1966-10-31

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in response to questions on October 26 and 27 the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) undertook to make a statement today concerning the federal-provincial conferences and the meetings of the tax structure committee that were held last week. Because of a minor throat ailment the Prime Minister has asked me to make the statement today on his behalf.
The more important federal statements made at the conference have already been distributed to hon. members in both languages and can be tabled officially if so desired later today. I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether I have permission when we have gathered the documents together in both languages to have them tabled later today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: On Monday, Tuesday and the first part of Wednesday, October 24, 25 and 26, the conference concerned itself with the rapidly increasing needs of higher education in Canada which are imposing so great and growing a burden upon the provincial governments. The talks of last week showed very clearly that all jurisdictions in Canada are vitally concerned to play their full part in strengthening the educational system at all levels. Such action will foster the nation's growth, will enable Canada to play its full part in the world of today, and most important of all will enrich the lives of young Canadians.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The federal government recognizes that it must assist in providing the financial resources needed for the general support of our institutions of post-secondary education. In the light of this recognition, proposals were put forward by the federal government to assist the provinces through a special arrangement of fiscal transfers related in
amount to the operating costs for postsecondary education in Canada. The plan would replace the present university grants program and much of the assistance for technical and vocational training under the current agreements which expire next March.
In the conference there was agreement with the principles underlying the new arrangement and with the concept that the transfer, though taking into account the costs of higher education, should be unconditional and designed to exert no influence on the structure and content of provincial programs. Differences of view were expressed as to the amount of the transfer and the manner in which it should be calculated. There was, as expected, difficulty in finding an acceptable definition of post-secondary education, one that would recognize the diversity of present educational systems and at the same time be equitable in relation to all provinces. Subject to settling this definition and that of "operating costs", the amount of the federal fiscal transfer to be recommended to parliament will be based on 50 per cent of postsecondary operating costs. Taking into account the recommendations of the Bladen Commission and the universities we would regard this as a suitable contribution now toward both the operating costs of institutions of higher education, and the capital costs of buildings and equipment. An optional measure is proposed, amounting to $15 per capita, which would expand in proportion to the growth in the total operating costs of post-secondary education in Canada generally-
The new arrangements would take into account the expiry on March 31, 1967, of the agreements under which operating and capital grants have been paid in respect of vocational high schools, technological institutes, trade schools and other facilities for technical and vocational training. Several provinces were strongly of the view that the proposals first made by the federal government for transitional arrangements in respect of capital grants were inadequate and did not take into account commitments they had made in the expectation that the agreements would be continued. After the government considered the provincial views on this matter, the Prime Minister proposed on October 26 that
October 31, 1966

Federal-Provincial Conference the transitional arrangements should provide that capital grants would be available, without limit as to time, for the purposes covered by the present agreements, until they had reached, for each province, $800 per capita of its population aged 15 to 19 as of 1961. For Canada as a whole some $548 million in capital grants will remain available over a period of years after next March 31.
We must recognize that rapid technological and industrial change now require more and more training and re-training of adults. This is of fundamental importance if full employment and increased productivity are to be achieved. The federal government has a responsibility for ensuring that the required training is financially possible for people in the labour force.
For this purpose, the federal government proposes to pay training allowances directly to adults who are taking occupational training, in place of sharing provincial costs as we are now doing. The federal government will also purchase the necessary training services on behalf of these adults from provincial training institutions and from industry, wherever suitable occupational training facilities are to be found. We will thus meet the full costs of such training.
Our proposal was to define an adult as one who has been three years out of school and in the labour force. Several of the provinces felt this was unduly restrictive. We undertook to discuss immediately with the provinces whether some modified definition is possible which would meet more of the training needs of people who have been in the labour force for less than three years, while still preserving the important distinction between this training program and the school system.
We believe that the federal government's proposals for financing the costs of higher education and for the training of the labour force provide a sound foundation on which federal and provincial governments can discharge their respective responsibilities. By facilitating the expansion in education facilities and increasing the amount of training in respect of the labour force, our proposals will help greatly to ensure expanding and equal economic opportunities for people in all parts of Canada.
On Wednesday, Thursday and the beginning of Friday, October 26, 27 and 28, the tax structure committee met for the fifth time following its establishment by the Federal-Provincial Conference of 1964. The committee gave further intensive consideration to the

fiscal questions that had been referred to it, including proposals that I made to the fourth meeting on September 14, 1966. The views presented to the tax structure committee, and the committee's discussions, were communicated to the federal-provincial conference to assist it in reviewing the matters it had referred to the committee.
The conference later accepted a recommendation from the tax structure committee that it should be authorized to sit again during 1967 and 1968. The principal purpose of these further meetings will be to discuss the implications for federal and provincial tax laws of the reports of the federal and provincial royal commissions and committees on taxation, and to consider again in that context the use of tax fields by the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
The conference proceeded on October 28 to review the federal fiscal proposals in their entirety. The federal government's proposals relating to the equalization and stabilization of provincial revenues met with a substantial measure of approval. None of the provinces decided to accept at this time the proposal which I made on September 14, 1966 relating to the possible transfer to the provinces of 17 points of personal income tax, with accompanying equalization payments, to cover the costs of established and continuing shared-cost programs in the health and welfare fields already covered in the case of Quebec under the Established Programs Act.
With regard to the sharing of tax fields, the premiers of all the provinces took the position that was to be expected: they expressed strongly the view that the needs of the provinces required the transfer of substantially more tax resources to the provinces than was proposed by the federal government.
The Prime Minister and I explained the considerations which made it impossible for the federal government further to abate federal personal and corporate income taxes at this time, for reasons that have been given in the published federal statements. After much serious discussion, the conference recognized that it was not possible to arrive at a tax sharing arrangement which could be regarded as fully satisfactory to both the federal and provincial governments.
New tax collection agreements to prevail for two years were discussed and will be proceeded with. During that time substantial
October 31. 1966

adjustments will have to be considered in the light of the decisions taken by governments following the consideration of the reports of the royal commissions and committees on taxation to which I have already referred.
Estimates of the financial effects of the new proposals are set out in a table which I

Federal-Provincial Conference should like to have incorporated as a part of my remarks at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The table referred to above is as follows:]



ILLUSTRATIVE COMPARISON OF FISCAL TRANSFER TO THE PROVINCES UNDER PRESENT AND NEW ARRANGEMENTS FOR EQUALIZATION AND EDUCATION AS CALCULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
Present Arrangements 1966-67 (Estimated)
Provinces	Equalization (Present Arrangements) (1)	University Grants $5 per Cap. Adjusted (Interim Arrangements) (2)	Technical and Vocational Training Operating and Capital (3)1	Total University Plus Technical and Vocational Training Operating and Capital1 (4)	Grand Total Present Arrangements (5)'Nfld	
37.2	2.2	i.i	3.3	40.5P.E.I	
10.6	0.6	0.2	0.8	11.4N.S	
50.2	5.1	4.1	9.2	59.4N.B	
44.6	4.0	3.4	7.4	52.0Que	
149.5	28.9	68.3	97.2	246.7Ont	-	33.4	63.7	97.1	97.1Man	
27.5	5.1	4.8	9.9	37.4Sask	
33.2	4.5	4.5	9.0	42.2Alta	-	7.0	7.3	14.3	14.3B.C	8.9	12.9	21.8	21.8Total...	
352.8	99.7	170.3	270.0	622.8New Arrangements 1967-68	(Estimated)	Equalization	Fiscal	Technical and	Total	GrandProvinces	Transfer	Vocational	(ii)+(ni)	Totalre	Training	Post-Secondary	Capital	Education Operating2	"Phase Out"	a)	(id	(in)	(IV)	(V)Nfld....	
69.2	7.7	0.8	8.5	77.7P.E.I...	
15.3	1.7	0.8	2.5	17.8N.S	
74.4	11.5	6.0	17.5	91.9N.B	
66.4	9.5	2.0	11.5	77.9Que	
266.2	87.9	45.0	132.9	399.1Ont	105.7	40.0	145.7	145.7Man	
28.7	14.6	5.0	19.6	48.3Sask	
26.6	14.5	7.0	21.5	48.1Alta	-	22.4	7.0	29.4	29.4B.C	28.6	8.0	36.6	36.6Total...	
546.8	304.1	121.6	425.7	972.5
'Does not include adult operating or capital expenditures under Technical and Vocational Training Agreements. 'The provinces will have a choice between two options: 50% of post-secondary operating costs or $15 per capita. These figures are calculated on the basis of $15 per capita only, and therefore do not reflect the higher amount to which certain provinces would be entitled if they chose the 50% option.
[Stage Direction]
October 31, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Federal-Provincial Conference
Mitchell William Sharp: I think it will cover all the specific questions that were asked of the Prime Minister on October 26 with regard to the changes resulting from the new proposals. I should make clear that it has been necessary in preparing this table to estimate the amount that should be excluded from the present grants as covering the costs of adult training, which the federal government is proposing to assume directly. Because of the way the records have been kept it is necessary to estimate these amounts after endeavouring to forecast how many will be covered by the new definition of adult.
The total of the financial transfers to the provinces in this year 1966-67 under the present equalization arrangements and existing grants for universities and technical and vocational training comes to approximately $623 million. The parallel arrangements proposed for next year, 1967-68, after making the necessary and difficult adjustments which flow from the changes in the nature of the arrangements proposed, come to $973 million-an increase of about $350 million or over 50 per cent in a single year. There is no magical way to transfer funds like this: they have to be found either from reductions in other federal programs or by getting higher revenues. It was a measure of the federal government's concern for higher education that it was prepared to vacate four points of personal income taxes and one point of corporate income tax to make it easier for the provinces to secure the revenues they require. We did not feel that we could go further than this.
These figures I have cited do not include the costs of adult training which the government intends should be expanded vigorously. The assumption of the full cost of this program by the federal government will also add to our expenditures next year.
In 1966-67, equalization payments are expected to total $353 million. In 1967-68 under the new proposals they are forecast to reach $547 million-an increase just short of $200 million. These equalization payments account for far the largest part of the $350 million increase to which I have already referred.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and this will not come as any great surprise to hon. members, may I say that the main area of disagreement was one, and one alone-money. To have expected agreement on this complex and controversial subject would be naive. We believe that the results were sound and they

will, both in the immediate future and in the long term, redound to the advantage of Canadians generally.
Hon. members of course will have several opportunities to debate these matters as legislation is brought forward to implement the proposals.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) on this very important dominion-provincial conference is long and, in some respects, detailed. Just by listening to the report one cannot make a completely detailed answer but I do think that certain salient points come to a head in his report. The first deals with education.
After the report of the Bladen commission-the Bladen group, which was arranged for by the Association of Universities, supported by the Ford Foundation-and after the report of the Canada Council last fall, one would have thought that the warning lights would be on the show that education must be recognized as a national need, requiring the highest priority in Canada at this time of her industrial development if we are to compete successfully in the modern international race for markets.
But what has happened? Just listening to the minister's report one sees where the provincial governments have been given a small number of corporation tax and personal income tax points, from which they will be required to meet the fantastically rapid increasing costs of education. With the tremendous pressure on provincial governments to meet the costs not only of higher education but of all levels of education, one can understand why the provinces left this meeting very unhappy or, as somebody has said, equalized in unhappiness.
I would think, Mr. Speaker, that the attitude of all federal parties should be that, regardless of past positions taken by them on the subject of education vis-a-vis the federal government and the provinces, the time has now come to accept the fact that in the national interest the federal government will have to play an increasingly larger part in the field of education. This I say without intent whatsoever to interfere with the rights of the provinces in their control over the subject matter of education at the elementary and secondary levels.
I simply point out that all parties, 100 years after we signed the original B.N.A. Act, have to accept the fact that education is no
October 31, 1966	COMMONS
longer purely a provincial matter. The federal government must take part in the training of our people to meet the challenges of the century ahead, and therefore it is a question of devising the formulae whereby we can help without interfering with provincial rights.
I would suggest that the training of staff for the universities, research at universities, which is very expensive, the plant itself, and the per capita grant system all offer combinations to produce a formula that would not interfere with the provinces' rights to control the educational content, but I submit this opportunity was missed by turning over more of the resources of the federal government to the provinces and saying, "You do it; you take on the worries". On the contrary the national need requires much more joint effort not less. I would gather that the provincial premiers and treasurers felt, following this meeting, that they have been left alone to carry this burden.
The second point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that on this question of control over education one thing that seemed to be forgotten at this dominion-provincial conference was that the universities themselves are objecting more and more strenuously not only to the impending control that there might be from the federal government but also to the fact that more and more provinces are interfering with the educational functions of our universities.
Our universities can produce this free frontier type thinking only when they are free not only from federal but also from provincial interference as well. I think some thought should have gone into introduction of some formula whereby more money could go into higher education, with hands off by both the federal and provincial governments. There are precedents for this.
The third point I should like to make has to do with the shared cost programs. From the experience of the last three years when we have seen the federal government backing up and backing up under the pressures from strong provincial governments, I know it is natural for us in this federal house to applaud a government which says, "all right, take over the shared program and we will give you more money". But this omits and forgets the essential fact that we in the federal parliament do have responsibility for this whole nation and for good government of this whole nation, and should be reluctant at all times to give away our power or initiative. This in effect is what has been going on.
DEBATES	9293
Federal-Provincial Conference
I do not think this is a matter for division on a partisan basis. I see it simply as a trend which can be very dangerous to Canada if we have to face either the serious menace of recession or the serious menace of outside pressure. In an effort to make all provinces equal I suggest that this tendency to turn over the initiative of the federal government can put us in a strait-jacket in the future.


Mr, R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I will confine my remarks to the educational aspect of the minister's statement. He did not tell us very much about the tax structure committee and the recommendations of that committee. The different proposals concerning university education will satisfy no one. The provincial premiers have gone away unhappy because they have not got as much money as they wanted. The Canadian universities are unhappy that the federal government seems to be withdrawing from this field altogether. The president of the University of British Columbia deplored the fact that the federal government is withdrawing from the field of university education. The case for provincial control over elementary and secondary education may be quite clear, but I suggest there is a very great deal of doubt concerning secondary education at universities in particular. We feel there is a place for federal leadership here.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) has pointed out, the universities will be completely under the control of their respective provinces, quite apart from the fact that they should expect federal leadership in this field. There will be general disagreement that the government is phasing itself out of the field of technical and vocational education. The only part of the program with which we find satisfaction is that concerning adult or technical education. This is a broad field and the government should play a useful role here. On the question of higher education, particularly at the universities, the problems facing the universities in Canada in respect of research and graduate training will not be solved on an individual provincial basis. The 10 systems might be quite different. There is a real need for federal leadership here. Provincial premiers notwithstanding, and provincial autonomy notwithstanding, a large number of people expect the federal government to play a role here without taking over the lower levels of education.
9294	COMMONS
Federal-Provincial Conference
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we listened very attentively to the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) about the federal-provincial conference held last week here in Ottawa.
The minister spoke quite frankly when he said that the general disagreement between the federal government on the one hand and the provinces on the other was of a financial nature. Everyone thought of it, everyone heard about it; not a single premier went home satisfied with the outcome of that federal-provincial conference which finally ended in failure, something we have come to expect in all the years that those federal-provincial conferences have been held.
No doubt this caused the premier of the province of Quebec to say that the Ottawa Minister of Finance was not diplomatic enough, whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was too diplomatic. And from that statement one concludes that the Prime Minister was conciliatory and the Minister of Finance was not or is not.
Mr. Speaker, education was discussed the whole week. In the field of education, the provinces want to keep their autonomy, their independence and their right to decide. Today, the Minister of Finance told us that all the provinces are asking the federal government to contribute more and more to education while respecting provincial autonomy. Not later than last night, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) who attended the whole conference last week said: Because the provinces do not want to increase taxes, they are asking the federal government to assume responsibility for it and since the latter will have to pay $350 million more per year to the provinces, it is normal that it will have to increase taxes and, therefore, impose heavier fiscal or financial burdens on the Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us very clearly this afternoon which of the provincial premiers suggested, for instance, to the federal government that the services of the Bank of Canada be used to finance education in the provinces, education for the young as well as adults, to find the financial means without increasing taxes? Which of the provincial premiers suggested to the Minister of Finance to adapt the financial system to Canada's needs and not to impose on Canadians additional burdens which they cannot assume at this time? The hon. Minister of Finance is aware of that.

