fourth month, 1933. He retired from the militia on the fifteenth day of the fourth month, 1936. He re-enlisted on the nineteenth day of the first month, 1939 and then retired from the militia on the thirty first day of the eighth month, 1939, about when the war broke out.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether the regimental records or the battalion records are available with respect to these enlistments?


An hon. Member:: You had better explain what you mean.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The units are on the statutory declarations, but I do not have them here.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Are the units that you mentioned on the statutory declarations? What I really meant was, are the records of these battalions still in existence?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is rather unfortunate.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the minister owes to the committee and to the house a great deal more explanation than he has given. I know that in Winnipeg young people are joining the cadets, but I have not realized that the cadets or the militia permit people to join at ages of 9, 10, 11 or 12. I still do not believe that. I am rather skeptical about this report. I am sure the minister would not knowingly give wrong information to the house, but I want to say to him that I, for one, doubt every word in every illustration which he has given to the house. I think the house is entitled to an explanation which makes some sense, which the minister's statement certainly does not make to me.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, has the minister tabled the army regulations relating to dates of enlistment in the militia, of that time? They were in existence, I take it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The regulations I quoted earlier, which applied, permitted enlistment at age 13 in special cases. Four of the men mentioned here were approaching their thirteenth birthday at the time they enlisted. One or two got in a little earlier than the others.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, last Friday I raised the question of the simulator for the CF-5. I pursue that again at this hour because we have not had any further comment about the simulator, other than at an earlier period
February 22, 196&

Supply-National Defence both the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Defence Production had no knowledge that the simulator had been purchased in connection with the CF-5 program. I think that this might be quite true. I presume the reason for the specific lack of knowledge concerning the simulator arises from the fact that in the major purchase of any aircraft of this kind, the simulator automatically goes with the whole procedure. I presume that the reason why the simulator program was cancelled is because the United States armed forces are not going to buy the CF-5, and therefore it is not considered financially feasible for the Canadian armed forces to proceed with the simulator.
On the other hand the Associate Minister of National Defence has indicated that several other countries are going to purchase the CF-5. It seems to me that if we are to make the best possible job of what appears to be less than the best aircraft, we have to have the basis for sound training, and you cannot have sound training without the simulator or without a ground training device of some kind. Before any final decisions are made about this, and that is why I bring it up at the moment, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister would be well advised to review this decision. Obviously $50,000 has been invested in the simulator program already. It seems to me that we are not going to have adequate training unless we proceed with this ground trainer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is correct when he says that normally a simulator is required. On this basis the technical branch of the forces sent notice to the Department of Defence Production that a simulator would probably be required, for information only. The Department of Defence Production on the basis of this probability decided that they might invest some money from their revolving fund in the development of a simulator, in order to gain some months lead in the development of it, with the hope that the department would be able to make sales probably to other countries, as well as making it available for the R.C.A.F. In December, and I am speaking from memory, the operators advised the technical branch that the simulator would not be required. This advice was sent immediately to the Department of Defence Production and the project was cancelled at once. It had no relationship whatsoever to any inclination or otherwise of the United States air force to acquire this aircraft.

[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is the minister saying that the CF-5 does not require this sort of device to assist in the training program? It would appear to me that this represents an extreme departure from the training procedures which have always been carried out in the R.C.A.F.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is exactly what I am saying. According to the best advice available in the department the simulator is not required. We have a number of planes with dual controls and to the extent that training of this type is required it will be done in these aircraft. But it is felt that simulator time in addition to dual time is not necessary.


Mr. Hales:: One brief observation before leaving this vote. I should like to direct the attention of the minister and of the committee to the observations made by the Auditor General when he called attention to the case of nine naval officers who left Halifax to go to Victoria on a course. They went in separate cars-nine men, nine cars. They travelled all the way to Victoria and back in connection with a course which lasted from January to May. Allowing for ferry services, meals and other travelling expenses it is estimated that this cost some $5,282, whereas had they travelled by a service aircraft their journey would have cost approximately $600.
We have heard today examples of every kind of extravagance in the minister's department. I realize the example I have just given may relate to an item in the former estimates but I am asking the minister whether he has re-evaluated the system of travel arrangements in his department in an effort to reduce this continual waste of the taxpayers' money-waste which is going on all the time. Every day, as has been pointed out, cars are running around on errands unconnected with official business. I trust the minister will be able to give us a good reason for all such journeys in future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The regulations provide that the commanding officer may decide what means of travel is used by his personnel on official business. He is allowed to take into consideration a number of factors, including morale, the need to have a car at the other end of the journey, and so on. I think it is right that there should be a certain amount of delegation of authority. If there is any one thing which we tend to do in large organizations it is to centralize too much authority and require more decisions to be made at higher levels than is really justified.

February 22, 19S6	COMMONS
Since this particular incident was brought to my notice, however, we have sent out instructions to the effect that commanding officers should be more careful to consider the relative cost of alternative means of transportation when they authorize travel.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sorry to trouble the minister again but I wish to return to this intriguing episode of the enlistment of boys in short pants in the armed forces of Canada.
I am sure the minister wishes to give us all the information he can. Would he agree to having all those persons mentioned by the Auditor General called before the defence committee so that they can explain in detail how these lads were enlisted at that time and in what circumstances; the regiments to which they belonged and the services which they performed before they reached the normal age of enlistment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: These gentlemen are all retired from the service now. But every case has already been thoroughly investigated. Our legal department has reached the conclusion that in all cases the evidence presented was valid-and the application of the law is based on valid evidence.
In these circumstances I think the only course open to the hon. gentleman, if he feels this practice should be ended, would be to introduce or support amendments to the law which would obviate these payments to people who serve at a certain age.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In reply to the minister I would say that the first thing to do would be to move an amendment to the National Defence Act providing for the raising of the age of enlistment in the armed forces of Canada. It is not fair to have people of nine years of age enlisting in the army. It is going too far.


An hon. Member:: How old were you?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Eighteen. Would the committee not have the right to call these people to whom I have referred?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would be up to the committee.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot answer that question offhand. I believe the standing committee would have the power to call witnesses if it wanted to. I think the relevant committee would be the Public Accounts Committee, because this affects an item which is now included in the Public Accounts.


Erik Nielsen: I was interested in the minister's promise yesterday in reply to several questions put to him by members on this side
DEBATES	1829
Supply-National Defence of the house that he would explain to us the performance capabilities of the CF-5. I can recall in particular questions about the takeoff run, the length of runway required, and this somewhat astounding capability of the CF-5 to land on grass. The minister was also talking about the ground support role which this aircraft could play.
Would he now fulfil his promise of yesterday and elaborate on these matters for the benefit of those of us in the opposition who are not quite so technically informed as is the minister?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. member would look at the record I think he will find I said that this information could best be given before the standing committee which will be meeting in a few days, and before which all this information can be given, such as takeoff characteristics, performance at different altitudes under varying loads, and so on. This would involve more technical information than it would be appropriate to give before the committee of the whole house.


Erik Nielsen: I think I recall the minister's promise last evening. He specifically mentioned vote 15 on which all this elaboration and enlightenment was to be forthcoming. Surely the minister can enlighten the committee this evening on all these matters, particularly in view of the lengthy and detailed statement in support of the aircraft he gave to us last night?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the hon. gentleman has juxtaposed two things in his mind. He could confirm this, I believe, by looking again at the record. In view of the fact that there are so many different conditions in respect of which he would, no doubt, want information concerning the performance of this plane, the best place to have an answer to these questions is in the standing committee, where officers could show charts and graphs of performance over a wide range.


Erik Nielsen: I would be prepared to wait for the meetings of the committee if the minister was prepared to tell us this evening that because of his limited knowledge of the performance capabilities of this aircraft he is incapable of advising us with regard to them. Otherwise I think we should have an explanation tonight. If the minister would go so far as to admit this, I am prepared to be patient.
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister inform us as to the role of honorary colonels in the new integrated armed forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, is too involved and too detailed for discussion at this moment, but I would be glad to take it up with my hon. friend some afternoon over a cup of tea.


Mr. Bigg:: Would the minister look into the whole matter of consolidation of pensions with respect to armed forces personnel? I studied this subject in great detail. There are many anomalies in the services. People who were in the armed forces during world war II do not have their service counted when it comes to a matter of consolidating with civil service pensions or K.C.M.P. pensions. The minister, as the man intimately involved in this whole problem, should examine it carefully.
The minister is having great difficulty keeping personnel in the armed forces. One of the reasons is that they are not clear how long they are going to be able to serve, and what type of pension consolidation they will have if they join the civil service or mounted police. They do not know this either with respect to broken service. Private business is calling young men away from the forces to fly commercial aircraft, to work in the technical electronics field, and to work as mechanics, and these young men should know what their position is with respect to pensions.
While he is at it the minister should look into the pensions of those who served 20 and 30 years in the armed service, going back as far as the South African war. Some of these people are living on pitiful pensions. Having served in the armed forces myself, I know that those who are still in the forces are worrying about whether or not they will get a square deal from the department. If this matter does not come entirely under the minister's purview then the Cabinet, Treasury Board and the Pension Commission should get together on it and see that no matter what branch of the armed services, or of the public service a man is in, he should get the same kind of deal as people serving in another branch. If we can give pensions backdated to the age of 9, 10, 11 and 12 years, then men who have served from the age of 21 until retirement should have a living income.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to turn up the commitment which the minister made last night and I am satisfied my recollection is accurate that he said he would discuss these matters under vote 15 in committee. In the interval he has had the opportunity to refer to his experts, one of whom on his right I had the privilege of serving under in the air force. Surely these answers are available to him, in view of the fact that he has his officials before him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I really do not think it is too helpful because there is such a wide variation of conditions that to start with just one or two figures would not be helpful. In view of the fact that the committee I was referring to, the standing committee, is going to be formed within a few days-I think the organization meeting is on Thursday and it will probably be starting its deliberations next week,-it could have full information on this subject and an opportunity could be provided to it to go into some considerable detail over the wide range of possibilities that would interest my hon. friend.


Erik Nielsen: The minister made a very wide ranging speech last night. He went on for pages and pages in Hansard, dealing with the role of the CF-5. We are now on the vote that is going to authorize the expenditure of millions of dollars for an aircraft the role of which is in some doubt, the economics of which are in some doubt': The minister elaborated in some detail, but not sufficient in the view of many of us, on the role this aircraft would be playing in the defence fabric of the country. He stressed particularly the ground support role. It is my own view that this aircraft is unsuitable for a ground support role, and certainly this would appear to be the case according to the opinions of the experts I have read and spoken with.
The ground support role the minister was speaking of last night at such great length could at least be elaborated on this evening for members of the committee. I do not think we can simply gloss over it, in view of the millions of dollars to be spent on the aircraft. I believe it is only right that we, and the country at large, know precisely how this aircraft is going to be employed, and what justification the minister has, on the advice of his experts, for suggesting it is the most suitable aircraft to fulfil the role for which it is being purchased.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I explained this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, the aircraft is an additional

February 22. 1966	COMMONS
arm in support of the land forces. It is to provide additional firepower and air support. It will be formed in squadrons and in an air brigade under the command of mobile commander, to be used by him in support of the balance of his force in the way that any other arm would be used.
The techniques of supporting ground forces are well known to my hon. friend. There is nothing strange or mysterious about them, except that it has been a long while since the R.C.A.F. was involved in this particular role. It is one in which it excelled in world war II, and one which is becoming of increasing importance in view of the real strategic situation in the world today, with the likelihood of conflagrations involving active air defence or in which the use of the nuclear strike squadrons in Europe is diminishing, and where the likelihood of having to use something short of that, such as ground support aircraft in other parts of the world, is considerably greater so far as probability is concerned.
Therefore I think the role has been well established and I think the evidence will show that for the purposes we have in mind, for getting into the tactical aircraft business again, this is a good decision and it will be a first class aircraft for the particular task being assigned to it.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister mind answering one or two of my specific questions while he has his experts here? Can he tell me, for instance, what is the speed his experts feel advisable should be the capability of a pure jet aircraft such as the one under discussion in a ground support role, and what heights the minister, again on the advice of his experts, believes that ground support is necessary in which to employ the CF-5?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the kind of information that can much better be dealt with before the standing committee.


John George Diefenbaker: We want information. We want none of this evasion that went on last night. We want answers.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not want to enter into an argument with my right hon. friend-


John George Diefenbaker: I hope not.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I don't want to do that, but he has had some problems with airplanes in his day.


John George Diefenbaker: But I never used them during an election campaign to find out their practicability.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What height were you flying at?
DEBATES	1631
Supply-National Defence
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He started out with a high altitude interceptor and tried to make a low level bomber out of it. This is not too long ago, and when it comes to a choice of aircraft, and modification to make it suitable for a particular task, he is quite an expert, having gone through it once or twice himself. I think you will recall, because of this, probably just how complicated and difficult it is in the committee of the whole house to use figures in the circumstances which are meaningful enough to be helpful.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister say that he does not know?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.


Erik Nielsen: Then will the minister answer my questions; there are two very simple questions, questions which the minister should be able to answer with the officials he has before him. My own belief is that the aircraft does not have this performance capability that would allow it to be used in the role in which it is intended to employ it. Whether or not my view on the matter is correct, surely the minister is going to be gracious enough to allow the rest of us to share in this tremendous knowledge he has of these technical matters, and particularly when the two questions are so brief and simple.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think I should refer my hon. friend to the interim reports on the Skoshi Tiger tests which were in the same kind of a ground support role, including interdiction, in the Viet Nam war, and where the airplane has performed admirably under those circumstances; where it was able to deliver on target a vast quantity of stores; where it was able to perform a very high number of sorties; where the cost of keeping it in operation, because of the low number of man-hours required per flight hour, was very low; where the attrition rate was very low, because this aircraft is less susceptible to ground fire than some of the other airplanes which my hon. friend might be thinking of; and where there were many other tests that it was subjected to in respect of which it performed admirably in the type of role that we would expect it to perform.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What does that mean?


Erik Nielsen: The minister has made a concerted effort to dazzle us with his footwork. The question I asked him remains
1632	COMMONS DEBATES	February 22, 1966
Supply-National Defence unanswered. I remember that when the minister was on this side of the house in the opposition asking specific questions about specific weaponry of the then minister of national defence he was not satisfied until he got his answers, which usually were much more rapidly forthcoming than we are experiencing this evening. Surely, to these very simple and brief questions, the minister has an answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly the altitudes required for ground support are not great, and this particular airplane has an exceptional performance up to 20,000 feet, below which it can cope with practically any aircraft you can name. It can excel in most cases. It can outfly the 104, for example, in that envelope; it has very fast acceleration, supersonic dash capability, a good turning radius, and a very good capability in respect of that envelope in which the plane is operating. I think this is the specific answer to my friend's question.


Erik Nielsen: It is, within 20,000 feet; but I do not regard 20,000 feet as ground support, to revert to the technical role of this airplane to which the minister referred. Immediately after the last war, in a similar role, I think in terms of ground support as being at much less altitude than 20,000 feet. The minister and I may have a different concept of what ground support means. This just leaves the question hanging at 20,000 feet.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think my hon. friend is trying to confuse the issue.


Erik Nielsen: Let us get along to the question, which remains unanswered, and that is the question concerning its speed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It has a top speed in the vicinity of 1,000 miles an hour, which is plenty fast enough to engage any target that might come within its envelope. The flying characteristics which I outlined are such that this aircraft can stand up admirably to anything that might attack it in the altitude envelope in which it would operate.


Erik Nielsen: I may be a year or two or more removed from the modern concept of what ground support really means, but is the minister suggesting that 1,000 miles an hour at 20,000 feet is the modern concept of what ground support must be in this new role of the air force?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Most certainly not, Mr. Chairman, and I am shocked at the hon. gentleman's suggesting this. Ground support

is subsonic on the deck; that is what the airplane would operate at in most cases. The advantage of having a supersonic dash capability is in case it is attacked from above by another airplane, in which case it can drop its stores and go supersonic if it wants to. That is the great advantage of this airplane over one or two others that were considered.


Erik Nielsen: Do we understand then that the 1,000 miles per hour is the speed at which this aircraft is intended to be used in the ground support role; is that what we are to understand?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is completely incorrect, Mr. Chairman, and the hon. gentleman knows it. This line of questioning just proves conclusively the suggestion I made earlier that it is futile under these circumstances to answer technical questions and that he should reserve his questions until he can put them in the Standing Committee on Defence to the air force officers who will be there.


Erik Nielsen: I have in mind, Mr. Chairman, too that it is rather futile, because the period of almost an hour that the minister spent last evening ranging politically over the whole spectrum of defence in the bombastic way in which he did, and which has resulted in this additional questioning today and this evening, indicates to me he has no intention whatsoever of enlightening the members of this committee in respect of the questions asked yesterday and which he committed himself to answer today. There were many questions asked concerning the aircraft, and the minister did commit himself to give answers. In his own inimitable, exclusive and arrogant fashion he is simply refusing to answer the very questions he was asked to answer and which he committed himself to answer yesterday and last night.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 15 carry?


Mr. Forrestall:: Just before we go on, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would explain to me whether we bought the old F-5, whether we bought the F-5A, which is a slight modification of it, whether we bought the F-5A15, or whether we bought the F-5N? On the basis of the answers to these questions will rest the validity of some of the answers to questions asked this afternoon and evening, and more particularly some of the answers that the hon. member for Yukon is attempting to get.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We did not buy any of those models, Mr. Chairman. We bought one which
February 22, 1966

we have configured for our own requirements.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall item 15 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, there were one or two questions asked before the supper hour having to do with the expropriation of land near camp Valcartier and the dispossession of people who have been living there in a village and on farms which were pioneered by their ancestors 150 years ago. Has the minister had time now to consider these questions and will he indicate to the house that these expropriation actions will cease forthwith so that the 25 families who are now in a state of dismay may be assured that they will be allowed to remain in possession of their homes and property, just as other members of this house would like to be assured under similar circumstances? I am sure the members of this house would resist any expropriation such as this by the Department of National Defence for the purposes outlined to us in regard to the expansion of a military camp. What has the Minister or the Associate Minister to say to guide this house regarding this particular problem? I await their answers.
[Translation1