DEBATES	October 31. 1966
Mr. Speaker, it is all very' well to be told, here, on the morrow of a week-long conference, that the whole problem was nothing but financial, that all the provincial representatives, as well as the hon. Minister of Finance and the right hon. Prime Minister, discussed monetary matters without, however, attempting to modify the system and adapting it to the conditions and needs of 1966.
We were told, even before the conference, that the Quebec premier had given the hon. Minister of Finance the following ultimatum: Give us 100 per cent of personal and corporate income tax or else we may have to secede from the rest of Canada. Was it mentioned last week? Certainly not, nobody ever mentioned it.
Mr. Speaker, education is one of the most important matters that have been discussed last week and I will remind the Minister of Finance that the education of our youth, and to a lesser degree adult education is of the utmost importance.
During my visit to Russia last year, I had the opportunity to find out that university students were paid 35 rubles per month to continue and complete their studies. This takes place in Russia, a communist country. And what does it mean?
Students are given a presalary without any obligation, except that they probably have to be true communists, so as to allow them to carry on their studies.
But I would like to call the minister's attention to the following point: If, in a communist country, a government can manage to pay salaries to students, why is it that in countries like ours that claim freedom of choice and democracy, we do not have the means to help our university students by paying them a presalary while they are attending university or high school?
Mr. Speaker, this matter is serious enough to make governments ponder, especially those that are called free governments or governments respecting private enterprises. I feel that if socialists and communists can do it, we too can do it by taking advantage of the means at our disposal, namely the Bank of Canada, instead of continually turning to the United States and begging permission to do what we are able to do here ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have had enough of this manoeuvring and these proposals which, in the end, are meaningless.
October 31, 1966

I do not wish to delay the house any longer but, before concluding with my comments, I insist it is time the hon. Minister of Finance stop fooling and going against the provinces. He and the government should concentrate on putting the Bank of Canada at the disposal of the Canadian citizens and then, the conflict which exists at present between the provinces and the federal government would disappear; the provinces would be respected and the federal government would be fulfilling its purpose. This is what the Creditistes and the Social Credit party have been claiming all over Canada.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the length of time required for the negotiations which have led up to this statement of the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Sharp), and considering its great importance it would have been preferable had each official party in the opposition been given a copy of it. We are faced with a considerable burden in replying immediately to a statement of this length and importance.
Having regard to the disposition of funds to universities I think it important that we do not lose sight of the fact that universities should have several sources of funds. These sources should not all be governmental. One source is by tradition the fees, and another is through gifts by people who are interested in a university and wish to see it progress.
I am afraid this is one area of university revenue that has tended to dry up in these last few years, owing to the onerous tax burdens that are being placed on so many of the citizens of this country.
We welcome the additional aid in grants for the adult training programs but we think that this action is belated. The federal government could well have moved into this particular area earlier and the adult training programs could have proceeded at a faster pace than at present.
It is difficult to make a comment at the present time, on the fiscal proposals because of their complex nature, which has baffled many experts and has also baffled the people who write newspaper headlines over the past week. I understand the premier of British Columbia is quoted as saying that that province held its own and that this constituted a victory for the province. Possibly I should not be too critical of those proposals. Nevertheless I do feel that the appalling task of providing sources for the
Questions
financing of public projects makes it all the more necessary for the federal government to pay attention to the proposals and ideas which have been presented by the Social Credit party in this parliament.
The time is fast approaching when what has been said by this party regarding financing through parliament and through the Bank of Canada is becoming increasingly true and will have to be implemented.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Orange: 1.	Is there an Indian Handicraft Co-operative incorporated at Fort Providence, N.W.T., and, if so, on what date was it incorporated?
2.	Has the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources provided technical, financial or marketing assistance to this co-operative and (a) if so, what is the nature, type and amount of such assistance (b) if not, are there any plans to provide such assistance to this co-operative?


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No Indian handicraft or other type of co-operative has so far been incorporated at Fort Providence. Local community groups that come together or are brought together for economic development purposes sometimes refer to themselves as co-operatives even though no legal basis for the use of this term exists. The District Co-operative Development Officer plans to carry out educational and development work at Fort Providence during 1967. Incorporation of a co-operative may follow in 1968.
2.	Industrial officers of the administrator of the Mackenzie's office were in touch with the Roman Catholic Sisters who are operating an arts and crafts project at Fort Providence and offered departmental assistance. They were told none was needed at this time as the Sisters were satisfied with the current status of the operation, but that assistance would be requested as the need arose. The manager of the wholesale agency, Team Products Limited of Edmonton, also visited Fort Providence and offered assistance to the Sisters in connection with any marketing problems they might have.

October 31, 1966
Questions


YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.-DAN MATHESON- EDUCATION ASSISTANCE
Mr. Orange: 1.	Has Dan Matheson of Yellowknife, N.W.T., made application for higher education assistance to the education authorities in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and/or the Commissioner of the N.W.T. and, if so (a) was the application approved and in what amount (b) if not, what were the reasons?
2.	What appeal procedures have been established for applicants who are rejected for either assistance or a loan through the Canada Student Loan program?


Arthur Laing: 1. An application for financial assistance for higher education received from Dan Matheson of Yellowknife, N.W.T., was approved for a grant of $640 and a loan of $575.
2.	Appeals under the N.W.T. financial assistance for higher education program may be made to the Commissioner of the N.W.T.
Appeals for loans under the Canada Student Loans Plan may be made to the appropriate authority for issuing certificates of eligibility for the N.W.T. Such appeals are only allowed when it can be shown that one of the factors used in assessing the original loan application has materially changed or that information given by the student was misinterpreted.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Orange: 1.	How many persons are employed on a fulltime, year-round basis by the Northern Transportation Company?
2.	Where are these employees located?


Arthur Laing: I am informed by the Northern Transportation Company as follows: 1. 51.
2.	Edmonton, Alberta, 21; Waterways, Alberta, 4; Bushell, Saskatchewan, 1; Fort Smith, N.W.T., 4; Hay River, N.W.T., 11; Yellowknife, N.W.T., 1; Norman Wells, N.W.T., 1; Bear River, N.W.T., 2; Inuvik, N.W.T., 1; Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., 5; Total, 51.


CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS-REQUESTS FOR COPIES IN ENGLISH
Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert): 1.	How many requests to purchase copies of the Canadian Bill of Rights in English have been made to the Queen's Printer in 1966, and of these how

many have been turned down because there are none on hand?
2.	Has printing been discontinued and, if so, by whom was this direction given?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1.	No records are kept of requests for publications unless a reprint is in process, at which time requests are placed on a back order file.
2.	Only one printing of this document has been published to date and a reprint is now being processed.


MUNSINGER INQUIRY-TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	What was the total cost to the taxpayers of Canada of the Munsinger inquiry which was presided over by Mr. Justice Spence?
2.	What is the total amount paid or to be paid to Mr. Justice Spence for his services in this matter?
3.	What is the total amount paid or to be paid to all other legal officials?
4.	What is the total amount paid or to be paid to witnesses?
5.	What was the total cost of the television and radio publicity programs and promotions pertaining to this inquiry produced by the C.B.C.?
6.	What is the total amount paid or to be paid to Mrs. Munsinger in Germany by the C.B.C. in return for her comments and appearances on the C.B.C. communications media?


Mr. A. J. Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Privy Council office and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:	1,
$16,401.84 has been expended up to October 14, 1966. Total cost figure is not yet available.
2.	Nil.
3.	Not known at this time as accounts have not been received.
4.	$1,812.31 has been expended up to October 14, 1966. No additional expenses are anticipated.
5.	C.B.C. costs have been confined to English and French news and public affairs programming pertaining to this story and were approximately $30,000 for radio and television, English and French.
6.	As noted in replies to earlier questions Nos. 1,062 and 1,080, on April 20 and May 25 respectively, $5,000 was paid to Mrs. Mun-singer's agent. A fee of $300 was paid for a subsequent appearance at the time of the report of Mr. Justice Spence.
October 31, 1966


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION-DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What industrial acreage owned by the National Capital Commission was sold or otherwise disposed of since January 1, 1965?
2.	How many industries acquired such land?
3.	What is the anticipated employment to be provided by such industries?
4.	What is the total acreage of available serviced industrial land now owned by the National Capital Commission and where is it located?
5.	Has the National Capital Commission any plans for the development of new industrial areas?
6.	If so, in what location or locations?
7.	In respect of each such area, when is it expected that servicing and development of such area would be completed and such additional sites available for sale or other disposal?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Industrial acreage owned by the National Capital Commission which has been sold or disposed of since January 1, 1965, is as follows: Belfast road area, 44.9 acres; Sheffield road area, 36.8 acres; Coventry road area, 37.4 acres; Bells Corners, 11.9 acres; total 131.0 acres.
2.	The number of industries which acquired such land are as follows: Belfast road area, 7; Sheffield road area, 7; Coventry road area, 10; Bells Corners area, 3; Total, 27.
3.	It is anticipated that 2,250 persons will be employed by such industries.
4.	Acreage of available serviced industrial land now owned by the National Capital Commission and its location is as follows: Coventry road area, 8.1 acres; Bells Corners area, 5.5 acres; Belfast road area, 35.6 acres; Sheffield road area, 41.2 acres; total, 90.4 acres.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) South side of Walkley road, extending easterly from the junction of the Heron and Walkley roads to the Russell road, (b) Between McCarthy road and Riverside drive bounded on the north by the Canadian National Railway tracks and bounded on the south by the Eastern Parkway right-of-way.
7.	(a) Walkley road area by 1968, tentatively, (b) McCarthy road to Riverside drive area after 1972, tentatively.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, PRESCOTT SUBDIVISION-LOWERING OF TRACKS
Mr. Boll (Carleton): 1.	What works are included in the depression or lowering of the C.P.R. Prescott subdivision tracks between the Ottawa and Rideau rivers in the national capital?
Questions
2.	Of these works, which have been completed?
3.	What is the target date for completion of each of the remaining works?
4.	What has been the total cost of each of the completed works?
5.	What is the estimate of the cost of each of the works remaining to be completed?


George James McIlraith: 1. The depressing of the C.P.R. Prescott subdivision includes: (a) The construction of a temporary track diversion 10,800 feet long, (b) The construction of a tunnel 1,900 feet long and 8,900 feet of open cut including the construction of grade separation structures at Highway No. 16, Carling avenue, Beech street and Gladstone avenue. The tunnel eliminates the grade crossing of Colonel By Drive. Also, the underpinning of the Queensway bridge and Somerset street bridge and the relocation of utility and sewer lines affected by the open cut were also carried out. (c) The relocation of tracks between Somerset street to the Ottawa river, (d) The construction of a pedestrian overpass at Young street, (e) The installation of a centralized traffic control system of signalling for train operation, (f) The removal of the temporary track and permanent tracks in Ottawa West yard.
2.	The diversion track, tunnel, open cut, grade separation structures, underpinning of Somerset bridge and relocation of utility lines are completed.
3.	Track laying in tunnel and open cut to be completed December 31, 1966. Ballasting in tunnel and open cut to be completed April 30, 1967. Pedestrian overpass at Young Street to be completed April 30, 1967. Construction between Wellington St. and Ottawa River May 15, 1967. Construction of passing siding and team tracks, May 15, 1967. Installation of CTC system to be completed May 15, 1967.
4.	The cost of construction of 1(a) above, $161,000. The cost of construction of 1(b) above, $3,127,000.
5.	The estimated cost of construction of 1(c) above, $270,000. The estimated cost of construction of 1(d) above, $25,000. The estimated cost of construction of 1(e) above, $75,000. The estimated cost of track removal less salvage 1 (f) above, nil.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION-ACTION ON LETTER FROM AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Bell (Carleion): What action has been taken by the Minister of Public Works or the National Capital Commission consequent upon the letter of the Auditor General of Canada, addressed to the former under date of

October 31, 1966
Questions
June 29, 1966, which appears at the beginning of part two of the sixty-sixth annual report 1965-66 of the National Capital Commission?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): A system of commitment control is being established. The commission is now reviewing the current year's capital budget to ensure not only that the budget will cover essential commitments but that no new commitments are assumed that are not within approved budget limits.


TELEVISION SETS-RECEPTION CAPABILITIES
Mr. Sianbury: Is consideration being given by the government to legislation requiring all new television sets to be all channel receivers as now required in the United States?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Department of Transport has had this matter under study, and may conclude these studies when the Board of Broadcast Governors has made a recommendation on the question of opening up the ultra high frequency television band for licence applications. The Board of Broadcast Governors held a public hearing on this subject on October 25.


EASTERN ARCTIC-COAST GUARD OPERATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,031
Mr. Orange:: 1.	How many Canadian Coast Guard ships are involved or typically operate in the Eastern Arctic in the summer months?
2.	In respect to each ship, what are the names, home ports, functions and which ones are fitted with LORAN?
3.	Is it intended to instal LORAN in those ships that now do not have it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Sixteen Canadian Coast Guard ships usually operate in the Eastern Arctic in the summer months.
2. The names of Canadian Coast Guard ships which operate in the Eastern Arctic are given below with their current home ports although basing arrangements are changed from time to time. Seven of these ships are fitted with LORAN and this is denoted by an asterisk following the ship's name.
Quebec city, Que.: C.C.G.S., d'Iberville*;
C.C.G.S., N.B. McLean*-, C.C.G.S., Montcalm*; C.C.G.S., Simon Fraser; C.C.G.S., CD. Howe*; C.C.G.S., Eider; C.C.G.S., Puffin; C.C.G.S., Raven; C.C.G.S., Skua. Dartmouth,
[Mr. Bell (Carleton).)
N.S.: C.C.G.S., John A. Macdonald*; C.C.G.S., Labrador*; C.C.G.S., Narwhal*; C.C.G.S., Auk; C.C.G.S., Gannet. Charlottetown, P.E.I.: C.C.G.S. Wolfe. St. John's, Nfld.: C.C.G.S., Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
All above C.C.G. ships carry a full cargo of supplies northbound for the various Arctic posts, and they also carry some cargo and equipment on their return trip south. They are available for search and rescue duty and one or more may at any time be directed by the coast guard rescue officer to render assistance if loss of life is imminent.
The various functions of these ships while in the Arctic after discharge of northbound cargo may be summarized as follows:
The C.C.G.S. John A. Macdonald, d'Iberville, Labrador, N. B. McLean, Montcalm, Wolfe and Sir Humphrey Gilbert are icebreakers and support the Eastern Arctic sealift mainly by assisting through ice government chartered ships and others, including C.C.G. ships which are not icebreakers. The N. B. McLean, assisted by other icebreakers as necessary, is assigned to the Churchill route and helps commercial shipping by providing icebreaker assistance and advice on the best route to follow to and from Churchill. One heavy icebreaker remains in the Arctic as late as conditions permit to carry out ice formation studies in an effort to determine the latest date to which shipping may safely venture in these regions.
The C.C.G.S. Narwhal is a depot ship and provides accommodation and technical assistance for the stevedores who unload the ships at the various posts in the Fox Basin and along the East Baffin coast.
The C.C.G.S. Eider, Puffin, Raven, Skua, Auk, Gannet are known as northern supply vessels and are shallow draft carriers; their main function after discharging is to lighten cargo vessels including tankers. These ships also move cargo from Churchill to posts in the Hudson Bay and Strait. On their return trip they carry landing craft and other heavy equipment which may have to be brought south for repair.
The C.C.G.S. Simon Fraser does not normally take part in the sealift and her main function is to put into commission all light and radio beacon stations in the Hudson Bay and Strait before the opening of the Churchill route for commercial shipping each year. These aids to navigation are maintained during the shipping season but are decommissioned after the last commercial ship has sailed the route outward.
October 31. 1966

The C.C.G.S. C. D. Howe makes an Eastern Arctic patrol each year and provides transport and accommodation to government departments' officials. During this patrol, the medical staff of National Health and Welfare examine and give medical care to Eskimos at some 30 posts. Other government departments using the C.D. Howe for transport of officials and supplies are Northern Affairs and National Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, National Defence.
3.	It is not intended to instal LORAN in existing ships that do not have it. However, the existing northern supply vessels are now approaching obsolescence and it is intended that their replacements will be so equipped. Other replacement vessels under construction or design will be equipped with LORAN provided that their main area of operation will be covered by the LORAN system.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-EDUCATION GRANTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence enter Into agreements with provincial and/or municipal governments to provide grants or other means of financial aid for the education of (a) service personnel (b) the wives or husbands of service personnel (c) the children of service personnel?
2.	If so, what formula is used for such expenditures?
3.	If the answer to Part I (b) is in the negative, would the Department or the government consider extending its agreements with provincial and/or municipal governments to cover such people, particularly in the field of adult education?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associaie Minister of National Defence):: 
RETROACTIVE PAY INCREASES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. McCleave: Regarding retroactive pay increases for federal government employees, (a) are such paid when the employee has worked for a part of the retroactive pay period but has quit his position, or (b) are such paid when the employee has worked for

October 31, 1966
Questions
a part of the retroactive pay period, quit his position and then returned before the pay increase is announced, and if so for what period, or (c) same as part (b) except that the employee has returned to federal employ after the pay increase is announced?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: (a) Retroactive pay increases for federal government employees who are subject to the Retroactive Remuneration Regulations are not paid to a person who works for a part of the retroactive pay period and resigns before the increases are approved, (b) and (c) Except as noted below, persons who work for part of the retroactive period, resign and later return to the government service are not paid retroactive pay for any previous employment which was terminated by resignation. A person who resigns his position in order to accept, without a break in service, employment in another department or agency will be paid retroactive pay for whatsoever part of the retroactive period he worked.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-ASSIGNMENT OF PAY
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence recently require service personnel to assign a portion of their pay and allowances to their wives and children, and has this policy been changed?
2.	If so (a) when and for what reason (b) has the department received complaints that this works hardships on such wives and children in some cases, for example where the serviceman is serving outside Canada or is on an R.C.N. ship at sea?
3.	If the answer to part 2 (b) is yes, is the department considering new practice to solve such complaints?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1, 2 and 3. Since 1952, the payment of marriage allowance has been conditional upon the requirement for a serviceman to assign a portion of his pay and allowances to his wife, or the person, or persons undertaking the care of his dependant child or children. However, with the introduction of the new pay structure for the armed forces on 1 October, 1966, the value of marriage allowance was incorporated into basic pay. Thus, with the elimination of marriage allowance, the requirement for a supporting pay allotment ceased. Provision for voluntary allotments continues as in the past. No complaints have been received concerning financial hardship arising from this change.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-CLOSURE OF OFFICES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In the past year, how many offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission have been shut down?
2.	Where were the closed offices located?
3.	How many more Unemployment Insurance Commission offices is it planned to close down in the next two years?
4.	Where are they located?
5.	What alternative facilities will be available to the people residing in the areas where Unemployment Insurance Commission offices have been closed?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Labour):: I am advised by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows:
1.	The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises that it has closed a total of 46 offices during the year.
2.	The offices were at the following locations: Abbotsford, B.C.; Arnprior, Ont.; Beau-harnois, P.Q.; Brockville, Ont.; Buckingham, P.Q.; Carleton Place, Ont.; Cobourg, Ont.; Dauphin, Man.; Dolbeau, P.Q.; Duncan, B.C.; Fort Erie, Ont.; Fort Frances, Ont.; Gaspe, P.Q.; Goderich, Ont.; Grande Prairie, Alta.; Inverness, N.S.; La Tuque, P.Q.; Lindsay, Ont.; Listowel, Ont.; Louiseville, P.Q.; Magog, P.Q.; Maniwaki, P.Q.; Midland, Ont.; Nap-anee, Ont.; Nelson, B.C.; New Liskeard, Ont.; North Battleford, Sask.; Parry Sound, Ont.; Perth, Ont.; Portage-la-Prairie, Man.; Port Alberni, B.C.; Port Alfred, P.Q.; Port Arthur, Ont.; Port Colborne, Ont.; Quesnel, B.C.; Renfrew, Ont.; Springhill, N.S.; Sturgeon Falls, Ont.; Sussex, N.B.; Swift Current, Sask.; Sydney Mines, N.S.; The Pas, Man.; Tillson-burg, Ont.; Trail, B.C.; Wallaceburg, Ont.; Whitehorse, Y.T.
3.	The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises that it plans to close a further 51 offices during the next two years.
4.	The offices scheduled to be closed in 1967 and 1968 are located as follows: Alma, P.Q.; Amherst, N.S.; Bracebridge, Ont.; Causapscal, P.Q.; Chilliwack, B.C.; Collingwood, Ont.; Courtenay, B.C.; Dawson Creek, B.C.; Dolbeau, P.Q.; Elliot Lake, Ont.; Galt, Ont.; Grand Falls, Nfld.; Guelph, Ont.; Hawkes-bury, Ont.; Jonquiere, P.Q.; Kapuskasing, Ont.; Kenora, Ont.; Kirkland Lake, Ont.; Lac Megantic, P.Q.; Leamington, Ont.; Long Branch, Ont.; Medicine Hat, Alta.; Mont Laurier, P.Q.; Moose Jaw, Sask.; Newcastle, N.B.; Newmarket, Ont.; New Richmond, Ont.; Niagara Falls, Ont.; Oakville, Ont.; Orillia,
October 31, 1S66