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I said, before the adjournment I believe, that I was prepared to reconsider the whole matter with the parties concerned.
I reminded the hon. member that I had already spoken to these parties, that my officials had started negotiations with them and that, since that time, I had heard no more about the matter, but that I was willing to look into the whole matter once more with a view to finding an adequate solution-I even used the word equitable-for these people. I am most willing to start over again.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall item 15 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, one must always examine carefully the words used by the associate minister. Before our supper hour he said he was willing to negotiate a just settlement with the people concerned. What I want to know is whether the whole operation will cease and whether the expropriation will be cancelled so that these people may be left where they are. What the associate minister is suggesting is that he will undertake to carry out negotiations with those people who object to the price they are being offered for their homes. That is not
Supply-National Defence what we are talking about. We are talking about justice and equitable treatment for these people, leaving them where they are and establishing the mortar firing range somewhere else.
This afternoon the Minister of National Defence would not tell me the length of the range required for mortar firing. Apparently that information is so highly secret it should not be divulged. I wonder if perhaps Mr. Spencer has already obtained that information. Apparently the minister does not want the Russians to know the range of our mortar, but I doubt very much whether that is the kind of information which is not already accessible to any country in the world that has an interest.
I wanted an answer to that question in order to ascertain how much land is required. Why are there not other artillery ranges in existence that could be used for this purpose? It is a simple matter to have musketry ranges at army camps for rifle and machine gun fire; but in regard to mortar fire, as is the case with artillery fire, you must have a wider area for safety reasons. If this change at Valcartier is being made in order to set up a range for mortar fire, I suggest this reason could be better satisfied by using artillery ranges somewhere else, likely at a lesser cost.
May I ask the minister whether any part of the Valcartier camp-and I am not familiar with its state in recent years-is used for artillery practice. If the answer to that question is yes, then he already has in effect a mortar range there. If the answer is no, I would ask the minister why he does not shift this mortar practice to places where artillery ranges are already in operation. Will the minister tell me whether or not there is an artillery range in use at camp Valcartier?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, there is no artillery range at camp Valcartier. Indeed, there was nowhere near sufficient land, until this expropriation took place, to permit either mortar or artillery fire of any kind. The range that exists there is so limited and so congested with unexploded shells that practically no firing can be done. While it is true that units can be moved to other camps, as they are regularly during the summertime to camp Gagetown, for example, this involves a rather short period of time in which there are concentrated exercises, at a considerable transportation cost.
More important than that, Mr. Chairman, is the rather restricted training time in summer,
1634	COMMONS
Supply-National Dejence which is not really adequate when one considers the opportunities available for year-round training which will be possible at this camp with the additional property. We will be permitted with this additional acreage to carry out a much wider variation of on-site training during a greater part of the year, which will in turn give us better and more effective use of training time for the troops who are normally stationed at that camp.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the minister will indicate the number of troops that are stationed at that camp, the type of service for which they are enrolled and the amount of practice firing involved. Perhaps he could indicate how many mortar shells would be used in the course of a year. I might say that I am not entirely unfamiliar with this type of training, but I should like the minister to give us some information in this regard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The normal complement at that camp is up to three battalions, plus support troops. The infantry has now placed some orders for mortars, but as my hon. friend must know, I cannot tell him the actual amount of firing that will take place. Perhaps at a later stage when the standing committee meets, the commander of Mobile Command, who is one of the individuals interested in this development, will be called to enlighten my hon. friend as to the exact plans he has in mind to best use the training facilities we have acquired.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister whether the three battalions there are resident throughout the year?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Three are resident, from time to time, although not at this moment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does that mean they are rotated, with other battalions coming in to take their place?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Sometimes they are rotated overseas, as are other battalions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the minister could indicate the amount of mortar firing these units carry out in the course of a year, what proportion of the battalions use mortars, and the number of men involved?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated last night, Mr. Chairman, the amount of mortar fire has been severely restricted in recent years as a result of ammunition restrictions. One of the plans we have for re-equipping the armed forces involves the provision of more ammunition so that more live ammunition can be used in training.

DEBATES	February 22, 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I had the understanding that there was a restriction on mortar shells. Could the minister inform us as to the cost of a mortar shell?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are many different types of mortar shells. Perhaps if the hon. member will give us the particular type, the mark number and the manufacturer we will be able to look up the cost for him.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I will give the minister that information if he will indicate the type of mortar and the mark number now being used by the battalion. If the minister will tell me the kind of equipment used by the infantry in respect of mortars I will tell him which one I have an interest in. [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
It is obvious that the minister does not know. It is quite obvious that Valcartier camp is not required for mortar training. There is not a sufficient number of mortar shells at the present time. They happen to be expensive, you know, much more expensive than a rifle cartridge; and they come in different sizes. Also, not all battalions use these sizes and there are not very many men in the mortar platoons or sections that would be using them; and the battalions rotate from camp to camp. I suggest that mortar training could be carried out elsewhere.
The minister is trying to cure a deficiency at Valcartier camp, and perhaps he would answer this question: Where are the mortar ranges for our troops now? That is something that should not be too difficult to answer.


Malcolm MacInnis: Ask
him about motorcycles.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Gagetown, Petawawa and
Wain wright.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And how many troops normally take part in exercises at Gagetown?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Last year I think the exercises were at brigade level, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is quite obvious that there is plenty of opportunity for the mortar sections and platoons in infantry regiments to be trained elsewhere than at Valcartier. I make a plea to the minister, just as the Leader of the Opposition did before supper, to show some kindness of heart for 25 families who are being dislodged from their homes.
I cannot understand this attitude on the part of the minister. The Prime Minister is here and I am very glad to see him. I understand, Mr. Prime Minister, that these people sent a message to you asking for your
February 22, 1966

interest and your kindly assistance in having this decision of the Department of National Defence altered. Would you not, Mr. Prime Minister-I think you are part Irish, as I am-also take some interest in these descendants of the Irish who are living in this area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether my hon. friend could give me a few more particulars about this message with which he seems to be so familiar?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make the appeal to the Prime Minister, too. We take such a great interest in peoples all over the world and yet right in our own country we have a situation that exists adjacent to Valcartier camp that just cannot be justified. I am not going into the detail at this moment, except to say that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency said this afternoon, "All is well. I get the votes, and everybody is satisfied". Because of the desire of the Prime Minister to get the facts I am going to place them before him in abbreviated form and give him also the source of the information. I begin by referring to the issue of the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph of February 17.
Here is an area adjacent to Valcartier camp in which there are 25 families who have been there for several generations. They received peremptory notice within the last few months, and certainly it appears since the election when the hon. gentleman was able to get the votes, that this land was to be taken over by the Department of National Defence. The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency made the statement this afternoon that all was well and nobody was complaining. I have already placed on the record the views of certain of the people involved in this move. The Prime Minister was communicated with. These people gave up trying to soften the adamant attitude of the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister and made the appeal to the Prime Minister of Canada to look into this matter. A protest was organized in Shannon and a petition was sent to the Prime Minister. It was duly acknowledged. One of the letters was actually answered, this article says, by the Associate Minister and in part it read as follows-and this was a letter to Joseph Griffin:
After the "most careful consideration" the department had come to the conclusion that there was no practical alternatives to the expropriation plan announced by the government.
"The training exercises to be carried out in the enlarged camp", noted the minister's reply, "necessitate access to the area north of Pinky Mountain
Supply-National Defence through what we might term "The Shannon Corridor".
That was a statement thoroughly resented in this area:
No top level official of the defence ministry has bothered to go to Shannon to hear the views of those the government is planning to dispossess of a heritage.
These people are just being told, "Get out of here. Away with you. We are going to give you the proper value for your land". The associate minister today spoke as if something beneficent on the part of the government was going to be the result; the government was going to treat these people right in what they would pay them. That is not what they are asking for; they are asking to stay on their land. This article says that no top level official of the Department of National Defence has bothered to hear the views of those the government is planning to dispossess of a heritage. That is what it is, a heritage.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, in what other part of Canada where people have lived for generations would you get other than the strongest resentment when they were ordered to get out of the area because the army had decided they were going to save a few dollars on this program, and these particular 10,000 acres were to be taken over? This article continues:
The people of Shannon know their village is doomed.
All I have to say is that they ought not to know that. They ought to know that the first responsibility of parliament is to preserve and protect the freedom and rights of individuals. That is what we are here for. Then the article says:
But they are awaiting that doom with arms folded and in a mood of resignation.
The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency says, "I get the votes".


Ovide Laflamme: I never said that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is no answer to this question. These people as late as February 17 made a strong complaint about their treatment in this connection. The article says:
They are prepared to fight for what they consider to be a wholly unwarranted and arrogant invasion of their rights.
I use their words and say that what has taken place is unbelievable, namely that we should be met by a solid wall of contemptuous silence toward a situation like this on the part of both these ministers. Further, Mr. Chairman, the article says:
"Money", snorted one elderly Shannon resident. "What's money? My father lived here and his
1636	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence father before that. How can a few thousand dollars make up for the loss of all these memories!"
Then, as I said this afternoon, there is the editorial headed "Army Takeover Spells End For A Proud, Old Village". This editorial concludes with these words:
Surely, somebody at Ottawa must care.
I say, Mr. Chairman, surely they should. That is why I come to the Prime Minister and ask him this question. Over the years we have not always agreed on things, but we at least agree that when things are wrong they should be rectified. I cannot get anywhere and my hon. friend for Winnipeg South Centre cannot get anywhere with these ministers. These men just say, "This is what you are going to get," to these 25 Irish families, "because we decide it". I am making an appeal to the Prime Minister just as did the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The matter is before the Prime Minister. Why should these pioneer Canadians whose families have been resident here for generations be told, "There you go. Out you go. Down you go. As far as we are concerned, we give you no consideration".
This situation cannot be allowed to continue. We want nothing excepting justice and fairness. I thought when we raised this matter we would immediately get results. All we hear from the associate minister is that these people will receive compensation. They are not seeking compensation; they are seeking justice and that is what we are asking for on their behalf. I make an appeal to the Prime Minister. I am not going to be brushed aside any longer by these obviously diaphanous undertakings. We want to know, as the Quebec Chronicle asks, if there is someone at Ottawa who cares.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I thought there may be some reason that we could not understand which might be advanced. The minister quite frankly gave his views and said there would be some little saving. We have never used this before for mortar purposes. I ask, then, why now? Last night the minister was casting aspersions on Sir Sam Hughes. I want to tell you that Sir Sam Hughes brought about the greatest congregation in Valcartier in 1914 that existed in any part of the empire in that day outside of the United Kingdom. They came from all parts of Canada, and they have been in Valcartier since. Surely, in 1966, these people are not to be treated as chattels, to be pushed around by ministers, departmental officials or
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
DEBATES	February 22. 196&
army officers who place a higher value on. saving a few dollars by moving a small number of these men who were in this camp.
I intend to find out whether or not human values take second place to administrative dictation, and that is what has happened here. Nobody goes to see them. They complain, they write letters and they receive no response except the kind of letter I quoted a moment ago. Nobody goes out to see them. After all, what are 25 families among 20 million people? Parliament cannot condone this kind of thing. I make an appeal to the Prime Minister because our concern all over the world is for every type of person who receives unjust consideration. Let us now, for once, give to Canadians the same consideration that we invariably evince for people in other parts of the world. These Canadians are entitled to consideration.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I have right here the blues on my last statement-not the first, because I made one before we adjourned for dinner-in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).
And I quote that statement literally:
I reminded the hon. member that I had already spoken to these parties, that my officials had started negotiations with them-
It is not true that no one went to see them.
-and that, since that time, I had heard no more about the matter, but that I was willing to look into the whole matter once more with a view to finding an adequate solution-
I even used the word "equitable"',
-for these people.
I am most willing to start over again.
Need I say more, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what those words mean. Is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) the only one really interested in the fate of those people? Do people think, for instance, that all those private property expropriations are made coldly, over the heads of everybody, without any consideration for special cases?
I have the greatest respect for the people of Shannon and what they stand for in Canada. They made representations to the department and we did everything in our power to try and comply with their legitimate wishes.
A new problem came up and, as I said, we are prepared to start all over again. What more can we do? I do not think anything more can be expected of a minister who administers his department in the best interest of the country and its people.
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
As I said earlier, I am ready to renegotiate with those people and their representatives and to re-examine the whole question, and we shall see then. I explained at the outset how the present situation came about. Unfortunately, those people live in what is considered a danger zone. That is why, at the time, we decided it might be better to expropriate them along with the others.
We have never closed the door on a reconsideration of the whole matter. But they did not come back to see us. I saw those people only once. I am willing to meet with them at any time to review the whole matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If there are two more obstinate ministers in the commonwealth, I should like to meet them. We have here, in the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister, two gentlemen who stonewall everything we suggest. They just will not move. Now the associate minister is trying to assure us he is going to look after these people. He is willing to negotiate. He is willing to start all over again. Let us get this thing straightened out. Let the Associate Minister of National Defence answer this question: Is all the land which constitutes the territory of these 25 families already expropriated?
ITranslationl


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The information I gave the committee was with reservation. The military authorities who examined the site decided a cannon and long-range mortar shooting-range was needed in the area. I can go on further. I said that I went no further than that.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not negotiation they want.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My second question is this: Have plans been made to establish a mortar range in or adjacent to the area that has been expropriated?
1Translation]


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I think so, Mr. Chairman. Naturally, this question was brought up in the office a few months ago. I have not seen the file. This matter just cropped up this afternoon, but I think so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, that is established, that these plans are already under way for a range for long range mortars. My third question is: Have the people been notified that
DEBATES	1637
Supply-National Defence when the range has been established, they will then be in a danger area? This is a great lesson in how you do these things in an autocratic manner. You expropriate land, set up or prepare to set up a range in which dangerous weapons will be fired and shells exploded, then inform the people they will be in a danger zone. Then, what are you to do? If they have objections, you say: We are prepared to negotiate to see what we can do. This is a shocking example of autocracy in action, absolutely shocking. Yet, as the Leader of the Opposition has said we are very concerned, and rightly concerned, with regard to the people of the world who are not being treated justly. Let us start with our own people in our own country. I think this is unjust treatment of 25 Canadian families.
As an earlier hon. member pointed out, there was no need for a mortar range in order to practice our troops. Why cannot the minister, Prime Minister or Associate Minister of National Defence tell us that they will go right back to the beginning, cancel the expropriation proceedings and transfer the mortar range to some other area in which there are not any people living? Why can this range not be established at some other military camp at which there are artillery ranges, because that is where these mortar shells should be fired?


An hon. Member:: Is that what you want?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well I am making suggestions. I did not get the significance of that remark.


Clément Vincent: He is talking about votes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, let him worry about that part of it; I am trying to instil some reason into the heads of these ministers of defence. They know, as I know, that you do not fire many mortar shells in order to train people to fire them during the course of a year. They know, as I know, that battalions rotate from camp to camp. You can have your mortar training and fire live shells as you reach the appropriate camp. They know, as I know, that you are not firing off live ammunition every month of the year. They also know, as I know, that there is not a surplus of mortar shells at the present time. And they know, as I know, that they are expensive.
Now, where do we go from there? The whole idea is ridiculous, and the sorriest part of it all is the absolutely adamant attitude of these two ministers. How do you make a further appeal to them? There is plenty of
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence land in Canada for the exercises they suggest. Is there some other reason behind this? That is what we should like to find out. I say let us cancel the whole operation and assure these people that they will not be dispossessed; and let us make other plans for the mortar range which apparently is required.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see the Associate Minister of National Defence is now concerned about the problem which I raised yesterday and again this afternoon. When I put the matter to him initially he seemed quite unperturbed and undisturbed about it. I am sure that if I had not raised it again today he would have allowed the estimates to go through without making any comment upon it.
He now says he is concerned about the individuals who are being dispossessed in this area and that he will take whatever steps or action is possible in order to give them some sort of redress of grievance. They do have a real grievance, Mr. Chairman, because it seems to me wrong for government to use its powers of expropriation in the perverse kind of way it has used them in this particular instance. Why should government, when dealing with a relatively small number of little property holders, have to invoke the power of expropriation without at least attempting first of all to acquire this real property through the process of free negotiation? The minister made mention of the possibility of land speculators getting into the deal. I would say to him that the custom and practice in the provinces over the years has been to resort to negotiation as often as possible, and to resort to expropriation only after negotiation has broken down or ended in stalemate.
There is no great fear of speculation in the particular community involved here. It is not as though we were dealing with a suburban community in a large metropolitan complex. Perhaps there could be the problem of speculation there, but not, Mr. Chairman, in a rural community in Canada.
I submit to the associate minister that the reason he has given is really a poor excuse. I would suggest to him that if he searches for the real reason that expropriation was resorted to in this case he will find it was administrative convenience. It is certainly more convenient to the administration to acquire property in this way. All they have to do is simply to file a plan of expropriation at the land titles office, and that is all there is to it: the land is then vested in the Crown. Then they proceed to negotiate. But that kind of


negotiation is, I suggest, spurious. No real bargaining or negotiation can take place. The individuals in this case have, in effect, been robbed of their property rights.
The minister said that having duly considered the matter in the past he came to the conclusion that this land really was necessary for the enlargement of camp Valcartier. However, when you read the excerpts which have appeared in the press from the letter written by the minister to some of the people in that area, you find he makes reference to this need in this particular area-by the way, he refers to it as the "Shannon corridor"-and says that this particular land is needed as a means of access to some government-owned land further north from camp Valcartier.
I would ask the minister whether this land actually was needed for training purposes, or was it needed in the department's opinion merely as a means of access to larger tracts of military training ground held or owned by the government further to the north?
I make no apologies for raising this matter. Someone asked me why it was necessary to raise this question in the House of Commons because, after all, this forum is supposed to deal with affairs and problems on a national scale. It has been suggested that only 25 families are involved here. When large bodies such as governments deal with holders of small plots of property and impinge on their rights, it is necessary to take as firm a stand as possible against any infractions by what the Leader of the Opposition called autocracy. I sincerely hope the minister or the associate minister will look at the file once again to see whether the course of action they have taken was necessary in the first place.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I think the question asked the minister and the associate minister is a very simple one. As has been said, they have expropriated this land by order in council and filed certain documents in connection therewith. The minister has referred to negotiation, but all he has really said to these people is: "We will negotiate with you people but you are going to leave. We will make it so tough that you will leave, but we will negotiate a fair, equitable price". In other words he is saying "We might offer you a few more dollars to get out".
The point which we are making tonight is this. Surely what hon. members are asking for is an undertaking from the minister or the associate minister that when they talk about negotiation they will go back to the
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
cabinet and tell the cabinet they are going to rescind the order in council expropriating this property, and that they are going to take another look at this question and leave these people and their property rights alone. Property rights is one of the basic rights in this land.
I am glad to see the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources listening to this debate because I have had some experience with reference to his department in this regard. Therefore I might be able to kill two pigeons with one stone.
We know all about the sort of equitable negotiations which take place with departments or through ministers, so 1 think the minister should explain what he means by negotiations. Is he prepared to go back to cabinet and recommend that this order in council be rescinded? Is he prepared to say to these people who have traditionally held this land: "I am going to leave you here and will carry on this enterprise somewhere else without interference with property rights"? Before this item passes we want the minister to clarify exactly what he means.