Ont.; Penticton, B.C.; Prescott, Ont.; Red Deer, Alta.; St. Stephen, N.B.; Ste. Agathe, P.Q.; Ste. Therese, P.Q.; St. Thomas, Ont.; Simcoe, Ont.; Smith Falls, Ont.; Stratford, Ont.; Summerside, P.E.I.; Thetford Mines, P.Q.; Trenton, Ont.; Truro, N.S.; Val d'Or, P.Q.; Vernon, B.C.; Victoriaville, P.Q.; Welland, Ont.; Weston, Ont.; Woodstock, N.B.; Woodstock, Ont.
5.	Application forms for persons wishing to make a claim for unemployment insurance benefit will be available at post offices, Canada Manpower Centres, union halls, et cetera, while persons in receipt of benefit will continue to report and to receive benefit payments by mail.


THE PUBLIC SERVICE-USE OF MILITARY RANK
Mr. Smith: Are there any regulations respecting the use of a military rank by former service officers now in government service and, if so, what are these regulations?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Under Q.R. & O. for the
Canadian forces, Article 15.20 provides, in part, that a former officer, regardless of where he is employed, shall, if his name is entered on a retired list, have the privilege of using the title of his rank and immediately following his name shall include the word "Retired" or the appropriate abbreviation. A former naval officer shall, if using the title of his rank, include the designation "R.C.N." or "R.C.N.R." as applicable as well as "Retired". The rank shown against the name of an officer on the retired list is the substantive or temporary rank held by him on the date of his release.


RESERVE TRAINING AT UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has any decision been taken on the Reserve Training Plan on university campuses?
2.	Will any changes be made in existing programs?
3.	Will the training programs be carried out at the same universities as in the past?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1, 2, 3. The university reserve program is being maintained for the 1966-67 academic year at the same universities and under the same arrangements as have applied during the past two years. As with all defence programs, this program will be subject to review in light of requirements.
Questions


OTTAWA, ONT.-NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE HEATING PLANT
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the estimated cost of constructing the tunnel required to connect the National Arts Centre with the government's heating plant?
2.	What would be the estimated cost of providing a separate heating plant for the National Arts Centre?


George James McIlraith: 1. See the reply given today to question No. 2,101. It is impossible to attribute to any one aspect a definite part of the total cost of this entire project.
2. Plans were not prepared for a separate heating plant for this one building; consequently, a cost figure cannot be stated.


LAC MEGANTIC, P.Q.-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICE
Mr. Latulippe: Has the government taken into consideration the representations of the Chamber of Commerce of the town of Lac Megantic to the effect that the Unemployment Insurance Office at present located in that town be not transferred elsewhere because of its present advantage to industry and business activity in the region?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises that representations from the Chamber of Commerce of the town of Lac Megantic concerning the transfer of the Unemployment Insurance Commission office from that town were received and were given serious consideration by the commission.


CAMBRIDGE BAY, N.W.T.-CONSTRUCTION OF HOSTEL
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Have tenders been called for the construction of a hostel at Cambridge Bay, N.W.T. and, if so, how many tenders were received and what were the bids in each case?
2.	When will the contract be awarded?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes, four: $6,948,000; 7,350,000; 7,373,000; 8,500,000.
2. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development advises that no contract was awarded because the cost exceeded the estimate by approximately 50 per cent and that alternative arrangements for the schooling of these children are being made.

October 31, 1966
Questions


STE ANNE DES MONTS, P.Q.-PROTECTION WALL PROJECTS
Mr. Keays: 1.	Were there any protection wall projects undertaken in Ste Anne des Monts, Quebec, during 1966?
2.	If so (a) who were the tenderers and what amounts were tendered (b) who was awarded the contract?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
2. (a) Les Entreprises, Mont-Sterling Inc., Ste Anne des Monts, Que., $10,743; Henri Caron, Les Mechins, Que., $12,042; (b) Les Entreprises Mont-Sterling Inc.


TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Brand: 1.	What is the purpose of the tunnel construction at present underway on Parliament Hill?
2.	What is the cost of this project?
3.	Was the contract awarded after tenders were called or was it awarded on some other basis?
4.	Were any alternative methods of providing the service, noted in part 1, considered?


George James McIlraith: 1. The purpose is (a) to provide heat for the East Block, Langevin Block, Postal Station B., National Arts Centre, Lome Building, proposed museum, future buildings on Cartier Square, Chateau Laurier, Besserer street post office, Union Station, until the latter two are razed, and possibly other buildings in the area, and (b) to provide chilled water for future air conditioning of the East Block, National Arts Centre, Lome Building, proposed museum, and possibly other buildings in the area.
The existing tunnel between the Centre Block and the East Block is not large enough to carry the required piping.
2.	$641,650.
3.	After tenders were called.
4.	Yes, the possibilities were studied (a) of heating each of the buildings from a separate plant, (b) of running pipes through the existing tunnel to the East Block and thence to the other buildings, and (c) of using open-trench excavation along the route of the work now underway. The new tunnel was considered to be the most economical means of providing the proposed services.
[Mr. Mcllraith.)


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week the hon. member said that I would get an answer to question No. 910 in a few days.
Can the parliamentary secretary now tell me when I will get an answer to that question No. 910?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, last week when I answered the hon. member I did not say, "in a few days", but "soon", "very soon"; I can tell him that the answers from three departments have not yet reached us, and we hope to have the full answer soon.


AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Undoubtedly he has a copy of the report by Mr. R. G. Gettes, chairman of the conciliation board set up to deal with the dispute between Air Canada machinists and other workers of that company. In view of the firmly established belief that a 30 per cent wage increase guide line was laid down by the government in intervening to settle the strike of longshoremen and seaway workers, will the Acting Prime Minister impress upon the Prime Minister his duty and responsibility to intervene in the Air Canada situation to head off the strike for November 14?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister's regrettable indisposition is not so great as to incapacitate him for his ordinary work and therefore I doubt if I am technically the Acting Prime Minister. However, as senior minister in the house and as Minister of Transport I am very happy to respond to the question asked by the hon. gentleman.
I will say to him that I have read the conciliation board report with a great deal of interest, that I observe that members of the conciliation board are now engaged in mediation but have made no recommendations, and that I hope their efforts of mediation may be successful. I think this is a matter which should be settled between Air Canada and its employees without intervention by the government, and I hope it will be settled in that way.
October 31, 1966


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask this question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but in his absence may I direct it to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the report on Saturday night's C.B.C. television news featuring a Professor Andrews saying that the radiation levels on the beach at Port Hope are unreasonably high making the area unsafe for children, can the minister say whether his department has investigated this and other serious reports?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take the question as notice and reply tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is making an investigation into that matter will he also look into reports concerning drifting radiation from the atomic explosions in China and tell the house whether any of this is contaminating the upper atmosphere over Canada?


GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Minister of Finance a question I wanted to put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Minister of Finance is fully aware of the situation of gold mines and gold miners in northwestern Quebec,, particularly in Malartic and Val d'Or.
The minister probably knows that a strike is looming up for November 9. He should therefore take immediate action to settle this strike which, as he knows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question, but first I wish to point out to the minister a situation of which he is well aware, as everyone knows.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: In that case, I would point out to the hon. member that preambles are unnecessary. All he has to do is to put his question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will be straightforward and to the point with my question.
My question is the following: Is the Minister of Finance now taking steps to provide further assistance to the gold mining industry, so that the employees who are about to go on strike will be granted reasonable wages and thus avoid a disastrous strike in this area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, any change in government policy in this respect will be announced in due course.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
The "due course" for the strike is next November 9. Will the government's "due course" come about before or after the 9th?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand the purport of the hon. member's representations but I cannot hold out any hope that there will be any change in government policy by that date.


INQUIRY CONCERNING INCREASE IN INITIAL PAYMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Several weeks ago I asked him whether the government was going to increase the initial prices for wheat, oats and barley paid by the Canadian Wheat Board, and the minister replied that the government had this question under consideration. I am wondering if he could now tell the house whether or not the government has reached a decision, and if so by how much will the initial payments be increased?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has not made a decision of that kind as yet.

October 31, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE FORMULA EMPLOYED IN EQUALIZATION GRANTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of his statement and the discussions at the conferences. Could the minister tell the house on what formula certain provinces are paid more than $100 million while others in western Canada appear to be paid very little? What is the formula? Is it based on population, on production, or what?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is speaking about equalization grants, the formula is to equalize the fiscal capacity of the various provinces of Canada at the national average. I am sure that he is very happy that the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta are both above the national average.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. What does the minister mean by the national average? How is it actually arrived at in dollars and cents?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he is now embarking upon a debate. This is not the type of question that should be asked at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to enter into a debate. No one knows the answer to what the formula is, and surely this is important. Perhaps I can put my question in this way. I am not trying to argue with the minister but could he tell us what the basic formula really is?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the formula is set out in some detail in the papers that were tabled in the house today, which I understand have already been distributed to hon. members.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chafterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Can the hon. gentleman say what the government is doing to correct the anomalous position created by the postage rate for printed matter, including Christmas

cards, to Spain being three cents for the first two ounces and one cent for each additional ounce thereafter, whereas the rate to Great Britain and France for the same material is four cents for the first two ounces and two cents for each additional two ounces thereafter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am under the impression that this is the type of detailed question which should be placed on the order paper.


George Louis Chatterton: Then may I put my question in a different way. Is the government taking action to correct the anomalous situation created by the postal rates between Canada and Spain compared with those to Great Britain and France?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot see any urgency in the question of the hon. member, unless it relates to Christmas, but perhaps it would be simpler to allow the minister to answer the question.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, those rates are established under a certain agreement concluded with the various countries. I do not have the agreement here, but I could answer this question tomorrow.


WINTER WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand), but in his absence, in view of the urgency of the question, I shall put it to the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell us when the federal government will pay the amounts owing to the municipalities for the work done last year under the winter works program, in order to enable the municipalities to take part in the winter works for the year 1966-67 which will begin tomorrow?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.
October 31, 1366


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the serious shortage of stock cars in western stockyards at Saskatoon? As a result of very heavy receipts in the stockyards there the situation has deteriorated into a very serious one indeed. If the minister is aware of the situation, is he making any attempt now to see that further stock cars are available in that particular stockyard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not specifically aware of the situation in Saskatoon but I was made aware rather forcibly last week of the situation in southern Alberta, which I am advised has improved a good deal. I have hopes that the hon. gentleman's representations plus those that I will make to supplement them will quickly improve the situation in Saskatoon as well.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I want to address to the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the minister could say if the federal conciliation board has yet reported on the dispute between the Canadian Wire Service Guild and the United Press International news service? If so, what is the nature of the report and when will it become public?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the report was received this morning. I have approved of its immediate release to the parties as well as a press release. It is too voluminous for me to attempt to digest it now, but I imagine it will be in the hands of the press tomorrow. If the hon. member would like to see its contents sooner and would come to my office, I would be glad to give it to him.


AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mounfain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the 23033-589
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. Has the minister been made aware of the widespread discontent on the part of Vancouver businessmen respecting the new Air Canada fi ght schedule becoming effective today whereby flight time between Vancouver, B.C. and the cities of Saskatoon and Regina is unduly long, and could the minister discuss this problem with Mr. McGregor, the head of Air Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would congratulate the province of British Columbia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -on its new representative in this house and I will do what I can.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order.


OLD AGE SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister and I direct it to him because I usually have better results in my dealings with the Minister of Transport than is the case with most other ministers in this particular regard. Can the minister tell us today-I ask this question on behalf of thousands and thousands of Canadians-when we can expect the legislation regarding the old age security pension to be placed on the order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would think that notice of the legislation will be placed on the order paper just as soon as it is ready; and I regret I have to add, probably long before the house is ready to deal with it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question. I should now like to ask the minister whether he has not heard of the representations placed before the government by several members ever since last January, and whether he does not think that now is the time for action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister telling the house that

October 31, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry this legislation is not yet ready to be placed on the order paper?


Mr. Ricard:: That is what he said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not telling the hon. member anything that he has not a perfect right to know. Though it is not usual to have a lot of questions about the business of the house on orders of the day, it being, I think, contrary to the rules-I just say that for the benefit of the new and inexperienced member-the house is entitled to know that the government will be ready with this legislation long before the house is, unless better progress is made from now on than has been made up to now.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: My
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wish to ask him whether he has received a joint complaint from the three prairie provinces to the effect that his department is implementing important changes in policies affecting Indians in these provinces, without consulting the provinces concerned.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there may be such a representation, but if so, I know nothing about it at this time. I shall make inquiries.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the references in the press to ten volumes in the Carter Royal Commission report, I wonder if the minister could now tell us when the House of Commons will share with the press in viewing this report.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised, as I am sure the hon. gentleman was, by the reference to ten volumes. I thought perhaps it was a facetious reference. I hope that is so. I have not seen the report. I do not know how many volumes it will have.
[Mr. Knowles.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of his statement that the arrangements made with the provinces are to run for two years, subject to a studying before that time of the Carter report, can the minister guarantee that the Carter report will be available before the two years are up?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was an honest answer.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Louis Chatterton: My question is for the Minister of Labour of which I have given him notice. In view of the misunderstanding created by C.M.H.C. Bulletin No. 181, and the minister's press release of July 27 leading merchant builders to believe that they will be able to obtain speculative loans from August 1 to December 31-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly put his question.


George Louis Chatterton: My question is this: Will the minister consider some remedy to the inequitable allocation of direct loans as between various contractors in the same area.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise that there have been inequities. I shall be glad, however, to look into the question posed by the hon. member. I thank him for giving me notice, because I now have an opportunity to point out not only to members of this house but also to the building trade in Canada that in Bulletin No. 181 to which the hon. member has referred, it is very clear in the second paragraph that this winter's direct merchant builders' program will be:
(d)	Within the limits of available funds, loans will be made subject to the local C.M.H.C.'s manager's judgment-
These funds, made available on August 1, were substantially used up by October 15.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the misunderstanding with respect to the particular paragraph to
October 31, 1366

which the minister has referred would he consider referring Bill No. C-41 to the standing committee on housing, urban development and public works.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With respect, no, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter of some urgency and we wish to obtain money for additional work this fall. I hope the matter will be dealt with in the committee of the whole within a few days.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN BUILDING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Has he received representations from the city council of Vancouver asking for an amendment to the National Housing Act which would permit federal help in building recreational facilities in public housing projects.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked certainly is not proper. I suggest to the hon. member that she place it on the order paper.


LOTTERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In Toronto 38 people are facing charges for dealing in hockey lottery tickets. This is as of last Thursday. I would ask the Solicitor General if the cabinet is taking any action against the head office of the bank in Toronto from which I regularly buy the British lottery tickets as issued by the British government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a matter of great national urgency. I suggest the hon. member might take the matter up directly with the minister, or place it on the order.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

["Mr. Chairman, I have a few introductory remarks which I will make tonight and tomorrow I will follow with a real speech. However, in the one minute left to us may I just say that the minister has told us he has reduced the forces by 23,000 men, he has saved $150 million, and now our forces are more effective than they have ever been in the past. Next year he can drop another\nOctober 31, 1966\n9358\tCOMMONS\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion 23,000 men, save another $150 million, and then tell us his forces are more effective than they were in 1966. That sums up the ridiculousness of the minister's statement to us tonight, and tomorrow I will deal with some of the other nonsensical remarks that he made. I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.\nProgress reported."]
Mitchell William Sharp: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $371,999,867.43, being the aggregate of-(a) one-twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Items for Citizenship and Immigration, Defence Production, Forestry, Industry, Legislation, National Revenue, Post Office, Privy Council and Veterans Affairs, already provided for in Appropriation Act No. 6, 1966, and except Agriculture Item 35, Atomic Energy Item, 5, Dominon Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Finance Item
15,	Mines and Technical Surveys Items 40 and 70, Transport Item 103, and Loans, Investments and Advances Items L40, L75 and L80, for which no proportion is granted-$309,794,765.50;
(b)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Public Works Item 65 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,600,000.00;
(c)	an additional two-twelfths of the total amounts of National Defence Item 35, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 20 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates-$3,175,900.00;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L30 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates- $9,166,166.67;

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
(e)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a and Transport Items 102a and 103a, for which no proportion is granted- $26,276,101.92;
(f)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amounts of External Affairs Item 35a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L22a (Schedule D) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$11,304,-250.00;
(g) an additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Secretary of State Item 40a (Schedule E) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$713,266.67;
(h) an additional one-twelfth of the total amounts of Finance Item 15a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40a (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$4,716,666.67;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total amount of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Loans, Investments and Advances Item L32b, for which no proportion is granted-$2,252,250.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.