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) will understand exactly what I mean when he reads in the official report the statement which I made and shall now repeat.
I said that I was ready to negotiate again with the people concerned. Not having heard from those people since the beginning of my correspondence with them, am I convinced and, in spite of that newspaper article, am I in fact certain that they still wish to remain in the expropriated area? I am not convinced of it. I say that I am ready to negotiate with them and to find out precisely what they want. I am ready to treat them equitably.
I do not think one could ask for more.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the minister mean by that that if he does send an ambassador-I call him that-to find out whether the people concerned want to remain where they are, and if this ambassador who is an agent of the minister speaks to these people and they say to him, "We want to keep our traditional homes", he is going to go along with that request? That is the whole point of my question. Let us forget about the niceties of words; let us get down to brass tacks.
DEBATES	1639
Supply-National Defence


John George Diefenbaker: That is precisely the point.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, when I say I shall do everything in my power, I think that I cannot be asked for more. That is what I undertake to do.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I am not questioning the minister's integrity. He is going to do everything possible, but "possible" may be exactly what has happened to many other Canadians in this country, so far as expropriation proceedings are concerned. If the minister and the associate minister really want to do something to show the right spirit, in response to requests made from this side of the house-because this is an important matter and has been raised by other members in other parties-they must realize that if that type of ambassador is sent out, and if it is found that the people concerned wish to stay where they are, then the department should rescind the order in council and should start expropriation proceedings. When the minister can give that kind of undertaking, then I think we shall be prepared to let the matter pass.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently he says no to that.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the associate minister if all 25 families are standing firm against this department, or have any of the 25 families shown that they want to compromise, or to negotiate the matter.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As far as I can
remember, Mr. Chairman, and I hope to be excused because I do not have the file with me, all the persons involved did not sign the petition. That may be due to the fact that the Department of National Defence has come to an agreement with them.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the minister say whether to the best of his knowledge the people concerned have already been given notice as to a date to vacate the premises? [Translation]


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As far as I can
recall, no date was set for leaving the premises. On the contrary, those people were given to understand that it would probably take several years before the base was fully enlarged. That was one of the considerations.
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence
It was felt that it would thus be easier for the Department of National Defence to make arrangements with each individual with regard to his relocation. That, I believe, was one of the considerations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if we could now ask the Minister of National Defence about what is really the crux of the matter, and that is the danger area to be established respecting the range for mortar firing. Will the Minister of National Defence inform the committee that a range for mortar firing is essential at Valcartier camp? Will the minister also tell us when he plans to have that range established, and when firing practice will probably begin?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, as I recall the requisition, in order to facilitate battalion training and to enable more realistic and varied exercises to be carried on, a tremendous amount of room is required for deployment and for manoeuvre under conditions of modem warfare. To use modern equipment requires a great deal of space.
In addition to this, it is anticipated that ranges will be required for a variety of weapons including antitank, mortar, and perhaps self-propelled artillery. It takes a lot of space to have these kinds of manoeuvres and exercises. The Associate Minister has already undertaken to take a look at the area again, to determine whether the area in question is an absolute requirement. I do not think he could give any more assurance tonight, because this is not just something that you can say without taking a harder look at, than we have been able to at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You can take a look right now. The minister has now extended his request. He now says that he requests ranges for a variety of weapons. Three or four hours ago it was for mortar fire. That was an undetermined range for an undetermined size of mortar. They are undetermined because these are secrets that he keeps to himself. Now he says that anti-tank weapons may be used and that self-propelled artillery may be used. Therefore he is getting up into the 75 millimeter class, and the 105 class, and I suppose that he will have howitzers and other artillery equipment. Does this mean artillery regiments are going to be shifted to Valcar-tier camp for their training? I ask the minister that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman, certainly not necessarily. But what it will provide is adequate land to exercise whatever units are sent there in the normal course, and it has the facility and the flexibility which we think is essential, as part of our best deployment of the mobile force.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister where the artillery regiment, the anti-tank regiment, the self-propelled artillery, and in fact all the artillery regiments now get their live ammunition training on ranges?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think, speaking from memory, that it is at Shilo, Wainwright and Petawawa.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister if during the course of the last 50 years, which is the time that Valcartier camp has been in operation as a military camp, it has been used for artillery purposes? If the minister has not the information on that, can he say anything with respect to the last ten years? Has the camp been used for that purpose within the last ten years?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not a military historian, Mr. Chairman. I cannot answer that question offhand.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he should be an historian.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think if the minister were to become a military historian that he would know something about warfare, which at the present time he does not. That is one of the greatest weaknesses in this minister. He does not know these things. Now he has been talking about establishing a larger area for training at Valcartier. First he is going to have a mortar range; then he extends it to an anti-tank range; then to self-propelled artillery. Is the minister aware that for 50 years the camp has been used for musketry purposes?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are trying to get out of the musket age.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope that the minister with his great interest in mobility will make arrangements to have a mobile casualty station out in the front of this building so that he and his associates can be treated for their wounds tonight, because they are suffering. They are gradually bleeding to death I think.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We want to get some satisfactory answers from the minister instead of these casual, flippant replies. Artillery training is carried
February 22, 1966

out, as he mentioned, at three locations, possibly in others. This has been going on satisfactorily for years, throughout two great wars and the war in Korea. Why this great interest in Valcartier? Why dislodge 25 families? This is something the minister has not explained. If he would say right now: "We do not require a range at Valcartier camp for mortar fire, anti-tank fire and artillery fire", then the associate minister would have nothing to worry about, because those 25 families would not be in danger and need not be disturbed. That would settle it.


David Vaughan Pugh: If I understood the translation correctly-and the translation came through well-the Associate Minister said the department would renegotiate. I should like to know whether he meant it would renegotiate under the umbrella of expropriation. If this is the case, it would be very hollow renegotiation. The minister has been asked whether expropriation will take place. He has not answered that question. That is the whole point. It is a question which must be answered before this item passes.
[Translation1


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, here is the situation. According to the information I have, the people of Shannon are in a danger zone because the camp at Valcartier is being enlarged.
I now commit myself to reexamine the situation with them. If, at that time, we reach the same conclusion, namely that they are in a danger zone and, therefore, that it is useful and even necessary to expropriate them as we did others, I am ready to discuss it with them. That is all I can say.
I did not decide to enlarge the camp at Valcartier. On the other hand, it is my duty to transact with the people concerned in those expropriations. I do so with the greatest honesty and objectivity possible. Needless to say that, in a case like this, the human factor will be taken into consideration with all the objectivity and understanding required.
Since this debate began, the Conservatives have paid tribute to the fact that I did consider the human factor when applying the regulations. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that, in the case of the citizens of Shannon, I will be different from the man I was when dealing with individual cases.


David Vaughan Pugh: I believe all of us in this committee know the many great human qualities
Supply-National Defence of the minister who has just resumed his seat. He has told us in no uncertain terms that all his negotiating is based on the fact that the range is to be enlarged and that anybody who finds himself within the danger area will be told to get out.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or have his head blown off.


David Vaughan Pugh: Nothing short of that. The minister says that he may renegotiate and give these people a few more dollars. The fact that they want to stay in the area has already been decided. They want to stay.
Now I wish to ask the minister a question I asked him earlier. Is it absolutely necessary for the safety of Canada and for the saving of a few dollars-if dollars are to be saved on this item- to go ahead and enlarge this camp so as to encompass a mortar range. That is the whole theme of the discussion which has taken place in this committee.
A good deal of opposition has been expressed with regard to taking over this area. I see the Prime Minister is just leaving. The Prime Minister, having just received a telegram on this subject can say: "I am sorry. I did not hear about it." Well, the telegram has been acknowledged. He has left the chamber without even listening to this discussion. My question to the minister is one which must be answered: Is it absolutely necessary to enlarge this camp to include a mortar range?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: When one tries to define absolutes he is soon apt to run into difficulty. But after close examination over a number of years it was concluded that the expansion of this camp was essential in the national interest- that increased training facilities should be provided there and that a large area should be set aside for the training of a substantial proportion of the Canadian army which is stationed at this camp.
The area was laid out with these requirements in mind. One can always argue a little over where the boundaries must be. That is why I stated earlier that the associate minister would be glad to look at this question to see whether in fact the Shannon area is essential and whether or not it is a danger area. This is something which requires the most careful examination and I do not think we can give any absolute assurance, except to say to the hon. member that the expansion of this camp is definitely in the national interest.


David Vaughan Pugh: I think I must go further into this question. The minister has told us he will have inquiries made to determine whether it
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence is essential that Shannon be taken over and the 25 families moved for their own safety. But surely, if appropriation proceedings have been taken to their present stage there must be an element of danger. Surely it is not intended to move a whole village if there is no element of danger.
Now I should like to ask the minister to tell us how many troops will be trained in mortar firing-how many will actually fire a mortar at Valcartier? What is his projection of the cost of training these troops there as against the cost of training them at Shilo or Gagetown or on any other range in Canada? Is it really necessary that there should be this extension to the range because of the need for firing mortars or other types of weapons?
I should like to know how many people are to be trained there. I see the higher paid help are talking it over carefully with the minister. Obviously he does not know much about it himself.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 15 carry?


David Vaughan Pugh: I think we are getting an answer to this. It may take a little while, but I will stand on my feet and it will save your asking that question again, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Repeat the question. The minister may have forgotten it.


David Vaughan Pugh: If it is necessary to go through expropriation proceedings and move 25 families away from the village, then obviously a great deal of thought has been given by the minister to the type of training that is going to be carried out at Valcartier. He says it is absolutely necessary. I am asking, necessary for what? I am asking him how many men are going to be trained here? He could stand up and give us a brief rundown just exactly why it is necessary to have this as a mortar range. We could restrict it to a mortar range at present and then go on to deal with the other equipment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give my hon. friend the information he requires, but as he would well know, the training requirements would fluctuate from time to time depending on the plans of the mobile commander. I am sure if I gave a figure now and it proved in actual practice to be higher or lower than that called for in the plans of the commander, the hon. member would accuse me of bad faith. I have no intention of pinning down figures on this at the moment. If he wants to ask the mobile commander what his plans are in a general way, then the

hon. member could do that when the commander appears before the standing committee. But to try and say X number of men will be firing X number of rounds would not be helpful at the present time. I do not want to mislead the committee by giving figures which might not prove to be accurate later on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You just don't know.


David Vaughan Pugh: We still come back to the fact that a village is going to be expropriated and that 25 families who have been living there for a number of generations have been asked to leave. It seems to me we could hold item 15 until we get these answers. Surely they are not hard to find out. The minister, with all the high class weaponry he has been talking about, must know the state of training to which he must bring his troops so that they can use this weaponry.
My knowledge goes back to the actual use of a mortar, but possibly not the latest type of mortar he is talking about. However, I cannot see there is going to be all that number of rounds of mortar fired each and every year. It seems to me we must be able to get some sort of reasonable answer. Let us say that if there are few men who are being trained, then there is no use for the extension of Valcartier. Or let us say a great number of men are being trained, then within the reasonable bounds of expense other camps such as Gagetown or Shilo could be used for the same purpose. My hon. friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek mentions Wainwright.
Quebec is just one portion of Canada, and all of Canada has tremendous areas which can be used for training without the necessity of expropriation. I know the position of the associate minister who, as I said before, is an extraordinarily fair man, but he has been handed a mandate and the mandate is expropriation. It is nothing short of expropriation. He says he will renegotiate, but if expropriation is the aim, then nothing short of expropriation will be used in the case of this village and these 25 families. Surely to goodness the amount of training which requires this vast expansion of the camp must be known and should be told to the committee. I cannot see any reason why we cannot have a reasonable answer.
The minister mentioned that he did not want to mislead the committee, that we would damn him for giving an answer that is incorrect, but within reason surely he can tell us how many men are going to be trained in that place. I do not think we can pass this
February 22, 1966

item because, if we do, then this thing goes by the board. If we let it go by and wait for the Standing Committee on Defence to get together to hear all these witnesses, at that stage the renegotiation will have taken place and, against the will of a number of people, the village of Shannon will have disappeared.
I must re-emphasize this point, that this is being done against the will of those who have been there for generations. I want to have a little more information on this project before I will let item 15 pass.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, as I already explained, there will be up to 3,000 men training at this camp. They will be training in all arms and using the materiel and equipment available to them.


David Vaughan Pugh: You say 3,000 men will be training in all arms. I would say that is just a trifle vague. If they are training in all arms, how many would be trained in the use of this particular type of mortar-not all mortars but this particular type which has made Val-cartier unsafe for the 25 families?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't get in a rush, you fellows.


Malcolm MacInnis: Any
chance of getting a change of ministers?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


David Vaughan Pugh: The question was, how many of these 3,000 men will be trained to use this extension mortar?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The old C.C.F. party would have been concerned about a thing like this.


Mr. Lewis:: Don't you get so concerned about us.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Vaughan Pugh: We want the answer.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have the committee proceed? It is very nice to look at the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary, but really there is no reason why he should make a farce of the committee. If he has any questions he wishes to discuss, they could be discussed or put; but just to take the floor, hold it, stand and refuse to speak, and refuse to sit down, obviously shows an intention to stall the committee. That is perfectly legitimate if that is what the opposition wishes. That is their
Supply-National Defence choice, but we do have certain rules applicable to debates in the house and in committee, and, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest they be observed. If the hon. member wishes to speak he may speak. If he does not wish to speak, then he should resume his seat and let the item proceed.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the words of a minister who has just arrived in the chamber.-He apparently does not appreciate the situation that has arisen in the committee tonight-He says the hon. member refuses to speak. If he will examine Hansard tomorrow he will see that is not the case. It is the case of the minister refusing to answer.
I would say to the minister, who has tried to throw a castigation against me, that I am not standing here to be looked at. I am thinking of those people in that village who have asked parliament to do something about it, who have asked the Prime Minister to do something about it. The telegram which they sent to him was acknowledged by him. He was in the house and he was asked questions, but he did not answer. Now we are merely following through, and this is for the minister's ears who came in late and raised his voice in the middle of the debate. Procedurally I pay great respect to him, but when he comes in suddenly and says let us get on with this because of various and sundry, I do not agree with him one little bit.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, you know I have been asking a question which I feel deserves an answer. I have no wish to hold up this committee in any way, shape or form, but I do want to get an answer to this question. Furthermore the Minister of National Defence, who stands on his two feet at the drop of a hat and pretends to know everything that is going on in National Defence and in foreign affairs in this country, does not know the small things which go to make up morale and so on in the army, navy, air force or in any of our services. It seems to me, in a matter which is as important as this-the moving of 25 families who have been there for generations-there is no reason why he cannot tell us why the range must be taken over under expropriation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it clear that I am just as interested in these 25 families as is my hon. friend, but if he pursues his questioning, I am sure nature
February 22, 1966

Supply-National Defence will make it 26 families before we are finished.


An hon. Member:: Arrogant statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Smart Aleck, flippant answer.


An hon. Member:: Can we hear from the house leader now.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have heard from this minister a smart Aleck and flippant answer, which is typical of the minister and typical of this government.


Erik Nielsen: Arrogant.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, it is arrogant. There are several ways out of this difficulty the government is in. I have pointed out two ways for the minister, and other members have mentioned the same-an order in council rescinding the earlier one, doing away with the expropriation. That settles the matter. If that cannot be done or if they do not want to do that, the second alternative is for the Minister of National Defence to declare that a mortar, anti-tank or artillery range which would put the 25 families in a dangerous position will not be established in the area. That is all he has to say.
So, there are those two courses which I say can be followed. Our duty here is to speak on behalf of those Canadian citizens who have put forward a legitimate grievance, have carried it as far as the Prime Minister, and still have not been satisfied. During the course of our discussion tonight we have found out that the Minister of National Defence does not know exactly what he wants at Valcartier camp; he does not know how many men would be trained there; he is not able to tell us how many regiments or battalions would be moved in and out of that camp during the course of a year. He has admitted there is a shortage of mortar ammunition. He is so ignorant of the problem that at one time he thought it was for a mortar range and then enlarged it to anti-tank, or self-propelled artillery, so the minister is in a state of confusion.
The Associate Minister of National Defence talks about negotiating with the people involved, but it has been pointed out time and time again that it is within the arbitration proceedings and that it is just then a matter of settling on how much time, what the price is, and things of that nature.

That is not what we are asking for. We say leave the people there. Valcartier camp has been used for over 50 years and this is the first time I have heard it is not adequate for the desired purpose. Since the second world war an enormous training area has been established in the Atlantic provinces in order that we could train a whole division, and this is where the troops go for their training. The smaller camps are not put under the same pressure. That was in days gone by; that was the whole purpose of camp Gagetown, and I was here in this house when it was debated and set up. There is where you have the adequate training area for large bodies of troops.
The minister has pointed out the areas which have been used for years for artillery and mortar purposes. Why is he trying to create another and do it at the expense of 25 families? I hope no one will say that 25 families are not important: They are very important.


An hon. Member:: They are laughing at it over there.
Another hon. Member: Nobody said that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Particularly when the families have been settled there for a long time in that area, why should they be dislodged in peacetime? If it were wartime they would not object and no one here would object, if it was done in the national interest; but this happens to be peacetime and the army is training for peace keeping purposes. There has not been much emphasis by the Minister of National Defence in the last three years on training for war. He talks about training for peace keeping exercises. Our troops which have been used abroad in the last several years in these peace keeping operations never have had to use mortar shells, so why the insistence suddenly on having training in the firing of mortars? What is the minister planning for? Does he have some expedition overseas that he wants to train troops for? This does not fit in with his white paper on defence. There was nothing in the white paper on defence which indicated we would have to do intensive training with mortars. The emphasis in the white paper is on mobility and realities. The minister likes to talk about realities. The reality of the situation is that this is peacetime.
Canada's policy with regard to her armed forces is for peace keeping operations, where mortars are not required. Why then do we have to extend the military camp and have
February 22, 1966	COMMONS
an enlarged artillery range and dispossess people, and then do it in this, what I call, underhand way-expropriate, set up an artillery range, and then tell the people they are in danger and must move out. I think that is a very poor method by which to deal with Canadian citizens. If I was one of those living there I would enter my protest as well; but I am doing it on their behalf. The Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph has taken up the cudgels on behalf of these people with a very strong editorial in the February 17 issue of that paper, asking parliament to look at this problem. Mr. Chairman, you know where we stand on it. If the minister will take either one of the two courses I have suggested, we could settle it tonight. He still has an opportunity.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
If he is not going to take any action but is going to think about it overnight that is fine, because we are not going to be frightened by people on the other side of the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nor by the Minister of Public Works.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nor will we be frightened by the Minister of Public Works.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He has now left the chamber.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He came in and said this was a farce. Surely it is not a farce when we are dealing with 25 families of Canadian citizens who are being dispossessed. Even if they were not Canadian citizens it would be appropriate for us to deal with a matter like this here in this chamber. However, these are Canadians of the fifth generation and are members of one of the founding races of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Now they are laughing at the Irish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I call upon every member of parliament with Irish blood in his veins to recognize that fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is all right to laugh at the English or the Scots, but do not laugh at the Irish or you will be in trouble. The members on the other side of this house are making a joke of this situation, but it is no joke. These families are Canadians of the fifth generation and are now being dispossessed in the middle of the twentieth century. This is a
DEBATES	1645
Supply-National Defence shocking way in which to carry on. We often talk about human rights and are very often disturbed about people around the world who are attempting to gain their freedom and their liberty; yet this is the way Canada acts with regard to her own citizens.
Mr. Chairman, we have appealed to the two ministers involved and to the Prime Minister in regard to the crux of this matter; what more can we do?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Some of the Grits over there say to sit down. They say let this pass. Those are the trained seals who take orders from above. Thank goodness there are some independents on this side of the house. Parliament exists for the purpose of defending these people.