Edgar John Benson: The proportions requested in this resolution, which will be succeeded by a bill, are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to November 30, 1966.
In no instance is the total amount of any item being released by this resolution or the bill which is to follow. The form of the resolution and of the subsequent bill is the usual one for interim supply resolutions and bills. The passing of this resolution and the succeeding bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item of the estimates not yet passed when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.
I would further explain that what is asked for in this resolution, and in the succeeding bill, is interim supply to the end of November, 1966, that is, for one month's supply with a few exceptions which are outlined in the resolution. All the other items for which more than one-twelfth is requested total less than $34 million.


Mr. Harkness:: The request by the government for interim supply makes it possible for us to discuss important matters with which the house has not had an opportunity to deal

for a considerable length of time. I think the most important of these matters is the whole question of defence, particularly the plan and the course the minister has been following to implement the proposed unification of our three armed services.
For more than two years now, there has been steadily increasing concern and alarm over the state of our armed forces. During that period the numbers of servicemen in our forces have decreased at an alarming rate. Morale is extremely low. Defence installations of all kinds have been closed down. The number of naval ships in commission has been cut by some 50 per cent. Confusion and disorganization has been apparent in several commands and in the administrative organization.
Finally, this summer, nearly all the more senior officers who had not already left the service resigned or were dismissed, indicating that they could not continue to support and carry out the minister's plan for the complete unification of the forces, and that their advice was being disregarded or ignored. Great confusion and uncertainty exists both on the part of the general public and on the part of those who have been active in defence matters as to what the present situation in the defence department actually is, and what it is likely to be in the future if the minister's plans are carried forward.
Many experienced ex-servicemen and students of military matters are concerned that the minister and the government have no clear ideas as to the aims of military policy, or that their aim is merely to run down our military forces until they are capable only of carrying out certain international peace activities on behalf of the United Nations.
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the very sovereignty and independence of Canada depend on our maintaining efficient and effective defence forces capable of protecting our land area, our coastal waters and our air space against easy encroachment. We need forces capable of mobilizing our maximum national capacity in the event of war, forces capable of discharging our responsibilities and commitments to our allies in NATO and NORAD, and capable of meeting the demands made on them by the United Nations.
Members of this house, and the Canadian public, have the right to know whether the plans of the minister will produce such forces. We do not know this now, and much of the available evidence indicates that we
October 31, 1966

are likely to end up with forces which cannot discharge any of these responsibilities effectively-even that of support to the United Nations.
I think it is not generally realized how essential it is for Canada to have effective defence forces if we are to continue to receive a great deal of the information which is vital to the decisions we have to make constantly in the fields of international affairs and defence matters, and if we are to continue to have an opportunity to influence the policies of our allies in the western alliance and exert any real influence on decisions on world affairs. Without effective defence forces, the weight we can exert in these spheres must be very greatly diminished.
The minister is a great propagandist. Since taking office he has had his publicity machine operating at full speed ahead at all times in an effort to persuade the Canadian public that everything was as well as ever as far as the defence department is concerned. In particular, he has tried to gain support for his policies by maintaining he was saving the taxpayers large sums of money-always a popular line to follow. This claim has no foundation whatever, but I am sorry to say it has fooled a large number of people, including some newspaper reporters and editors.
To show that the claim is false, all one needs to do is to examine the figures as they appear in the estimates and the public accounts for the past four or five years. I have here-and I should like permission to have it printed in Hansard-a table showing estimates and expenditures durint the past few years. Printing it now might save the time of the committee.


The Chairman:: Does the committee consent to the printing of this table in Hansard?


Mr. Hellyer:: Can we be told whether the figures in those tables are in constant or in current dollars?


Douglas Scott Harkness: They are the figures as they appear in the estimates and public accounts books for the past four or five years.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Current dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Interim Supply
[Editor's note:	The table referred to
follows:]
DEFENCE EXPENDITURES: 1962-63 to 1966-67
1962-63	Estimated	Spent $1,571,044,0791963-64	$1,590,006,537	$1,683,471,0031964-65	$1,525,000,000	$1,535,634,6971965-66	$1,550,000,000	$1,561,385,1931966-67	$1,572,690,000	
(Public
Accounts)
(Public
Accounts)
(Public
(Accounts) (Estimates 1966-67 Book)
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: An examination of this table will show that in 1962-63, the last year the Conservative party was in office, expenditures totalled $1,571 million in round figures. I am leaving out the odd hundreds of thousands, although these are given in each case in the table. The estimates for 1963-64, prepared whilst I was minister, provided for expenditures of $1,590 million. The Liberal government actually spent $1,683 million in that year, an increase of $93,465,000 over our estimate, and $112,437,000 more than we spent in the previous year. In other words, there was a large increase in expenditures of $112 million in the first year that this minister and his government were responsible for defence expenditures.
At the same time as this was going on, the minister was declaiming practically every month that he was saving the taxpayers large amounts of money. That is a measure of the reliability which we can place on many of the statements he makes. In 1964-65 the minister did succeed in bringing down expenditures as compared with the previous year. The estimate was for $1,525 million. He spent $10 million more than that, a total of $1,535 million, which was some $35 million less that we spent during the last year we were in office. However, in 1965-66 expenditures were up to $1,561 million, an increase of some $26 million over the previous year, and $10 million less than was spent in 1962-63.
The estimate for the present year, 1966-67, is for expenditures of $1,572 million, an increase of $11 million. But, Mr. Chairman, the actual expenditure will be much higher than that because of the special pay for pilots which has been instituted and because of the general pay increase, as well as other things along that line which have been sanctioned. Thus a large sum will have to be added to the figures given in our estimates.
These figures show conclusively that, rather than saving the taxpayers money, during the

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
period this government has been in office it has spent on the average some $22 million a year more than was spent during the last year we were in office, and to be added to that is the as yet unknown but large increase for the present year.
But more important even than this, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that while this increase in expenditures has been taking place, our military strength and effectiveness have seriously declined. We have 20,000 fewer men in the services. We have a 50 per cent decrease in naval ships in commission. We have closed a large number of military installations, thus reducing our capability and potential. In addition a state of disorganization and low morale is prevailing. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the Canadian public is paying more for defence and getting much less of it.
The return on our defence dollar has been drastically reduced. I only trust that the minister will not continue to make the totally unsubstantiated claim that he is saving the taxpayers money. The figures prove conclusively that his conduct of affairs has cost the taxpayers more money, and at the same time the amount of return which the public has received on each dollar paid for defence has been very much reduced.
The minister has proceeded much further toward his goal of unification of the forces than he has any parliamentary mandate to go, and has done so against the advice of the senior officers of the department who were in the best position to know whether such moves were wise or practical. The amendment to the Defence Act passed by parliament provided for the abolition of the chiefs of staff of the navy, the army and the air force, and the vesting of their powers in one chief of defence staff. But the act still provided for a navy, an army and an air force.
Thus we have the situation where the minister received parliamentary authority for integration of the staffs and administrative functions, but he did not receive any mandate for unification of the services. He has been attempting to go ahead with that unification in spite of the fact there has been no parliamentary approval for it, and in effect has been attempting to present us with a fait accompli.
This brings up the question of the difference between integration and unification, something which has always been very much blurred by the minister. The result has been that the majority of the public think of these

two things as being exactly the same. The two terms are quite often used synonymously.
In this connection, I understand there was a television program yesterday on which three officers from the three forces, with their backs turned to the camera, were asked various questions about integration and expressed themselves in favour of integration. But nothing was said about unification. The whole objective of the program was to try to continue blurring the difference between integration and unification, to persuade the general public that these were one and the same thing; that these three officers and other officers in the armed services were all in favour of the moves which the minister is making, something which is very far from being the case as the numerous resignations, dismissals and refusals to re-engage have indicated.
Integration means in effect the bringing together of certain staffs, certain command functions, and certain administrative functions into single organizations. Integration is something which has been going on in the armed services for many years. A good deal of it had taken place before the minister took office, and I think nearly every one has been in favour of a certain amount of integration. On numerous occasions I have expressed myself as fully in favour of the integration of the administrative functions of the services, such as a single vehicle repair and maintenance organization, a single chaplains service which we have had for years, a single medical service, a single pay service, and so on.
Everyone has approved this sort of thing, and everyone did so because it was integration of a type that was practical and feasible. Now, the minister has attempted to take that approval on the part of most people to be approval for unification, which is a totally different thing. Unification means the abolition of the three separate forces, the navy, the army and the air force, and throwing them all into one pot.
To begin with, the minister apparently believed for some time, judging by the answers he gave in the house and the statements he made outside it, that you could put all the forces together into one organization and then detail people from it, no matter what their background might have been, to do any job which happened to be open in the new force. Apparently he believed that you could put a man trained in the army into the navy, a man trained to do an army job into the air force, and vice-versa.
October 31, 1966



[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
He learned that this was neither a practical nor a possible sort of operation. We now have had from him statements that the fighting units of the navy, army and air force will be retained and that they must continue to carry on in much the same way they always have carried on. Well, under these circumstances what is the purpose in trying to throw them into one organization? What is to be gained by putting them all into one uniform, and so on? The fact is that no valid evidence has been put forward by the minister or by anyone else, either military or financially, to substantiate such a course. On the other hand, nearly all the men of long military experience and knowledge to whom I have spoken have stated that the proposed unification will further reduce morale and result in ineffective forces unable to meet our defence needs. Surely, under these circumstances, this major change should not be proceeded with until all the best evidence available has been brought before us and all the probable results and implications have been made clear. The only way this can be done is by submitting the entire unification question to our committee on national defence so that members of that committee may hear evidence from all those who know what the present situation is, and who are best qualified to inform us what will be the results of the minister's proposed plans.
Since this session resumed we have been attempting to have this action taken. The government has been adamant in refusing to follow this course. One must ask why? Are they afraid to have the facts brought out? The course of concealment followed by the minister would indicate that this is the situation. The house and the Canadian people, however, have a right to know the facts in respect of this whole situation. We must ask under what pretext can any responsible government refuse to have these facts brought out in the only way this can be done, that is by having a full investigation by the national defence committee or by a royal commission. There are just the two alternatives. One or the other course I think must be followed. Until one of these courses is followed there should be a complete halt to the unification plans and activities of the minister.
I call upon the Prime Minister to accept his responsibility in this extremely important matter and to authorize a full investigation immediately in one of the two ways I have mentioned. The minister has said the matter
Interim Supply
will be referred to the committee on national defence after the bill he proposes to introduce to amend the Defence Act to provide for unification has had second reading. This is not good enough. Once second reading has been given, the minister will say that parliament has approved unification and there is no point in the national defence committee questioning that decision, and therefore no point in the committee bringing forth evidence to show that the decision might be wrong or completely unwise. Once more, of course, in this case the minister quite evidently is trying the tactic of fait accompli. He is trying to muzzle the committee in order to prevent it being effective. The only reasonable course to follow is for the committee to go into the whole matter before the bill is given second reading. Otherwise, members will not know what they are voting for when they are faced with this bill. In effect, they will be asked to buy a pig in a poke. Such a course is contrary to all reason and good parliamentary practise.
A review of the whole unification issue by the committee is essential for another reason; that is, the course of concealment and evasion which the minister has followed. This has resulted in the fact we cannot depend on the accuracy and truth of his statements in the house or his answers to questions. I can cite some instances to show what I mean by this statement. Time after time, the minister has said here in the house and elsewhere that the navy's anti-submarine capability is greater now than it ever has been at any time in the past. No naval officer, either serving or retired, to whom I have spoken agrees with the minister in this matter. I have spoken to a considerable number, and not one of them agrees with this statement. It does not take an expert to know that this statement is not correct. It just cannot possibly be correct.
The number of anti-submarine ships has been reduced some 50 per cent. The ships which are in operation, with the exception of one or two new destroyers, are the same ships we had in operation before. Therefore, it is quite ridiculous for the minister to claim, with all of our remaining frigates now going out of operation, that the navy's anti-submarine capability is increased. One might just as well say that the more water you take out of a pail the more water it has in it. That, in effect, is what the minister is saying. You take out of commission or scrap half a dozen ships and, according to the minister, that improves your anti-submarine capability and the general capability of the navy. Well, as I

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
say, it is quite apparent that any such statement is complete nonsense, but the minister continues to make it. He seems to have no conception whatever of the situation and merely makes himself ridiculous by uttering statements of that kind.
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that in recent years there has been some improvement in the somar systems with which our anti-submarine vessels are equipped. A certain number of them also have been equipped with helicopters which, incidentally, is a program which was initiated while I was minister. This improves the anti-submarine capability of these particular ships. But to continue to maintain that half the number of ships-a considerable number of which were equipped already in this way-is more capable in the defence role than the full number we had at one time just does not make any sense whatever.
Somewhat allied to that is statement after statement which the minister has made to the effect that our defence capability at the present time is better than it was before. This statement is made in spite of the fact that we have some 20,000 fewer personnel serving in the forces, in spite of the serious reduction in naval strength which I have mentioned, the great reduction in training and administrative support which is available, the low morale, and the smaller amount of equipment. We must remember, too, that the minister maintained he was going to cut down the administrative and personnel costs so that he could spend more money on equipment.
Last year, as a matter of fact, I think the minister spent a smaller proportion on equipment than in many years past, about 12 per cent. Despite these facts, which make it quite apparent to any person who looks at the matter at all that our military capability has been seriously curtailed, the minister continues to say, never have we been in better shape and never have our defence forces been stronger. In the face of this, what credence can we put in the minister's statements? What use is there in asking the minister questions when you get answers along these lines? I think all one can say is that the minister has an amazing ability to persuade himself that black is white, if it suits him to do so, or else he is treating the house in a completely hypocritical manner.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Another example of this is the minister's statement in regard to Admiral Landymore's evidence to the defence committee. I do not

intend to go into this matter at any great length, but the minister gave the impression when his matter first arose that only some material which might be embarrassing from an international point of view had been eliminated from the brief Admiral Lan-dymore intended to give. When the admiral protested that that was not the case the minister then said there was some other material in regard to personnel matters which was deleted, and that the admiral had no business referring to those matters. Surely, a matter involving personnel in his command is a matter very much his business.
On Friday last a copy of the admiral's brief and a copy from which this material was deleted were filed in the house. A comparison of these documents indicates that there was actually deleted from the evidence he intended to give, facts relating to the shortage of personnel which existed in the maritime command, and the fact that more ships would have to be taken out of commission unless things improved. In addition to that, even single words which tended to disprove the minister's assertion that everything was in beautiful shape in the navy were deleted. Substitutions which had no meaning at all were made which were mere pap.
The minister has tried to explain this by suggesting that the admiral was not permitted, under regulations, to deal with matters of policy. I defy anyone in this house to examine the material filed on Friday last and discover any place where the admiral dealt with defence policy. The admiral was dealing with facts in connection with his own command, facts which members of the committee and the general public had a right to know. Because the admiral was dealing with facts the minister wanted to conceal, he dismissed this outstanding naval officer. Because he had attempted to present truthful evidence to the representatives of the people and had expressed opposition to what the minister was doing which, in his opinion, would destroy the effectiveness of the navy, he was dismissed.
Let me now refer to the minister's position regarding what evidence a military or civilian officer of the department may give to a parliamentary committee. If parliament were to accept the minister's suggestion in this regard it would make a complete mockery and sham of every committee of this house. The minister is reported in the Ottawa
October 31, 1966

Journal of October 15 as having said in an interview with Victor Mackie:
The minister said that in Mr. Nugent's comments on witnesses appearing before the Commons' committees the 'point he misses is that we are operating under the parliamentary system.'
I should hope that we are operating under that system, but the minister does not show any evidence he realizes that fact. The article then continues as follows:
'Departmental officials and serving officers In the armed forces only appear at the minister's request and are in effect speaking at the minister's request. They are responsible to the minister and he is responsible to parliament'-
What in the world would be the use of bringing officials or officers of the armed forces before a*committee of any kind if they are to be allowed to say only what the minister suggests should be said? I suggest the purpose of committees is to elicit from these officials-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can conclude my remarks in one or two minutes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: After this evidence which had been prepared by Admiral Landymore was filed in this house there appeared the following statement in an article in the Gazette for Saturday, October 29:
Outside the Commons, Mr. Hellyer told reporters that the minister has the right to determine what armed forces officers can tell a committee. An officer must conform to government policy or resign.
No one argues against the suggestion that an officer must conform to government policy, but Admiral Landymore was not discussing policy. He was going to give facts to the committee which it had the right to receive. The minister is trying to suggest that any officer who comes before a parliamentary committee is not entitled to give that committee the true facts unless the minister or government authorizes him to do so. The minister evidently does not understand either parliamentary rights or procedures. He is stating that no committee of this house can obtain evidence unless the minister decides he wants the committee to have that information. In other words, he is suggesting that the
Interim Supply
minister or the government can conceal facts from a committee.
If we followed the minister's suggested procedure there would be absolutely no use in bringing officials before a committee. That is a ridiculous position and indicates that the minister does not appreciate or believe in democratic procedures or the supremacy of parliament. We, as members of this house, ought to indicate without any doubt that we do not accept the minister's interpretation of what officers, military or civilian, should present to the committees of this house. We must indicate that we believe they should be required to give truthful answers to questions they are asked in relation to facts which may be in their possession, whether the minister likes it or not.
The minister has throughout this whole incident, just as he did a few minutes ago-


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


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will in just a moment. The minister is trying to confuse personal views of officers on policy with the disclosure of facts. He is thus trying to cover up a completely irresponsible action in suppressing evidence. I hope supply will not be granted until the government gives some assurance that the defence committee will be called together immediately, with full authorization to go into these questions in detail.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member permit a question? Will he indicate how many serving officers gave evidence to parliamentary committees during the time he was the minister of national defence?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think that is completely irrelevant to the question of what officers are allowed to tell committees. Surely, that cannot be related to what these witnesses should be allowed to state to committees regarding the facts. It so happens that during the time I was minister the defence committee did not meet, but that has nothing whatever to do with the present discussion. During the 21 years I have been a member of this house, a series of defence committees have met from time to time. It has never been suggested, until the present minister made his suggestion in this case, that an officer appearing before a committee should not truthfully answer questions and present facts. That has been the invariable practice followed by the defence committees of which I was a member.