Mr. Groos:: Let us hear from some of the others.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member like to speak for himself and say something on behalf of these 25 families. I will relinquish the floor to him if he has the courage to get up and speak.


David Walter Groos: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that in considering the attitude taken by hon. members opposite when we were considering the Columbia river development proposals which required the dispossession of some 500 families in the national interest, I find that attitude in strange contrast now when we are talking about the same sort of thing but where only 25 families must have their land expropriated in the national interest. We are now being told that this is a terrible thing to have done.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a member of the group which first raised this issue, let me say that we are certainly behind these appeals to the minister to reconsider the welfare of these 25 families. Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but remember that there were 500 families in my area who were being treated worse as a result of the Columbia river proposal, but what did they do to defend those 500 families? I think we should be somewhat consistent in our approach to life. Our good friends in the Progressive Conservative party did nothing to defend the rights of those 500 families who may have their lands expropriated, some of which were third generation Canadians.
1646	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence
At least our good friends the Liberals have been consistent; they did nothing about those families and they are doing nothing about the 25 families who are being left to suffer the life to which the government of this country has condemned them.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I must say as a new member sitting here tonight I was amazed at the revelation of how the mood of the house can change so quickly in respect of what seemed to me a rather insignificant detail. Let me suggest that the expansion of this base involves more than 25 families, with all due respect to the hon. member for Kootenay West. However, with respect also to my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, exerting some of the independence that he counselled the other side of the house to have, and knowing that I have more Irish in my blood than a lot of people in Shannon, let alone the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre suggest that there is a third way out of this morass that we now find ourselves in, which I think would meet with the approval of some of the members in the back benches.
Perhaps the minister and his associate could assure the house that nothing further will be done in respect of this expropriation until the whole matter is considered and studied by the committee, which is where this matter should be examined in detail. With that type of assurance, that the merit of this proposed expansion and the dispossession or displacement of the 25 families will be studied by the committee, I think this whole matter could be settled. If that kind of assurance could be given, I suggest it would meet with the objections raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Yukon, so that we could study the suggestions and detail in committee and get on now with the debate.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I will give the undertaking that nothing will be done for several weeks and until the committee has had an opportunity to look at the situation, if that meets with the general wish of hon. members.
I must point, out, however, that as minister I have no control over the committee or the order of business it undertakes. We will undertake to make witnesses available on this subject as soon as the committee desires. On that basis we will be glad to give that undertaking.
[Mr. Herridge.i
DEBATES	February 22, 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister go a little further and give us the assurance that nothing further will be done with regard to the 25 families involved in the camp Valcartier expansion until one year from today, and only then after the matter is brought again before the House of Commons for consideration?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre should take a lesson in moderation from his young colleague who is trying to be helpful and reasonable. Those are two qualities which my hon. friend could use in much greater abundance.
I have offered to meet the suggestion that was made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings because I felt it was reasonable. I cannot agree with the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre because I feel it to be unreasonable. All night he has suggested that because for 50 years we have not needed a range capability at Valcartier there should be no change. As much as he would like me to say that the procedures of the last 50 years will not be changed for all time, I am not in a position to do so. As a matter of fact, there are changes that have to be made and I think that the expansion of the facilities at camp Valcartier to provide adequate training exercise ground for the units stationed there is essential in the interests of national defence.


An hon. Member:: Why send this to a committee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am not easily intimidated by the clacking of the other side of the house. I listened to the sage advice of the Minister of National Defence. The suggestion that this matter be referred to a committee is fine, but what will then happen when the committee brushes it aside or perhaps does not even consider it because, as the minister said, it might not come before that committee? The committee cannot make a decision. It can only talk about the situation, examine the facts and look at all the particulars, but it cannot make an effective decision. The decision can only be made by the minister and his cabinet, and that is why we are discussing the issue here rather than in a committee.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
If the minister will promise that this matter after discussion in committee will be brought back into the house for the approval
February 22, 1966
of the House of Commons, that might be a different thing. He did not suggest that. I think my suggestion to him that he postpone everything for one year makes sense.


An hon. Member:: Rescind the order in council.


Gordon Minto Churchill: To rescind the order in council would be the easy way out, and that should be done. The minister gets a great deal of satisfaction out of referring to "one your age", meaning me. The fact that I participated in the first world war seems to have disturbed him. I was also in the second world war. Then he talks about my historical outlook on life and thinks it is smart to say that because something has been done for 50 years it should not necessarily be changed for the future. This is, of course, just utter rot and nonsense.
If Valcartier camp and the other camps in this country have been found to be satisfactory for 50 years, I say to the minister, show cause why it should be changed. The cause that resulted in the establishment of Gage-town was that we did not have facilities to train large bodies of troops together. That change was made. But the minister cannot show cause why we need more mortar ranges in this country. I do not know whether he even knows what a mortar is, what type of shell is fired from a mortar or the effect of it. The minister has not shown cause why this change should be made; yet callously and indifferently he is willing to expropriate property and drive out of their homes 25 families.
This is not in the national interest when it comes to military matters. There is no similarity between this and other examples that were used tonight. This change is simply required for military purposes, for warlike purposes, and for this reason the minister is going to dispossess 25 families of their homes. This is what we are objecting to, Mr. Chairman. I will make one final suggestion to the minister. Let us stand item 15 and let him think it over tonight, and we might pass the other items that are before us in committee.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre?


Clément Vincent: Since when are you the department's spokesman?


Paul Langlois: Never mind the department, you had your turn.
1647
Supply-National Defence
Could the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who stated many times, perhaps ten or twelve times, that Camp Valcartier, in the province of Quebec, has been a good training camp for the past 50 years, tell us tonight whether, according to him, there has been any change in the weapons made available to the Canadian Army in the past 50 years?


Clément Vincent: That is the joke of the night.


Paul Langlois: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would prefer me to put my question in English, as he is of Irish descent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the colleagues of the hon. member would remain quiet, I could hear him; but they make so much noise that I cannot hear what is going on.


Paul Langlois: Since you are a former minister of national defence I suggest that you must be well aware of the fact that for the last 50 years there has been a great deal of change in weapons used by the Canadian army. If there has been such a change in weapons I suppose they need a different kind of camp in which to train the army. I ask the hon. member, is this possible?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know what my hon. friend's experience has been, but I know a fair bit about weapons and the changes in weapons over the years.


Paul Langlois: Mr. Chairman, about 12 times today the hon. member has spoken about musketry training at Valcartier and about moving these families from the area of the camp. Does the former minister suggest that instead of moving these 25 families from Valcartier we should close Valcartier and ship it out west, maybe?


Howard Russell MacEwan: That was a good maiden speech.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether by now the Minister of National Defence has been able to obtain a little more detail with regard to the 3,000 troops that are to be trained at Valcartier each year. How many of these troops will be trained in the use of long-range mortars?
The minister has made no attempt to answer my question. I wonder whether he would answer it now. He is so busy perhaps looking the question up that he has not been able to answer it. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I was wondering whether the minister

February 22, 1966
1648	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion could let us know now, with regard to the 3,000 troops who are being trained at Val-cartier or will be trained there, how many will be trained in the use of long-range mortars such as he has been talking about? If the minister cannot give me the answer now, it being almost ten o'clock I wonder whether we could stand this item over until tomorrow, when I am sure his officials will be able to dig out the answer and let us have it. This is a matter of training in being at the present time or training projected, and if it is training projected this information should be as readily available as if it were training in being.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, will the minister say whether he will study this question overnight, it being ten o'clock now? I would like to have the answer. I believe we are entitled to know the use that is going to be made of this mortar range and how many troops will be trained on it. The minister probably has the answer now, if he would stop reading his last speech.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Item stands.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, it is to the Minister of Agriculture that I am directing my question tonight with regard to the federal-provincial conference held a few days ago and concerning the Crop Insurance Act and its application to the province of Quebec and elsewhere.
During the last election campaign, we advocated the establishment of a dairy commission. We also advocated the establishment of a feed grain board for eastern Canada and British Columbia. We advocated amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to include farmers. We also advocated making the Crop Insurance Act more flexible so that Quebec farmers might take advantage thereof.
Last year, the situation was disastrous for several farmers of the province of Quebec
[Mr. Pugh.)