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. member did not permit any officer to appear before parliamentary committees during his tenure of office, did he do so in order that they would not have an opportunity to present the facts?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, when I became the minister the defence committee had just concluded almost two years of continuous meetings. It was felt that there was no good purpose to be served at that particular time in having that committee meet again.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks today I do not intend to take away from the importance of the subject which has been raised by the previous speaker, but I would like to raise a matter which I feel is at least of equal importance to the subject which he has raised. One might ask: what is more important than the defence of the nation? I think the answer is that the nation itself is of equal importance, and that is the reason I am raising the subject at this time.
I should like now to read the opening words of an editorial in the Toronto Daily Star of October 6, 1966, and may I say that I could not agree more with these words:
When Prime Minister Pearson rejected in August a proposal by Trans-Canada Pipelines Ltd. to build a natural gas pipeline from Manitoba to Ontario through the United States, it appeared that, at last, Ottawa was to assert the national interest in the development of our resources
The government has now reversed its decision. Trans-Canada Pipelines is the big winner. Canada is the loser.
Long-term national interests have been subordinated to immediate economic advantage.
As was stated so clearly, Trans-Canada is the winner; 20 million Canadians are the losers. Some Canadians, in particular the Canadians whom I represent in this house, are perhaps even greater losers than those living in other parts of the country. This is a far worse situation than was the infamous first debate on Trans-Canada Pipe lines which occurred in this chamber some ten years ago. At that time a scheme was put through this house-it would be more correct to say it was bulldozed through this house-to take Canadian taxpayers' money, loan it to a United States company which would get a monopoly on the Canadian resource to be transported to Canadian customers. Mr. Chairman, at that time they at least built the line through Canada. It is no wonder the Company waited ten years before facing

us with another scheme. Again, we have before us the same two partners, Trans-Canada Pipe lines and the Liberal government.
Mr. Chairman, I would like for a moment to make a comparison of the two statements made by the right hon. Prime Minister and to point out the difference between the clarity and soundness of the statement he made on August 25 and the mealy-mouthed reasons and excuses which he gave on October 6.
I should like to quote part of the Prime Minister's statement giving the four basic reasons for denying the application of Great Lakes:
1.	The opinion of the board is that the margin of economic advantage for this project, as compared with the alternative of Trans-Canada increasing its facilities in Canada, is not as large as had been calculated by Trans-Canada.
2.	The government does not believe it to be in Canada's best interest that the future development of facilities for bringing western Canadian gas to its eastern Canadian markets should be located outside Canadian jurisdiction, and subject to detailed regulations under laws of the United States which are naturally designed to protect the interests of United States citizens.
3.	This decision does not imply any lack of confidence in the continuation and development of co-operation between the natural gas industries and the respective regulatory agencies in the two countries. On the contrary, approval of this application might give rise to future difficulties where United States regulatory authorities might be put in the embarrassing position of having to resolve a conflict between their duty under United States laws and their desire to co-operate with Canada.
4.	However, the gas transmission industry is a public utility on a vast scale, and is important to Canadian national wellbeing. The development of its main line links between west and east should, we believe, remain wholly under Canadian jurisdiction.
I must frankly confess that I was one of the many Canadians who joined in unqualified support of the Prime Minister and his cabinet when they made this decision on August 25 of last year. In fact, when I was interviewed by the local news media in my home I said it was certainly the first time which I could recall when I was in a position to give unqualified support to the action of this government. But let us compare the clear and sound statements made on August 25 with the reasons given on October 6. The government stated that because of certain undertakings they were now approving what they had rejected some five weeks previously. The undertakings were; first, that more than 50 per cent of the volume of gas required by eastern Canada would be transported through its main line traversing northern Ontario;
October 31, 1966

second, that by the end of 1976, 60 per cent of eastern Canada's gas requirements would be transported through the northern Ontario line; third, that the long range objective should be to transport 65 per cent of the volume of eastern gas through northern Ontario facilities; fourth, that Trans-Canada would commence looping its northern line by 1970; and fifth, that Trans-Canada enter into an agreement with the government to ensure that the company would never dispose of its interest in the Great Lakes Transmission Company without approval of the government of Canada.
We should like to find out, if it is at all possible, what transpired during those five weeks to turn the "100 per cent Canadian" mentioned on August 25 into the "50 per cent Canadian" mentioned on October 5, with a pious hope that in 10 years time it might even be "60 per cent Canadian" and at some distant, vague and unnamed date in the future we might even get up to "65 per cent Canadian". What happened? We are opposed to this policy on three grounds: first, that it is a sell-out of Canada's national interests; second, that it is an absolute and premeditated sell-out of the interests of northern Ontario and indeed northern Canada; and third, as mentioned by my leader the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that it is in fact a violation of the law of this land at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, it is certain that I will not have time today to deal with all three of these matters. However, I think there are other members of this party who are prepared to deal with the ones for which I do not have time. 1 should like to make my remarks more particularly applicable to the second objection. What disturbs me about this whole deal is the web of lies and subterfuge with which we seem to be faced. For example, when Trans-Canada made their submissions to the fuel board they stated that of the gas going through the United States, 90 per cent was for eastern Canada. The remaining 10 per cent would be distributed in the United States. This has been negated by the very concession which the company gave which changed the mind of the government. The company has stated in one of these agreements that for at least ten years over 50 per cent will go through the Canadian line and less than 50 per cent through the line through the United States. If this is true, how are they going to ship 90 per cent of this gas through a line that carries 144 per cent of the
Interim Supply
amount of gas of the northern line? It just does not make sense at all. There must be other reasons behind this.
With reference to the agreement concerning 50 per cent I will quote from the editorial which I mentioned earlier. It reads as follows:
The company also agreed that more than 50 per cent of the volume of gas required by eastern Canada would be transported through the Canadian line. It accepted as a target that by the end of 1976 this proportion would increase to 60 per cent and has made as its long range objective the transmission of 65 per cent of volume through Canada.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
But these, in effect, are simply gentlemen's agreements. Ottawa has made no effort to secure a firm, detailed commitment from Trans-Canada that it would increase the available volume of gas to areas of great industrial potential in northern Ontario and Quebec.
Without such a commitment, industry has no incentive to locate in these areas, nor are the existing industries given any impetus to expand and diversify their operations based on gas.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think we should think for a moment about the gentlemen referred to in these gentlemen's agreements. Are these not the same gentlemen who just about smashed this House of Commons and the government of Canada some ten years ago and made this whole institution rock on its foundations? Are they not the same gentlemen who were responsible for the resignation in disgrace of three cabinet ministers in the province of Ontario? Are they not the same gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, who are responsible for a bill being now before this house which, for the first time in the history of Canada, seeks to take action to impeach a judge because he became involved with these gentlemen. These are the gentlemen who are referred to in these gentlemen's agreements, and I think it is time all hon. members took cognizance of that fact.
Talking of subterfuge, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that throughout the representations which were made by Trans-Canada, in fact throughout all the representations and statements made by the defenders of this latest government action, lies the objective of trying to sell the story across this country that it would be much cheaper and quicker to build this line through the United States to supply the eastern Canadian market than it would be to bring this gas over the present route. This might be true if a new line were being built across northern Ontario, but there is no

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
thought of such construction even within 10 or 15 years time. In any event, all that needs to be done is to twin the existing line.
I am no engineer, Mr. Chairman, but I should like somebody to prove to me how it would be more economical and quicker to build a brand new line over the hundreds of miles contemplated instead of twinning the existing line. Let us not forget, Mr. Chairman, that when the original line was built across northern Ontario it was an expensive proposition. Rights of way had to be bought all along the route for many hundreds of miles. Rock cuts had to be made, access roads built and much expense was involved. But even at that, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the total cost was something in the neighbourhood of $300 million.
Now, of course, the roads are there; the rights of way have been purchased; the rock cuts have been made and are wide enough to handle the twinning of this line. How is this company going to get around the cost involved in purchasing rights of way along the proposed route in the United States? How will they get away from rock cuts? Anyone who has driven around the southern shore of Lake Superior knows that pretty nearly as many rock cuts would be required there to the south of the lake as to the north.
If there were any truth to the statements which are being made that it is cheaper to go through the United States, then let us look at the situation, Mr. Chairman, in that light. Again I would make reference to this editorial, which in my opinion is as good a summary and assessment of the situation as you can get on one page. If the complete construction of a second line in Canada were required, let us just think of what would be involved. Construction of the United States line would mean considerable economic loss to Canada. Trans-Canada claims that the United States route would result in a $75 million saving in distribution costs over a 10-year period. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether that is right or wrong and I do not particularly care. However, the National Energy Board has calculated that an allCanadian route would, within this same 10-year period, create an income to this country of $700 million to $1 billion.
I would ask hon. members, Mr. Chairman, what kind of "saving" this is when we are supposed to be saving $75 million and at the same time losing $1 billion. That is the kind of saving that we in this country can do without.
[Mr. Martin (Timmins) .1
We in the north country particularly are getting sick and tired of having our taxes raised, and for what purpose? The purpose has been to try to solve some of the problems which they have in the south; problems of over-crowding, schools, highways, air and water pollution, congestion, slum clearance and what have you. What do we have out of which to raise these taxes, Mr. Chairman? All we have are the wages we receive for making holes in the ground.
The north supplies the mineral wealth of this nation. But what is against us? In far too many cases it is exactly what I have just said, the wages that we get for digging holes in the ground. The reason there are so many problems in the south which they ask us to help them pay for is that the south is becoming overcrowded as a result of this processing of the materials that we are shipping southwards. We feel it is time that this trend was stopped and the policy reversed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like the members of this committee to follow me for one moment while I take a look across northern Ontario. I think of areas such as Fort Frances, Terrace Bay and Marathon with all the paper mills and other wood products; Manitouwadge with its mining; Wawa with its iron; Sault Ste. Marie with its steel; Elliot Lake with its uranium; Sudbury with its nickel, copper and other metals. Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls and Iroquois Falls with their paper, pulp and sulphite, and also the new mining development, which is beginning to look very promising, in the Smooth Rock Falls area. Then, of course, there is Timmins with its gold, nickel, copper and asbestos; Kirkland Lake with its gold and iron; Cobalt with its silver and other minerals; Timagami with its iron and base metals, not to mention centres such as Geraldton, Long Lac, Red Rock and Red Lake.
The other day the hon. member for Port Arthur read to the delegation from the north, before they met with cabinet members, a carefully prepared and very sound statement to the effect that he had studied this matter. He had looked at it from all possible angles. He had wrestled with his conscience and had come to the conclusion that he could not support his party and this government on this deal.
The following day I asked in the house whether the minister had received similar representations from other members sitting on the government side who represent constituencies in this same area. I was told no,
October 31, 1966

he had not. However, on Friday the minister corrected himself and at page 9232 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
I should have answered that there actually had been other representations, and very eloquent ones, from several members of northern Ontario, particularly from the hon. members for Kenora-Rainy River and Cochrane.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the place for these hon. gentlemen to display their eloquence is right here on the floor of the House of Commons, where other members can have the benefit of their representations and make up their minds accordingly. I should like to assure them that their people in the north are listening with grave anxiety and concern for them to raise their voices.
I see my time is just about up, so to sum up I should like to know just what Trans-Canada and this government are up to. What is the real purpose behind these shenanigans? Why is there this subterfuge? It should be apparent that reason for this line is to export gas to the United States. We do not see anything particularly wrong with that. If we have surplus gas in the country, by all means let us export it. But why is the government not honest enough to say that this is the purpose of the line? Why does it have to become involved in sneaky deals? Why not do it in the open? There is nothing to hide. What is the government afraid of? Why does the government go to the extent of using the explanation that it is building the line to supply eastern Canadian customers, and then wind up with another explanation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Until we get satisfactory answers I, for one, have no intention of granting supply. We want answers that make some sense. Furthermore, I shall make it a personal obligation that the actions of this government, as they affect the people of northern Ontario, are made known in every corner of northern Ontario. I shall make sure that the members representing that area, or those who are supposed to represent it, stand up in the house and defend the interests of the people they are supposed to represent.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins. He seems very concerned about the location of the proposed extension to the Trans-Canada Pipe Line, which is known in one case as the great lakes project. I can understand the reasons for his concern. I think, when we look at this whole proposal,
Interim Supply
that we should be as concerned about the economics of the construction and operation of the gas line as about inuendoes respecting the intended purposes of the line and those people involved in it. I say that because far more is at stake, so far as the expansion of the gas interest is concerned, for those parts of Canada purchasing the gas than to those parts simply providing the right of way over which this gas can be transported.
As a member representing a portion of Alberta, let me say to the hon. member that we have loudly and plainly made known the fact that we are interested primarily in obtaining additional markets for natural gas. The hon. member suggested that the government and the proposers of this gas line are reluctant about showing interest in additional export markets for natural gas. I am prepared to say, without any reservation, that I am interested in that aspect of things.
As far as the members of this party are concerned, I have just outlined one reason why we support the proposal. There are several other reasons for our support of the proposal, outlined the other day by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Primarily, we are interested in expanding markets, and an expanding market for natural gas. I refer particularly to the export market, though the domestic market is very important. We are interested in reaching our markets through the loop proposed. Construction costs through the great lakes project will be favourable with respect to the looping of the Trans-Canada line going north of Lake Superior.
We are also interested in the proposal because of lower transmission costs of gas to consumers in eastern Canada. We are interested, not necessarily as Albertans but as Canadian, in the additional benefit accruing to Canada from the international exchange earned from the sale of this gas. We are interested in this project because, if it goes ahead, it will provide an additional impetus to gas exploration and development in the western provinces, where these resources are. Lastly, but not least, we are interested in expanding the market for western Canadian gas because we shall have an opportunity to extract by-products such as sulphur, propane, butane and all the other by-products coming out of the gas, before it is allowed to leave Alberta for export, on an increasing scale.
I can understand that members representing northern Ontario want sufficient gas going through their area to provide all the

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
energy, and all the raw materials which can be taken out of gas, in order to maximize industrial development in their area. I do not blame them for taking that position. But, Mr. Chairman, I suggest there is already sufficient flow through the line to guarantee those areas any amount of gas that can be required for industrial expansion in the foreseeable future. In addition to that, under the commitment that Trans-Canada Pipe Line has given to the government and to the National Energy Board, the present 30 inch pipe line will be looped starting in 1970. It seems to me that this is a reasonable guarantee.
I suggest, too, that if the market expands rapidly enough between now and 1970 Trans-Canada will be interested and may be encouraged to begin the looping before the agreed date. That is, I suggest, a reasonable way of looking at that area's gas requirements.
There have been some difficulties in the field of petroleum and natural gas that have been annoying the province of Alberta for a number of years. Those difficulties are concerned with markets. If I may read some extracts from an address given by Mr. J. P. Gallagher to the Canadian investment seminar of 1966, they are as follows:
Canada is an anomaly in the world today. It currently can produce over 150% of its current consumption and yet it has a net daily deficit of imports over exports of 245,000 barrels.
You figure that out, Mr. Chairman. I continue:
At $2.90 per barrel, this contributes a net annual deficit of approximately $260 million to Canada's balace of merchandise trade. That is, for every thousand barrels per day of Canadian crude produced and sold there is an approximate saving of $1,000,000 per year in this deficit.
This is extremely important to the nation when we are faced with a chronic imbalance of payments. The imbalance has been met during the past ten or 15 years by selling off our stake in our whole industrial establishment.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I think we should realize that this problem of Canada producing something less than her requirements of crude oil is tied up with the question of natural gas sales. For example, in today's paper we read a story from Dallas, Texas, headlined: "Independents Would Curb U.S. Oil Imports." By the way, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is down there now. The newspaper article says that he and the chief spokesman for United States

independent oil operators "differed on how much Canadian oil and gas should be exported to the United States."
There is a very powerful oil lobby in the United States, and this lobby is now making a concerted effort to curb imports of Canadian crude oil to the United States. This is happening at the same time as Canada is in a deficit position as far as crude oil is concerned, a deficit amounting to something like $200 million a year.
This is why I say that oil exports are involved with this question of natural gas exports. If we are to stand up to the pressure of the independent oil companies' lobby in the United States, surely we must be prepared to supply natural gas to those markets where importation will be allowed.
It is well known that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and other interested parties have taken this proposition to the Federal Power Commission in the United States,-though they do not have approval as yet-in order that the commission might be acquainted with the project prior to the whole matter being brought before the federal government here for approval. The point I am trying to make is that if we are to expect the United States power commission to approve the free movement of Canadian crude oil into the United States market, surely we must be prepared to supply the United States with the natural gas needed below the line, because one goes with the other.
The production and sale of natural gas and petroleum accounts for a large part of the provincial income in Alberta. The gas industry has been developed over the last 20 years, and a large percentage of the production is required to go into export. We would very much like to see a national petroleum policy which would allow Canadians to supply all of Canada's requirements. This could be done because we have sufficient oil in western Canada now. As a matter of fact, we have enough oil in Alberta alone to supply all Canada's requirements.
It should be borne in mind, however, that we are not given access to the Montreal market, for example, or to any of the oil markets east of Montreal. So, in exchange for allowing a lower priced off-shore crude into that market, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, should surely be permitted easy access to the export markets that we can obtain for both our oil and our natural gas.
October 31, 1966

I do not propose to say a great deal more. There was a valid question at the outset, as far as the Trans-Canada proposal was concerned, as to whether the law would be observed if a 36-inch line were built south of the great lakes when, according to law, the main line has to remain in Canada. Guarantees have since been placed before the government under which the line north of lake Superior would be retained as the main line. It seems to me it would be ridiculous to suggest that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines should build two lines south of the great lakes, one to carry an additional requirement for eastern Canada-a line somewhat smaller than the 30-inch pipe north of the great lakes-and another right alongside to supply the export market in Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and the other areas interested in purchasing this gas.
Yet there are those who try to argue that because the proposed gas line will be of a diameter greater than the one north of the lakes the southern line will become the main line as far as the transmission of gas is concerned. I has been stated clearly that a large part of the gas which will go through the line south of the lakes is for export, and would not re-enter Canada at all. If this line could be built so that both domestic sales in eastern Canada and export sales could flow through the same line, with a corresponding saving, it would, surely, be only sound economics to follow that course.
In addition, there is a guarantee that the line north of the lakes will be twinned or looped, beginning in 1970. It seems to me this is sufficient to comply with the law, and, moreover, to ensure that all parts of Canada, including northern Ontario, will have adequate supplies of gas for their requirements as far into the future as can be seen.
If this proposal is turned down-and I am hopeful it will not be turned down-a great deal of loss will be caused to the province of Alberta. Moreover, such a decision would have an adverse effect on Canada's balance of payments position. That would not be all. It would bring further exploration and development of gas reserves in western Canada to a standstill, because there are already sufficient reserves there to supply all the market now being served for at least 30 years. I do not need to point out that oil and gas companies will not continue to explore and develop gas fields when they already have enough for 30 years.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can proceed now, on the basis of the new
Interim Supply
agreement which the minister announced in the house a few days ago, and get this gas line built and in operation as soon as possible because it will be beneficial to the provinces involved to economic activity in western Canada, and to the nation as a whole.