because the crops were poor. Thus, arose the necessity and urgency of extending the provisions of the Crop Insurance Act to farmers of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I shall point out, before putting more specifically the question that I wish to address to the Minister of Agriculture, that the problem of distribution will soon be before us; I want to mention the fact that, even if the new electoral distribution has become a demographic necessity, the voice of the farmer is nevertheless threatened by this redistribution problem. For instance, I am thinking of the fact that the constituency of Lotbiniere, which is the one I represent and which is essentially rural, will become a mostly urban constituency.
This could also apply to the constituency of Bellechasse, in which the town of Montmagny will be integrated. It could apply to the constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska, which will be absorbed by that of Drummond.
Consequently, the voice of the farmer is threatened by the fact that members will no longer be interested in letting it be heard so loudly, since the constituencies will become more or less urban.
That is why, during this short debate, I take this opportunity to call attention to this situation which could be dangerous and to say, in my capacity of member for Lotbiniere, that I shall make every effort, along with all my colleagues from rural constituencies, to have this threat removed.
I am asking the minister what are the results of the last federal-provincial conference on crop insurance.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, crop insurance, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, comes under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces are responsible for the organization and administration of these programs. The federal act provides that Canada may assist the provinces in implementing their crop insurance programs through contributions to administrative costs and payments necessary to make these programs self-supporting. In addition, Canada can agree to re-insure a substantial part of the risks the provinces incur under these plans.
Certain provinces were hesitant to establish crop insurance because their farmers stated the indemnities currently authorized under federal legislation are insufficient to be worth while. Some provinces, in addition, criticized federal legislation for not allowing
February 22, 1966

Canadian contributions to insurance plans covering fodder crops.
Shortly after my appointment as Minister of Agriculture, I gave certain provincial authorities to understand that before making a final decision on the amendments to the federal act I would recommend during the current session, I would call a conference of provincial authorities to give them the opportunity to state the amendments they would suggest. Representatives from the ten provinces were in attendance at this conference held last Thursday.
The provinces of Ontario and Quebec have indicated that they were chiefly interested in establishing crop insurance schemes for fodder, especially for dairy cattle.
A great deal of the day was devoted to a discussion on that kind of crop insurance. The federal government is now aware of the views of the provinces and that will enable it to determine the type of changes that should be presented to parliament. It is my firm intention to do everything I can-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister, but his time is over.



LABOUR RELATIONS-WHITESHELL, MAN.- STRIKE AT NUCLEAR RESEARCH STATION

Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, the strike of nuclear reactor operators at the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment has been on for a week now. Normally one would not raise a matter such as this in the House of Comons but would leave it to the process of collective bargaining. However, there are one or two aspects of Crown corporation or government policy connected with this labour dispute which deserve an airing here and an answer by the minister and his department.
Without going into the detail of the points in dispute between the striking workers and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, I can say that the main cause of the strike has to do with Atomic Energy of Canada rigidly insisting on maintaining an artificial wage differential as between its Chalk River establishment and its Pinawa establishment. Apparently the reason given for maintaining this differential is that the Pinawa area is in a low wage area of the country; therefore the corporation refuses to bring the wages up to parity with wages paid at Chalk River.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this differential has no basis'-in economic fact, because research indicates pretty clearly that the prevailing rate of pay to similar employees working for Manitoba Hydro and for other corporations is actually above the rate paid to operators in Pinawa, and even at Chalk River. Therefore in that sense it is not a low wage area at all.
Furthermore it has been proven that the cost of living to the workers in the nuclear research establishment in Pinawa is actually higher than the cost of living encountered by the workers at the Chalk River establishment. The policy that is being maintained by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in this regard is actually not proportionate to the cost of living, but is actually perverse, having regard to the cost of living. It is very difficult for the nuclear reactor operators to accept this policy. There is serious questioning of it.
Furthermore, allegations are made to the effect that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in this regard is following cabinet directives. I should like to hear from the minister or from his parliamentary secretary some concrete comment about this, because if it is a fact that cabinet is issuing directives to Atomic Energy to maintain these wage differentials, it amounts to a serious kind of regional discrimination. I think not only the workers of that area, but the people of Manitoba have every right to demand that this policy be reversed.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) originally asked two basic questions. The first is, has the minister involved himself in any steps or taken any action to settle the strike at Whiteshell nuclear research establishment. The answer is no. However, the minister has been fully informed regarding the negotiations between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
The second question is, has the minister or the government issued any directive to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited relative to wage levels and wage differentials to be paid as between the Chalk River plant and the Whiteshell plant. Again the answer is no.
However, it is common knowledge that different hourly rates are paid across the country for the same work having regard to the wage structure existing in different parts of Canada. It is also the practice of the
1650	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion federal civil service to pay prevailing rates to its hourly paid employees.
I should like to include a little background with these remarks. In February, 1965, the Canadian Union of Public Employees was certified by the Canada Labour Relations Board as bargaining agent for the hourly paid nuclear reactor operators employed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at its Whiteshell nuclear research establishment. There are currently about 28 in this classification, out of a total Whiteshell staff of 400.
Negotiations commenced in June, and before long a tentative agreement had been reached on a number of items. When the parties were unable to agree on the remaining items, including wages, a conciliation officer was appointed by the federal Department of Labour at the union's request, and subsequent meetings were held under his auspices.
During this period, A.E.C.L. was also negotiating with 15 other unions representing some 2,000 employees in various classifications at Chalk River and Ottawa. The first settlements came in August, when A.E.C.L. reached agreement at conciliation boards with 11 unions representing hourly-paid employees at Chalk River. Settlements were reached shortly thereafter with the five other unions at Chalk River and Ottawa, leaving the two Whiteshell unions outstanding.
Immediately following the Chalk River settlements, substantially improved offers, matching the increases accepted by the Chalk River and Ottawa unions, were made to the two Whiteshell unions, and rejected by them. As a conciliation board was being set up to consider similar questions between the company and the Whiteshell machinists union, A.E.C.L. and Canadian Union of Public Employees representatives agreed to suspend their discussions until that board had met and made its report.
The Conciliation Board met in October, and issued its report late in November. A settlement between A.E.C.L. and the Whiteshell machinists union based on this report was finally achieved, after further meetings, in January, 1966.
Negotiations between A.E.C.L. and the Canadian Union of Public Employees had meanwhile resumed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is with great regret that I must interrupt the hon. member's very interesting remarks, because unfortunately his time has expired.

DEBATES	February 22, 1966



FINANCE-U.S. TAX ON RAPESEED OIL AND MEAL

Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Finance is not in his seat. However, I notice that his parliamentary secretary is, and I hope that he will transmit the remarks I have to make to the minister.
I welcome this opportunity to debate the question of tariffs and duties on edible oils. Canadian edible oils, particularly rapeseed, are subject to an import tax amounting to one cent per pound when imported into the United States though edible oils produced elsewhere can enter Canada duty free.
This is a question with which I have been concerned for some time. In January of 1962 I presented a brief to the Tariff Board -reference No. 131-when hearings took place here in Ottawa. I made a submission on behalf of the oil seed producers of Canada, but nothing was done; nothing came out of that hearing.
As you are probably aware, Mr. Speaker, rapeseed when processed is manufactured into an edible oil comparable to soybean oil, cottonseed oil, peanut oil or any other oil on the vegetable oil market. A by-product of processing is the meal which is used in the production of livestock and poultry feeds and concentrates.
At the present time our tariff structure allows soybean oil, the largest competitor to rapeseed oil, into Canada from the United States under a 20 per cent tariff. However, the soybeans themselves can be brought in duty free and so can other oil seeds.
These seeds and beans are transported into Canada and processed here. Then the processed oil is sold on the Canadian market. The Canadian processor may also ship the oil back into the United States duty free or export the oil and meal under the British preferential tariff, provided they contain 25 per cent Canadian content. Cottonseed oil, peanut oil and corn oil all enter Canada duty free.
On the other hand, while no tariff is placed against it, Canadian rapeseed sold in the United States is subject to an import tax of one cent per pound. Canadian rapeseed meal going into the United States bears a tariff of $6 per ton.
In addition to exports from the United States, rapeseed oil which originates in Sweden or West Germany can also be
February 22, 1966

brought into this country free of duty, though our own oil must pay duties or tariffs if exported to those countries. This is a disgrace.
I have taken my present stand on many occasions and when I presented by brief to the Tariff Board exactly four years ago I thought some steps would be taken to correct this injustice. However, nothing has been done, and nothing is in the process of being done in connection with this matter.
I should like the Minister of Finance to look into this question and explain why the Tariff Board has not taken any steps to remedy this deplorable situation as far as Canadian edible oils are concerned. I should also like the Minister of Finance to take this matter into consideration when he prepares his budget.
Not long ago-last December, in fact-a symposium was held sponsored by the Department of Industry. I must congratulate the rapeseed industry, in particular, on the success of this symposium. Dr. Weinberg who was instrumental in arranging this gathering, as well as Dr. Rupert of the Department of Industry, have done wonderful work. The professors and scientists from all the universities of the prairies-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-took part in these discussions to promote the rapeseed industry and the edible oil industry in Canada.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I will bring to the attention of the minister the very
Supply-Items Passed
interesting case he put before the house tonight, but I am glad to inform him that the Canadian tariff does provide free entry for rapeseed oil. For most uses rapeseed oil is subject to a duty into the United States.
The tariff board in its report on reference No. 131-oil seeds, vegetable oils and related products-proposed a rate of 10 per cent most favoured nation on crude rapeseed oil and 17.5 per cent most favoured nation on refined rapeseed oil. The board's recommendations are being given consideration.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,560,546,715 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it Is estimated that $1,044,262,000 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $5,204,855.
Inspection services-
5. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $7,395,860.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 23, 1966