Mr. Nugent:: I think my hon. friend from Calgary North opened the debate on the subject of defence with a good outline of the present situation in Canada. In simple terms, the situation amounts to this: The minister of defence has persuaded the nation, with some success, that thanks to his brilliance and great qualities the people of Canada are getting more defence for less money than they did in the past. The facts appear to show the contrary.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This is a situation where the people have been persuaded of something that is not true, simply because the facts have been so carefully hidden from view. I suggest that it is time everyone in this chamber took a careful look at what this minister has been doing, not just because he is leaving Canada's defences in a rundown condition, and not just because he is wasting the taxpayers' money, but because he is negating responsible government in trying to prove that the committee system is useless.
I began to worry about defence when I saw so many top-flight people being fired, and when I saw the great pains taken by the minister to keep the facts hidden. Certainly the charge which I brought against him of tampering with the evidence of a witness indicates the extent to which I believe the minister has been desperate to hide the facts. It also indicates the extent to which he has been successful in hiding them. I do not see how any hon. member, who has any degree of responsibility as a member of parliament, can be anything but a little alarmed at how far we have let this minister go without looking at the facts.
Now, however, the minister has finally been driven into taking some kind of position with respect to the tampering charge which I made against him, in that he has consented to table the brief in its original form that Admiral Landymore was going to present to the defence committee. Now, we can at least read the evidence which Admiral Landymore thought was essential for that committee to hear. But I think hon. members should note that all that has been tabled is the words contained in the brief. Along with the brief which the admiral was going to submit there

October 31. 1966
Interim Supply
were accompanying graphs, slides and charts which illustrated and brought home the desperate manpower shortage in the maritime command, which the minister was very anxious to keep hidden.
I suggest that when we find a minister who in the exercise of his duties, and in the picture he is portraying to this house and to the nation, is as desperately anxious to hide the facts as is this minister, then we can have no clearer indication than from himself that he has no faith in the policies he has been following. I am not at all covinced that this shrinking violet of a minister, if the facts prove how tremendous a success he is making of the department, would not be anxious, ready and willing to show that proof to the house and to the nation. But instead, what do we see?
Everytime a former member of the armed forces has been critical there has first been a suggestion by the minister that he should be court martialled. Then, there has been a violent personal attack on his motives. We have seen a long succession of people being fired from that department because they did not agree with the minister.
I think the situation in defence is this simple. The general idea of integration to a certain extent met with approval before the minister came along. I think high ranking personnel thought it was a good idea, and all were ready to experiment and see how far it should go. I do not think anyone had a fixed idea as to how far it would be successful, but certainly there is no doubt that the present minister and other ministers were getting complete co-operation from the top echelon in service personnel in trying to put some integration proposals into effect to see if they would result in a saving of money and more efficient armed services.
I suggest from the evidence so far available-and I hope a lot more will be available-that there is a clear indication that integration went so far, and then started to get negative results. They found that the theory sounded good but in actual practice they were not saving the money. In many cases the administrative costs increased rather than decreased, and there was less efficiency.
I further suggest that the minister had made so much noise about integration that, rather than face the fact the policy could not be pushed further along those lines, every time one of the high ranking service personnel pointed out to him that it was time to

stop, or at least to slow down and re-assess the situation, we saw another one of the high ranking service personnel chopped out, fired, dismissed, or pensioned off early. The list is rather impressive by now. I think some 40 of the top personnel have been eased out. Since there has been no meeting of the defence committee, there has been no chance to reassess the situation for about two years. The minister is now stoutly resisting any suggestion that the defence committee should be reconstituted so that we could have another look at the situation.
The essence of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, is simply this; if the minister is right, what is the harm in re-assuring the members of the house and the public at large that he is proceeding along the right course? Surely, if the facts will prove that he is saving money, and not wasting it as we allege, he should be anxious to have the matter looked into and his actions vindicated. Surely, if we are getting more defence for less dollars and the facts will back him up, then he should be anxious that these facts be revealed.
I cannot draw any conclusion from the minister's desperate hiding of the facts other than that he knows the facts will show that we are getting less defence for more money. I never believed that I would see a minister of the crown heading a department which is responsible for spending 25 per cent of the government tax dollar, sitting in the house, solemnly charged with the very serious offence of tampering with a witness, and evading that inquiry which is the only way his name could be cleared.
We heard some remarks from the minister to the effect that the charge is spurious. He made a suggestion that if we would charge him with improper conduct then he would like to face an inquiry. Surely, Mr. Chairman, no one has any doubt that the essence of a charge of tampering with a witness is improper conduct? I am glad to see at least a little progress to date because, while the minister would still rather be an accused than a person convicted, he is no longer attempting to say he did not hide evidence but is now pretending he has the right to do this.
I suggest that if tampering with a witness is contempt of parliament he has not met the situation in any manner by his present stand, namely, that parliament is entitled only to that information which the minister feels he wants to give. I cannot see a more
October 31, 1966

clear indication that this minister denies the principle of responsible government.
The Prime Minister himself, who in this chamber started the infamous Mudslinger affair on very tenuous grounds, is now apparently content to have sitting in his cabinet a minister of defence who is obviously desperately hiding facts; one who has set a new standard of conduct for ministers of the crown by allowing a very serious charge to hang over him and desperately avoiding an inquiry which would clear his name.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Is this the way in which the Prime Minister of this nation carries out what surely should be one of his prime duties; that is, to protect the integrity and honour of this house and the members who serve in it. I suggest that if hon. members of this house consider they have any duty to preserve the rights of parliament, to preserve our democratic system which really is based on the question of responsibility to parliament, then there can be no question of voting supply to his government until it is brought to heel. There can be no question I would suggest, of granting further money when the minister indicates that he has been desperately hiding the facts; when we have proven he is desperately hiding the facts, and when he now says in effect that he is above parliament and does not have to give the facts. I suggest that this negates responsible government and is a betrayal of that responsibility which every member of parliament assumed when he became a member.
How can any member sit in this house and give away the prerogatives of his position? How can any member deny his obligation and responsibility to enforce responsible government? I have had occasion several times lately to be on a television program with Liberal backbenchers. I was amazed to learn they took the bland, free and easy stand that the minister has the right to keep everything from parliament. It may be that some Liberal members-I hope it does not extend to all -feel they are rubberstamps and should do their duty as the minister tells them and know only what the minister wants them to know. However, I hope most members of this house have a more responsible attitude.
I do not want the minister to confuse this house by suggesting there is any argument about a minister's right to scan evidence which is going to be given. I do not think any member in this will argue with the premise
Interim Supply
that a witness who has been summoned before a parliamentary committee has the right to go to the minister's office or to some higher official to get assistance in preparing his brief, to obtain suggestions about the graphs and slides, or to obtain assistance in presenting more clearly what he wants to present. We should make a very clear distinction between assistance in presenting the evidence which is necessary to the committee and the action of this minister in making sure that the committee does not get the evidence. This is a clear distinction. Nobody is going to argue about the minister seeing the brief. Nobody would argue if he was just giving Admiral Landymore some assistance in respect of how he might phrase his opinions. But there are not many members of this house who would concede to the minister the right to tamper with the evidence. I hope no one in this house will allow the minister to take the position that he is above parliament, and does not have to give this information to a committee of this house.
I should like to point out to hon. members that before I started to make the charge a copy of it was sent to the minister so that he would know exactly what it was.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Five minutes before.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It does not matter; you had it in writing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not get it before I came in the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is he admitting the charge was laid?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister was fully aware of the charge; it was there and was specific. The minister, charged before this house, was the one person who refused the consent which would have allowed an inquiry to find out whether or not he was guilty. I see some Liberal backbenchers over there who find this amusing. I suggest that their electors will be very interested in the manner in which they discharge their responsibilities in this house. They are going to fight for the minister, and tell him that he does not have to give facts.
I should like to point out that when I brought this charge before the minister and when I presented the motion to the Speaker, which I intended to pursue, the motion was going to ask for more than just a look at the minister's conduct. The motion would have

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
requested that we look into the method of giving evidence before committees generally; that we see what the minister had done with Admiral Landymore's testimony and then, because of the attitude of the minister, that we look at the rest of the evidence. All I can say right now, in view of the minister's attitude and since he has tabled the one document, is what about the rest of the documents and the other witnesses who appeared before the committee on national defence. I would have thought the minister would now table the evidence prepared by the other witnesses. We would like to know how far this minister has gone in interfering with the other witnesses who were going to appear before the committee. Certainly, the drastic deletions of fact from the testimony of this witness on a most important aspect should give us cause to fear that no part of the testimony before the national, defence committee can be relied on until we see just how much of the evidence which was available the witnesses were able to give.
This question of tampering, of course, did not go just to the brief which the witness wished to present. I suggest that the minister was able to follow through and make sure that evidence was not presented even while the committee was sitting. By being present himself when those questions were asked which would have given Admiral Landymore an opportunity to bring out the evidence, the minister was able to answer those questions. Therefore, it was not just the document that was wrong here. The minister made clear in his statement that he was not going to allow the committee to have this evidence either in the brief or in response to questions.
I hope that members of this house have taken a look at that brief. The brief details the desperate situation in respect of manpower. It was accompanied by slides, charts and graphs.


An hon. Member:: None of which were tabled with it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: None of which have yet been produced. The brief made very clear that the admiral wanted to give to that committee all the facts regarding the situation in maritime command. If this minister was that desperately anxious to prevent the facts in respect of maritime command becoming public, then we well might ask how desperate is the situation. We do not want explanations from this minister about the situation. I am afraid

we would not be very impressed with what we would hear from a man who would do what he did to Admiral Landymore to prevent him giving the facts. I might sum it up by repeating an old Newfoundland expression-"when the minister speaks we are aware that he handles the truth most awkward".
Mr. Chairman, there is one point the minister makes very strongly and that is, after acceptance in principle of his bill on unification, the committee can look at the facts. What more glaring example is there of the minister's contempt for parliament and his concept of the duties of members of parliament. I suggest it may be well and good for him to listen to some of the backbench Liberals I have described who say that he had a divine right to act as he did, but to suggest that members of parliament should be prepared to vote for or against a bill without the facts is, I submit, a contemptuous attitude toward parliament. It shows the minister's contempt of the duty of a member of this house when he suggests that we should just vote without the information.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I submit that the most striking part about the minister's new policies is not the new policies themselves, but his new concept of what responsible government is and his contemptible standards in respect of the duties of members of parliament. Apparently he believes that we, as members of this house, should readily acquiesce to this deplorable state of affairs. I, for one, intend to see that this government does not get one more cent until such time as this minister is brought to heel.
It is my belief that we have no greater duty as members of this house than our duty to preserve that which has been achieved only after opposition to unreasonable authority down through the centuries, and I refer to responsible government. We know that members of parliaments were thrown into jails in the past and that tremendous pressures were brought to bear. We all realize that our parliamentary system, based on responsible government, developed slowly as the result of the sacrifices of succeeding generations.
I hope that, even in the Liberal ranks, my suggestion does not fall on deaf ears and that they, too, will agree that the minister's concept is wrong; that backbenchers should be entitled to receive a greater amount of information than just what he wishes to make available. The minister's stand is a betrayal of the trust that everyone in this house
October 31. 1966

has been given. We should keep in mind that we are only custodians for the time being of the positions we occupy as the representatives of various constituencies. If we have one duty, surely it is to pass on to our successors the rights and privileges of parliament on as firm a foundation as they were handed to us when we came here. We have this duty to succeeding generations of Canadians, and we must make sure not to take a backward step which would result in a lessening of the principles and responsibilities of government.
Not only has this minister been successful in hiding the facts, he has been successful in acquiring in his own hands more power than any minister before him in this department. Those who believe that democracy is lost when the actions of storm troopers in jack boots are condoned should bear in mind that this minister has a great deal of power, accompanied by an attitude that he is above parliament and not accountable to that institution. There is only one more step to complete dictatorship. I do not think it matters much what is the state of mind of this minister or whether he is attempting to set himself up as a dictator, but once we allow that state of affairs to develop we will have betrayed our duty to the people of this country to protect our democracy.
The witnesses who appear before committees of this house do not appear as this minister's representatives or his emissaries to carry out his orders. They appear before the committee as a result of a committee order to give the evidence and facts that committee wants to hear. They are being asked to come to the committee and present the facts directly to that committee. It may well be true that a strong man like Admiral Landymore feels he should protect his minister, but at one time his minister would also protect him. When a member of the armed forces is ordered to appear before a parliamentary committee there may naturally be a feeling he is subject to the minister's order and the minister's interpretation of his duty so far as what he may tell that committee is concerned. Once we begin to realize this, we start to understand how Admiral Landymore found himself in the position where he could not stop this minister from doing what was done. I suggest that Admiral Landymore is not a softy, but has put in long service, has a good mind and a will of his own. He has had a long history of obeying his superiors.
Interim Supply
Keeping in mind that this man probably felt he should look to the minister for certain interpretations of his duties, and bearing in mind what this minister did to that fine officer, one must ask how much has he done to other witnesses? We, as members of this house, expect witnesses to appear before our committees, but we do not believe that they should just present selected facts and immediately acquiesce to any suggestion on the part of the minister that the committee should not receive certain facts.
The essence of the case being made in respect of national defence is that there is good reason to believe this department is in a mess. If it was obvious it was in good shape the minister would not hesitate to reveal the facts and reassure us. It is obvious that the minister has been desperately hiding the facts. This minister sits in this house under a stain which no minister before has ever experienced. He has been formally charged with a very serious breach of the privileges of this house, which again emphasises how desperate he is to conceal the facts.
All we have ever asked is that no snap decision be made by this house as to whether the minister is right or wrong. We have protested loudly and clearly that it is unfair and unreasonable to expect this house to make a decision which will allow this minister to go even further. No more money should be granted until the facts have been made clear. If the minister does not wish to make the facts clear he can expect to receive no more money. I hope he will show a little more courage in the future than he has in the past, and that he will simply say what obviously must be said in honour and decency, that he agrees the facts should be investigated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, as the hon.
member for Calgary North pointed out, we are allowed during this discussion to refer to various matters which cannot be discussed at other times. At this time I should like to take part in the debate on defence, but I am going to use my time to deal with a reference to the Trans-Canada pipe line raised by the member of the New Democratic Party this afternoon.
Surely no one from western Canada could sit back without saying something regarding this matter which is of such economic importance to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Let me say at the outset that I am in favour of the Great Lakes national gas transmission plan, and in favour of a second transmission line as approved by

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
the national energy board with an endorsa-tion by the governor in council.
In view of the approval given this plan by the National Energy Board I believe the national interests of Canada have been protected. We already have one all Canadian route. The national energy board has approved the building of a second route, in view of economic realities, partly through the United States around the southern part of the great lakes for the purpose of exporting natural gas through the U.S.A. and transmission to eastern Canada.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I think it should be emphasized that the all-Canadian route transmits natural gas from western Canada to Ontario and the southern route likewise would transmit natural gas to Ontario. It takes little argument, and I have some facts which I will produce in a few moments, to suggest we have a large surplus of natural gas for export. There is no question about the figures in this regard. Canada's national interests are protected by the plan, and I shall endeavour to prove this by facts.
First of all I wish to answer the leader of the New Democratic Party when on October 28 he said in the house as recorded in Hansard at page 9227:
I maintain it is doing so in contravention of the Trans-Canada Pipe Line's Act that it has no power to authorize the construction of this line, without submitting this agreement and the letters of intent to parliament for approval-
I thing the first question which must be asked is what is the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. It would be interesting to refer to the following sections of the National Energy Board Act in reference to the power of the board. I will first mention them and then deal with the question of the jurisdiction of the board.
Section 44 relates solely to pipe lines. Section 81 of the National Energy Board Act refers to the prevention of the exportation of gas and power without a licence granted by the board. Section 82 gives the board the power to grant the licence, and section 8 of the regulations-which are the regulations of the act known as "Part VI Regulations" -states that the licence will not go into effect until it is approved by the governor-incouncil, which of course means the cabinet. Section 44 grants to the board the general power, under the National Energy Board Act, to do what it has done in this case.
It is interesting to note-and I bring this to the attention of the New Democratic Party-that section 98 of the National Energy

Board Act, which I believe that party supported, repeals the Pipe Lines Act as far as applications of this nature are concerned.
The next question is whether the National Energy Board, with the approval of the governor in council, have the right to make the decision they have now made so that the matter is legally, politically and properly before the Federal Power Commission in the U.S.A.
May I suggest that the National Energy Board was set up by a Conservative government. At that time we gave our promise to the electorate, we will assess the energy resources to determine the amount of export of natural gas in the foreseeable future, with special regard for Canada's needs in the future. That was the promise we made in 1957 and that was also our promise in 1958. We promised in particular to review the question of whether Canada could safely export natural gas. As a result of this promise, when we formed the government in 1957 and in 1958 we set up the Borden Commission to take an inventory of the estimated and proven reserves of natural gas supply in western Canada and elsewhere. Also, owing to the danger of serious political ramifications affecting the economy of Canada, we decided to take the decision regarding export of natural gas, out of the political arena and to place it in the hands of those people who had knowledge and who were guided and controlled by law.
It is the rule of the law laid down in the National Energy Board Act which protects the national interests of Canada.
I recall that when that bill was before the house I was one of first to speak on it, and I gave it my wholehearted support. I want to congratulate the former minister of trade and commerce in the Conservative government, Hon. Gordon Churchill who is still a member of this house, for his foresight and imagination in setting up the Borden Commission and piloting the National Energy Board Act through parliament in order to give Canada some international respectability in reference to its petroleum industry.
Therefore, in my opinion, the Canadian government had the right to approve the Great Lakes project after it had been reviewed, analyzed and favourably decided by the National Energy Board and all the safeguards were assured.
I agree with the leader of our party in this regard. He said that the fundamental question, in deciding on the export of natural gas
Oclober 31. 1966

or the building of transmission pipe lines, was whether the national interest is fully protected. Let us look at the facts regarding the surplus of natural gas, and that is the first question which should be determined. I will quote from page 1, chapter 1 of the report of the Royal Commission on Energy, 1957.
This is what the commission recommended:
That, having regard to the proven reserves of natural gas in Canada and to trends in the discovery and growth of reserves, the export from Canada of natural gas, which may from time to time be surplus to the reasonably foreseeable requirements of Canada, be permitted under licence.
And on page 2 it reads further:
2. A great deal of evidence was given to the commission concerning the reserves of gas in the western Canada sedimentary basin, which extends from the international boundary to the Arctic ocean over large areas of the prairie provinces and notheastern British Columbia, the Yukon and North West Territories. A summary of the estimates of reserves given to the commission appears in table X.
I will not deal with Table I at this time but I may say that as a result of the decision and the evidence the following finding was made by the Borden Commission:
The oil and gas conservation board of Alberta, in its report of September, 1958, concerning natural gas reserves and their allocation, estimated the established reserves in that province, as of March 31, 1958, to be 22.5 trillion cubic feet, or the equivalent of 23.3 trillion cubic feet, when reserves from the various fields are converted to a common heating value of 1,000 Btu per cubic foot.
Although the findings of the Oil and Gas Conservation Board indicate that Alberta had as of March 31, 1958, only 4.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas which it could declare surplus to the future requirements of the province, existing permits, and the "immediately contractable requirements" of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. for Canadian markets, the board estimated that future discovery up to the year 1987 will be 51 trillion cubic feet. In other words the first question we should ask ourselves is whether we have a surplus of natural gas to make the exports, and the answer to that question is yes.
A projection of the statistics prepared by the Alberta Oil and Gas Conservation Board indicates that the discovery rate per exploration well in Alberta is likely to be in the order of 6 billion cubic feet for some years to come.
Assuming, as we have in the past, that 350 to 400 exploratory wells are drilled annually, as has been the case during the past few
Interim Supply
years, the rate of discovery in Alberta will be in excess of 2 trillion cubic feet per year.
At that time in 1958, we had the figures placed before the conservation board. In 1958 we had a reserve of natural gas in Alberta of about 24.8 trillion cubic feet. Projected to 1970 this would mean a reserve of 53.6 trillion cubic feet. The conservation board estimates that with proper incentives the reserves will continue to grow at the average rate of at least 2 to 4 trillion cubic feet per year for the next 15 to 20 years, and some 50 trillion cubic feet of new reserves will be rediscovered during the period from 1959 to 1988 of which 44 trillion cubic feet will be surplus to Alberta's needs for the next 30 years and surplus to the total Canadian needs for at least the next 25 years. So we have already built up a surplus for the next 25 years. The answer to the question as to whether we had ample gas for export is that we have taken care of Canada's needs for the foreseeable future and for the export market.
As I said, in 1958 we had a reserve of about 4.4 trillion cubic feet, therefore we will have more than enough for Canadian needs and more than enough for export.
With the permission of the house I would like to place on record the estimated reserves of the Alberta conservation board from 1958 to 1970 to prove that we have now from 24.8 trillion cubic feet in 1958 to 53.6 trillion cubic feet, and it shows the figure for each year. I would like to make that part of my statement and to save time 1 will dispense with the reading.
Reading also from the 1957-1958 "Canada Year Book", page 510 to 511, this is what it has to say:
Natural gas reserves in 1956 were in excess of 23 trillion cubic feet compared with 4.7 trillion in 1950. Crude oil has, since 1953, maintained its lead in annual production value for all minerals produced in Canada and natural gas is entering a period of rapid growth.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Let us go back, Mr. Chairman, to the 1965 "Canada Year Book", where at pages 554-555 the following appears:
The oil and gas industry in Canada continued to experience general economic buoyancy during 1963 and developments during the early part of 1964 indicate another successful year with higher outputs of both products. Crude oil production averaged
709.000	barrels daily during 1963; extraction of propane, butanes and pentanes from natural gas added
78.000	barrels daily, to bring total output of liquid hydrocarbons to 787,000 barrels . daily. During the early part of 1964, total production of liquid hydrocarbons averaged over 835,000 barrels daily and

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
appeared to be moving toward the new target suggested by the federal government-an average of
850,000	barrels daily In 1964. Natural gas output averaged over 3,055,000 mcf. daily in 1963 and, although output in 1964 is not expected to increase as much as in 1963, deliveries are expected to be higher.
In view of the arguments raised by the members of the N.D.P. it is interesting to note this statement:
Oil field activity in Saskatchewan was at a high level and directed largely to pressure maintenance schemes-
-which have increased the province's recoverable reserves in natural gas and oil.
When the New Democratic Party were defeated in Saskatchewan the exploration crews of the oil companies moved into the province. There is no doubt that the province of Saskatchewan has as much reserves as the province of Alberta. With the change from the socialist regime which was defeated, these crews are moving back to Saskatchewan in order to guarantee that our resources will at all times meet not only Canada's needs for the forseeable future but our needs in the export markets.
Again, Mr. Chairman, according to page 589 of the "Canada Year Book" gas production in Canada-an important industry-increased from $32,057,536 to $109,325,200 from 1958 to 1963. In other words, it increased almost four times in eight years. Does the New Democratic Party want to stymie and stifle this production?
Briefly, Mr. Chairman, when you analyse the sections of the National Energy Board Act, the board has the right, always subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, to issue certificates in respect of pipe lines. The National Energy Board was set up by the National Energy Board Act which was passed when the Conservative party formed the government. It gives authority, first of all, to grant licences for the export of natural gas and to build transmission pipe lines. The reason the board was set up was to take this question out of politics and to give it international respectibility.
The National Energy Board approved the second plan put before it, and this was finally approved by the government on reconsideration. I disagreed with the first decision of the government but I agree with them in their second decision. I say that the safeguards which are necessary have been written into the plan, and that the proper decision has been made today because it was made by the National Energy Board.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
If the government had not approved the second plan but had been against any export of natural gas, and if the government were prepared to disapprove of any route other than the northern one, then what was the use of the members of the National Energy Board sitting to discuss this question at all? They are highly paid officials. They heard many days' evidence at their hearings. A great amount of money was spent in putting the facts before the board by way of evidence. This is the body that was set up with the jurisdiction to do the job. The board made its decision and this decision was placed on the cabinet's desk.
Let me tell the members of the New Democratic party that they approved of the National Energy Board at the time it was established. They also agreed that some body should be set up whose function it was to take on this responsibility. The National Energy Board has taken that responsibility and in this respect they have written in the proper safeguards.
My good friend talks about the pipe line act. Except for the one section in regard to the first line constructed, that act has been repealed by the National Energy Board Act and jurisdiction in this regard has been given to the National Energy Board. The Conservative government established this board and it stands as one of the great monumental achievements of the government led by the present Leader of the Opposition. It was also approved by the other parties in the house.
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that at that time the present leader of the N.D.P. was not a member of the house, but let me ask that party how they voted. Are the members of the N.D.P. prepared to tell their northern constotuents that if they had their way-disguising their arguments as being in the interests of Canada first-the cost of natural gas to consumers in southern Ontario, northern Ontario and western Canada would be greater? Have they nerve enough to go back to their constituencies and make that statement?


Mr. Douglas:: That is nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. friend says that is nonsense. Any argument made which does not agree with his is always described as nonsense. Was it nonsense when the hon. gentleman went to the coal mines of southern Alberta and asked what had happened? Let me tell him that years ago certain politicians said that we must not export coal. Alberta
October 31. 1966

has one eighth of the world's supply of coal. He knows that we went to bed with our coal; let us not go to bed with our natural gas, which is one of the great resources of this nation. I do not think that the leader of the N.D.P. will get much support from the province of Saskatchewan or from Alberta if the attitude he takes on this particular scheme is the attitude he is presently taking.
Delivery of at least a large portion of Ontario's growing natural gas requirements through the United States route would achieve lower transmission costs. That cannot be denied. After all, Mr. Chairman, where is the population of Canada concentrated? Is it in northern Ontario? Let's face it, it is in that area of Toronto-Hamilton-London and in the industrial areas of Canada. These areas are protected by this scheme.
This scheme means much to western Canada and it means a lot to the province of Ontario. Let me tell my good friend the leader of the N.D.P. that he does not state the facts when he says that he is protecting Canadian interests, or makes statements in the guise of protecting Canadian interests. Because this gas can be transmitted more cheaply and it will be delivered at cheaper cost to the consumer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On what do you base that statement?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This statement is based on the reports of the Conservation Board of Alberta and the National Energy Board. It is not based on a speech made on the hustings.
Above all, Mr. Chairman, exports to the United States markets would provide added volume which would significantly lower transportation costs. The National Energy Board states that the United States route would lower transmission costs by 5 per cent. The consumer, of course, must benefit, and I agree with that. It is the responsibility of the National Energy Board and the various utility boards to make certain that Canadians benefit. It is spelled out in the act that the National Energy Board must always protect the nation and the people in the nation. That is their function and their jurisdiction.
We have an outstanding staff on the National Energy Board of this country. They are able, learned and experienced; and above all they are Canadians. The board has made a decision. If the Great Lakes pipe line plan had not been approved, at the very least this would have meant a loss of firm export sales
Interim Supply
of 170 million cubic feet per day to the American Natural Gas Company and its affiliates in the U.S. market. In ten years this would represent a loss of $194 million.
But this, Mr. Chairman, is only a very small part of the story. The plan now approved will open up United States markets not yet really determinable but estimative, just as the trans-Canada railway, the C.P.R., opened up the great bread basket of the world in western Canada. Wheat today is a $2 billion industry. In petroleum and natural gas we have a $1 billion industry. Let us not kill it with narrow issues and narrow politics. In this regard I will stake the policies of Alberta against the policies of Saskatchewan prior to 1963.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, our national oil policy, worked out by the Conservative government and carried out by this government, would be in jeopardy if we failed to export natural gas.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
What do I mean by that? After the Suez crisis was over we ran into a situation of difficulty with respect to our export of crude petroleum. We then realized that petroleum was coming into eastern Canada from the United States and if quotas were implemented with respect to the United States, gasoline prices to the consumer in Ontario and Quebec would have increased. Rather than do this-and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, the former minister of agriculture, had something to do with this as had the Minister of Trade and Commerce-we worked out a deal whereby the northwestern states together with Canada's domestic market took something like 800,000 barrels of crude petroleum per day. We reached that target; 800,000 barrels per day were either exported or used in Canada's domestic market.
What is the United States going to say, when this has been worked out. This is a very sensitive situation. Can we say that there will be no gas for export? These things have to be worked out by mutual understanding, mutual agreement, for our mutual benefit. We are not in the nineteenth century; this is the twentieth century.
North America's trade relations in oil and gas have been painstakingly built on the basis of mutual respect and confidence between the United States and Canada. We have a deal to hold the large portion of the northwestern United States market while the

October 31. 1968
Interim Supply
United States holds a large portion of our eastern market. This has existed since the Conservative government implemented the National Oil Policy in 1959. As a result, our sales of crude petroleum from western Canada to the United States have more than tripled.
Remember, Mr. Chairman, there were strong political pressures in the United States against this. I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat mentioned the pressures in the United States against this deal being given to Canada. Does any thinking government, or any thinking member of the opposition want to destroy that mutual confidence in our petroleum industry which exists today between Canada and the United States for the benefit of both nations? Is this not a matter to weigh carefully, when we are considering Canada's interests?
We move our crude petroleum from the west to Ontario via the United States. Why is it so dangerous or inimical to Canada's sovereignty to move natural gas in the same fashion, when one remembers that we have such a plentiful surplus for export. We went to bed with our coal in western Canada. Should we go to bed with our natural gas? My answer is no. And why did we lose our coal markets? Because, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, narrow minded politicians masqueraded under the guise of "Canada first". Today our coal towns are ghost-like. Such a thing should not happen to the petroleum industry of western Canada.
How is it going to sit with the United States when we ask them to allow more imports of Canadian oil? It will not sit very well. What are the United States independents going to say when El Paso Natural Gas and Pacific Gas and Electric ask the Federal Power Commission later this year for authorization to increase their imports of Canadian gas by some 400 million cubic feet per day? How do we counter the argument that the United States consumers should not rely on foreign gas regulated by a foreign government?
The future success of our growing billion dollar a year oil and gas industry is heavily dependent on the freedom of access to the fuel hungry United States markets, just as the future success of our $2 billion per year wheat industry depends on the human hunger of the world, even if those hungry humans live behind the iron curtain.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
If it is right to trade with Communists, it is certainly right to trade with the United States for natural gas. Canada, without trade, and without transmission pipe lines carrying her raw materials to the markets cannot hope to reach the destiny which Laurier predicted when he said that "The twentieth century will be ours".
This plan is good for British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, and will mean cheaper production to southern Ontario where the population exists, and where the heart of Canada's industry lies. Let not the members of the New Democratic Party use Ontario for their arguments, because their arguments hold no water so far as Ontario is concerned.


An hon. Member:: Does any line go to southern Ontario?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The line will carry sufficient to supply its industrial needs.


An hon. Member:: They are supplied now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are forgetting about the export market, as you forget about coal out of western Canada. Where is your argument?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to get into an argument. The hon. member is very sensitive because he does not like to listen to hon. members from other parties.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have not heard any arguments.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the hon. member opens his ears he might-remember lend me your ears.
We control the flow of gas. We control the source as effectively as we control the land which produces the wheat and cattle. The New Democratic Party, by their definition of Canada's sovereignty, are living in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Their thinking has not expanded with the moving times.
Today a nation must give up some power and some freedom to obtain more power and more freedom, and to maintain economic independence.
In summary-and I see that my time is almost up-I have eight points, if the committee will hear me. I have eight reasons to show why our national interest is protected, and why the National Energy Board was correct in the stand it took. What are those
October 31, 1966

reasons? First of all, we have a huge surplus of natural gas. Let the New Democratic Party deny that. Second, we have the original all-Canada route. It does not matter whether it is a 30 inch pipe or a 36 inch pipe. The amount of gas that moves through any pipe line is based on the pressure through the pipe line, and not on the circumference of the pipe.


An hon. Member:: But is pressure not limited?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The United States route will bring a large part of the flow back into Canada.
Third, northern Canada has all the gas it needs. The south and the export market must be considered. That is, northern Canada has its supply. Fourth, Canada always controls the system, as she controls the amount of the flow of gas. In addition, she regulates the United States' use of the gas.
Fifth: foreign ownership will probably be accelerated by the refusal to approve the routes. In other words, there will be less money for Canadians to invest. It must be remembered that we have a $2 billion a year wheat industry, and a $1 billion a year petroleum industry.
Sixth: the gross national product will not grow with underdeveloped resources. We need to develop our resources. We do not want to do with this industry what happened with coal in Saskatchewan. We do not want to leave our natural gas in the ground.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member does not like to hear the facts. I challenge the hon. member to ascertain the facts in Saskatchewan as compared with Alberta. I challenge him to examine the facts-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We will not listen to the hon. member's nonsense any more.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is talking tommyrot.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says I am talking tommyrot. It is he who has always talked a lot of rot, but his name is Tommy Douglas.
Seventh, our foreign earnings will be increased to exports, and this in turn will lessen our dependency on foreign capital. Eighth, and this is my final point, we have one all-Canadian route, and this new plan will add to our own supply, particularly
Interim Supply
when one examines the undertakings and assurances made by Trans-Canada to the energy board.
In conclusion I say this: that we have a surplus of natural gas. The plan decided on by the National Energy Board is a proper plan. It was approved by the governor in council according to law and it means much to the economy of western Canada. It means much to the economy of Canada, when one considers our imbalance of trade with the United States which my good friends to the left are the first to crow about when they are out on the hustings. Let them find some real issue. There is no connection between this issue and the pipe line debate that took place ten years ago. That had to do with a matter of financing. This is a matter of sound economics for Canada, and I am glad of having the privilege to stand up and support it in this chamber.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Could we not have the usual courtesy extended to the house, this being Monday night, and adjourn until seven or 7.30 for a bite to eat?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In the interests of getting on with business I think we ought to go on sitting through.


Mr. Churchill:: You had better keep a quorum here.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister had better keep in mind what he has done if the government should ever decide to ask a courtesy, as asked for by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he wanted to adjourn.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If hon. members want one hour, I should have no objection to that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I thought that the minister had refused. Would the minister reconsider adjourning for one hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If it is for one hour, I should be agreeable.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that the committee suspend sitting for one hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 31, 1966
Interim, Supply


Herman Maxwell Batten: Before the committee does suspend its sitting perhaps I could read the proceedings on the adjournment motion this evening.
It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Mac-Innis), Industry-Ontario-request for report on boycott of supermarkets; the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray), Housing- request for reduced rentals in public housing; the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) Broadcasting-priority to educational needs in high frequency channel allocation.
The committee will resume at seven o'clock, I do now leave the chair.



[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before we rose at six o'clock we had listened to a spirited defence of the government's approval of the arrangements for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to build a line south of the great lakes through the United States. That spirited defence was made by the hon. member for Bow River, and I think it would not be unfair to him to say that it was made mainly on the basis of dollars and cents.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that we do not agree with the economic arguments advanced by the hon. member for Bow River, and other members of this group will deal with that phase of the matter. I propose to spend my time this evening on something that the hon. member for Bow River and others who take his position have overlooked, something that I feel is far more important than the dollars and cents or the economic aspect of this pipe line business. The something to which I refer as more important is the simple necessity of pledged words being kept.
I do not think that political life can enjoy the respect it ought to from the people of the country unless commitments that are solemnly made are kept. I intend by reference to the record, and as hon. members will see I have a number of books on my desk and a few more under it, to demonstrate that very firm commitments were given by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and the Liberal
[The Chairman.]
government of the day, when that company was incorporated and given its $80 million loan, that the company would not seek to put a line anywhere outside of Canada.
I am the first to admit that a company or a government, like an individual, has the right to change its mind. But if the company in question or the government of the day has changed its mind, surely the obligation of the government is to bring that change of mind before parliament for parliamentary approval. I insist that that is what must be done with respect to this permit to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited or else we have got the 1956 situation all over again. We have got the government playing fast and loose with the rights of parliament.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to place on the record again, although this has been done on several occasions and interesting comments have been made about it, a key phrase in section 6(A) of chapter 92 of the Statutes of Canada for 1950-51. The title of the act is, "An Act to Incorporate Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited," and in section 6(a) it is clearly stated, as a proviso to the things that the company is allowed by its charter to do:
*-provided that the main pipe lines or lines, either for the transmission and transportation of gas or oil shall be located entirely within Canada-
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I know there have been arguments already concerning whether or not there is an exception there which the company can exploit because of the reference to main line or lines. The Prime Minister of this country in his first statement, the one he issued on August 25, 1966, had no doubt about the meaning of this phrase because he said:
That act provides that the company may "within or outside Canada construct . . . pipe lines . . . provided that the main pipe line or lines . . . shall be located entirely within Canada". (Section 6(a)). While the line to be located outside Canada, to transfer gas from western to eastern Canada, would not be built by the company itself but by a partially owned subsidiary and while it might not at the outset be the main line, the government felt, as already stated, that it would almost inevitably become the main line and that the arrangement would not be in accord with the spirit of the policy laid down by parliament in the company's legislation.
I should like to take the members of the committee for a few minutes through what happened in 1951. I am now talking about a period five years prior to what we generally refer to as the pipe line debate of 1956. In the session of 1950-51 a Liberal private member,
October 31, 1966

Mr. Decore, the then member tor Vegreville, introduced Bill No. 75 to incorporate Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. It was introduced after we had had several rather tumultuous experiences with earlier pipe line bills, several of which had not got through the house because they involved lines going out of this country. So Mr. Decore, when he introduced this bill, said very clearly as recorded at pages 734 and 735 of Hansard:
-I have been authorized to say that the very purpose of this proposed company is to build a gas pipe line from Alberta to Montreal, following an all-Canadian route, and paralleling the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway and of the Canadian National Railway. It will be approximately 2,200 miles long with collecting lines and lateral lines of 900 miles. In view of the type of debates we had on pipe line bills not so very long ago concerning an all-Canadian route I venture to say that some people got certain ideas and that may be the reason why this bill is before this house today.
Mr. Decore was perfectly right. It was in the context of the debate we had had in 1949 and 1950 that the company saw the light and came before parliament asking for incorporation only for the purpose of building an all-Canadian route. Later, at page 735, Mr. Decore, the then member for Vegreville, said:
There is of course another federal act which exercises control, namely, the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
By way of parenthesis I might say that that act has been repealed and replaced by the National Energy Board Act. He continued:
However, it is my opinion that this act would have no application, because all consumers will be in Canada and no gas will be exported out of Canada.
That was the clearly stated purpose of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited when it asked parliament to give it a charter, to do business in this country. The purpose was to build and operate an exclusively all-Canadian pipe line. As a result of the clear statement made to the house on February 27, 1951, by Mr. Decore, it is interesting to note the speeches that followed. The first member to speak for the Conservative party was Hon. Howard Green. The first member to speak for the C.C.F. of that day was the present member for Winnipeg North Centre. We both accepted Mr. Decore's assurance that the company was asking only for the right to build a pipe line in Canada and therefore we said there would not be a great delay in giving second reading to that bill. Since the debate occupied only about four pages in 23033-590i
Interim Supply
Hansard, this is clear confirmation that we kept to that promise.
The bill then went to the House of Commons standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I have before me the volume containing the reports of the sessions, of that committee dealing with this bill. I note with interest on page 10 of the proceedings for Tuesday, March 6, 1951, that a witness for the company, Mr. Frank August Schultz-he followed Mr. Tolmie who had spoken in rather general terms about the route of the line but made it clear it would be a line exclusively in Canada-testified as follows on that same day, as found on page 10 of the report:
The second consideration was that it should be an all-Canadian project, that it would be Canadian gas transported over an all-Canadian line, and that 100 per cent of the consumption would be in Canadian cities. It would be a project over which the Canadian government would have complete jurisdiction both as to the projected line and, ultimately, as far as the prices which are realized on the sale are concerned.


Mr. Teillel:: Would the hon. member give us the date of that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I gave it. It is March 6, 1951, in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I was reading from page 10. During the sittings of this committee the next day, March 8, the members got down to clause 6(a), the one we are looking at today. In the original draft of the bill the phrase about the main line having to be in Canada was not there. The only thing in that clause which caused discussion was the opening phrase which read "within or outside Canada".
I invite hon. members, especially on the government side, to read from about page 68 to about page 78 of the report of the proceeds ings of that committee on March 8, 1951. The hon. member for Calgary North was on the committee. The hon. member for Kootenay West was on that committee and so were persons like Mr. Noseworthy, Mr. Herridge, Mr. Gillis and others who were members of the house at that time. You will discover that the members were concerned about the phrase "within or outside Canada". If I had the time I would read their exact words. They said in effect "you have given us the assurance it is an all-Canadian route you are going to build, but you have this little loophole in the words 'within or outside Canada'."

That was the story in 1951 and that is how Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited got its charter, by making this firm commitment. I want to say as I said at the outset that I am not going into the economics or the dollars and cents of this matter because my colleagues will do that, but even if it could be proven that it made better economic sense to do something other than was promised we must remember this little word "integrity" and this little matter of a commitment that was made in good faith. Parliament should not be played with in a fast and loose way in connection with this matter.
The year 1956 came along, and that is a year that those of us who were here and many people who were not here will never forget. There was presented to this house by the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe a bill which called upon parliament to approve an agreement under which $80 million was to be lent to this company to enable it to build the western section of an all-Canadian route. At the same time the government of Canada shared with the government of Ontario the cost of building a pipe line through northern Ontario so we could have an all-Canadian route. In 1956 sessional paper No. 174P was tabled; it contained a copy of the revised agreement which had been signed on May 8, 1956. I read many parts of that lengthy document into the record during the 1956 debate. Let me now read two or three things which appear on the opening page. There is a reference in the first paragraph to an allCanadian natural gas pipe line and another reference in the second paragraph. In the final paragraph on page 1 the following is stated:
And whereas it is in the public interest that the western section of the all-Canadian pipe line should be constructed in 1956 and the government of Canada should for this purpose make a temporary loan to Trans-Canada;
Now therefore this agreement witnesseth:-
The picture now begins to clear. The company was given a charter by the people through the parliament of Canada in 3951 on the clear understanding that it was going to build an all-Canadian pipe line and that it was to do business exclusively and entirely in Canada, but it was to have the right to go out of Canada to buy materials and to obtain money. Gas was to be transmitted in Canada to be sold in Canada and this was to be an all-Canadian route. When the company found it could not do this on its own it came to Mr. Howe and Mr. Howe agreed that public
Interim Supply
money would be lent to the company for the purpose of carrying out the stated intention of building an all-Canadian route.
We got into a debate about that in 1956. I have several of the volumes here. In reading through them over the week end. I was shocked again at what went on during the course of that debate. I do not intend to repeat all of it or relet the blood that was let in the course of that debate, but the same commitment was made again. Mr. Howe made a speech on the substance of the legislation on May 14, 1956. This was a speech on the resolution preceding the bill and he said at the end of it that he was giving notice of closure for the first time. That is the kind of debate we had. During the course of his speech he referred to it on about five occasions as an all-Canadian pipe line system. In looking at page 3860 I find that he said:
I am not going today to repeat the history of the all-Canadian pipe line project-
Later on, having given the views of various people, he said:
It was on this basis that the new company prepared its engineering and financing plans.
It was as clear as crystal in Mr. Howe's opening speech that a commitment was made in 1951 by the company and that we were being asked to lend this company the money to enable it to carry out the idea of an all-Canadian natural gas pipe line.
Later on when we got over other details of the debate-yes, it was on second reading-Mr. Howe returned to this matter and said, as recorded in Hansard for May 17, 1956, that this would be an all-Canadian company. These words are not hidden at all. You can pick up any of these volumes and find several places where a government member was speaking and insisting that there was a firm commitment that this would be an all-Canadian pipe line.
One of the themes used by Liberals in attacking the Tories during that debate as to other plans like the McMahon and Gairdner plans was that the virtue of the Liberal plan was that it was to be an all-Canadian project. At page 4025 of Hansard for May 17, 1956, Mr. Howe talked about proposals for other kinds of plans for sending gas from western Canada south into the United States and having gas come from the United States into eastern Canada. He said that the government had rejected these proposals because it felt that gas should be brought to eastern Canada

October 31. 1966
Interim Supply
by an all-Canadian pipe line. Mr. Howe is reported as having said:
That position was rather resented in Alberta. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) has spoken about it in the House of Commons. It is claimed that we are putting an improper tax on the owners of the gas and making the project of supplying that gas to Canadians in eastern Canada uneconomical.
1 want to read the next paragraph which is about 20 lines to show what was being said by this Canadian whose voice is being sent to us from across the years. He said:
I went to Calgary at the invitation of the petroleum institute and addressed its members there at a dinner meeting. I was warned beforehand that I must submit myself to questioning after the meeting was over. I went there for the purpose of explaining why it is in the national interest that eastern Canada be served with Alberta natural gas through an all-Canadian pipe line. I had the honour of having my friend, the hon. member for Calgary South, sit beside me on that occasion.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Whether I was able to convice him that evening, or whether he has seen the light since, I am not sure. But I think perhaps at some stage we have made progress in a meeting of minds on the proper method for distributing western Canadian gas. I explained the need for an all-Canadian line.
Mr. Chairman, one could almost think that these experts were put in there for the benefit of strengthening my arguments. I am just quoting Mr. Howe speaking his own mind on this issue. He then went on to say:
I admitted that it would be more costly than alternative plans, but I said the added cost is one of the penalties we must accept for Canadian nationhood. I remember my words. I said: "There is a price on Canadian nationhood. If we always looked for the cheapest way of doing things here in Canada there might have been another state in the United States but there very likely would have been no Canada. From confederation the people of Canada have been very jealous about accepting any monetary advantage that would in any way jeopardize the control by Canada over her own resources."
I see my time is running out Mr. Chairman, but perhaps I might come back to this subject later in the debate. But I must refer to the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner's speech, the whole theme of which was that the Tories were going to sell out to the Americans and that it was the Liberals who by this all-Canadian line, this 100 per cent Canadian line, were doing a service to this country. Their quarrel *with us in that day was only that we wanted it publicly owned.
I have mentioned Mr. Howe and I have mentioned Mr. Gardiner. The prime minister of the day, Mr. St. Laurent, did not have a

great deal to say on the substance of the bill. He got mixed up in the debate on closure, which I am sure he must regret, but even he made the situation clear on May 22, 1956, and I quote from page 4173 of Hansard:
As to the first point, I agree completely with the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. All of us want this to be an all-Canadian pipe line, to be a pipe line controlled under Canadian law and to be operated for the benefit of the development of Canada at large.
I can pick up quotations of Mr. Garson, who was then minister of justice, of Mr. Lesage, then minister of northern affairs and national resources, and demonstrate how one by one they all said the same thing, that this was to be an all-Canadian route. The commitment had been made crystal clear by Trans-Canada in 1951. It continued to the commitment of this government. Those of us who were here at that time I am sure will never forget the last speech made by Mr. Howe in that debate. It was on June 1 and it appears at page 4631 of Hansard. We were experiencing closure at that time. The house was full and so were the galleries. Mr. Howe made the statement that he thought this would probably be his last project for Canada. He emphasized that this allCanadian pipe line was being built for Canada and that no matter how much fighting there might be over the bill, his children would be glad that their dad had a part in building it. I am not trying to be emotional in bringing in C. D. Howe; I would be the last one to do that.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to have to inform the hon. member that the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I add just one more sentence? I have much more to say but I will have to say it later. I wish to say, in conclusion of this chapter in my speech, that there is no denying the right of the government to change its position and there is no denying the right of the company to come back to parliament and ask for its act of incorporation to be changed. But if parliament is not asked to make such changes the government and the company have no right to act in bad faith and try to circumvent the legislation. They have no right to do what it was clearly promised would not be done. I call for a clear explanation. I call on the government to bring this matter back before parliament and I hope it will do so before I have to get into the debate again with further interesting quotations showing very clearly the position that was taken by the government of that day.
October 31, 1966


Mr. Forreslall:: Mr. Chairman, like the previous speaker I will have to make my remarks chapter by chapter. Before doing so, however, I wish to take a line from the previous speaker who referred to closure at another time in this house. The thought occurred to me then that perhaps the exercise we are going through in the matter of defence is in many ways not unlike that closure debate. We have entered upon this interim supply debate in a very trying atmosphere, particularly from the point of view of the question of defence. Very difficult and extremely arduous conditions have been set down by the Minister of National Defence. Indeed, these were clearly portrayed as recently as October 18 when the minister together with the chief of defence staff, General Allard, Air Marshal Sharpe, vicechief, Vice-Admiral Hennessy, comptroller general, Air Marshal Reyno, chief of personnel, Lieut. General Lilley, chief of technical services; Commodore Murdoch, chief of plans and Major General Dare, deputy chief of reserves met in Toronto at a private dinner meeting with representatives of the Trio organization in Canada. I bring this in, Mr. Chairman, just to illustrate the difficulties under which we are attempting, on behalf of those who are interested, and there are many many thousands of them in Canada, indeed, everybody who pays taxes-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


J. Michael Forrestall: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. Does the minister wish to ask a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes. Would my hon. friend tell me where he got the information that this meeting was in Toronto? Did he get it from his military adviser, Admiral Brock, or did he get it from another source?


J. Michael Forrestall: My source was the horse's mouth. At this meeting in Toronto attended by five senior members of the Tri-Service Identity Organization, those very responsible men, some of them quite recently in the Canadian armed services, were left with one impression. They were left with the clear impression that everything possible would be done by the minister and his staff to ensure that no one who is critical in any way of his plans for unification and integration will be permitted the opportunity of appearing before the House of Commons defence committee when and if the minister ever gets around to calling it.
Interim Supply
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
This, Mr. Chairman, is the atmosphere in which we must try to work and in which we appeal to the minister. But his mind is made up. He closed the door some months ago-indeed, he slammed it-on the House of Commons when he tampered, as it has been called, with the evidence of Rear Amiral Landymore.
In this connection most of the record has now come to light. The persistence of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and others has brought the minister to the position where he has seen fit to produce and table the two versions, the one which the Admiral and his Maritime Command staff has prepared for the benefit of members of parliament and the one that he was permitted to present after what a usually reliable source in the minister's office described as something from the mouth usually referred to in children as diarrhoea got through with it.
This is but part of the story. We will not have all of it until we are given the opportunity of hearing the Admiral before the defence committee, which is the proper place. Part of the testimony which has been referred to and discussed widely in the press and on the floor of this house still remains to be put on the record, and I intend to read it now.
I have before me what is described as a statutory declaration made by Rear Admiral Landymore in order to meet some of the allegations and charges that have been made in regard to his appearance before the defence committee. He has stated as follows:
I,	William M. Landymore, of West Lawrencetown, in the county of Halifax, province of Nova Scotia, do solemnly declare.
1.	That I have personal knowledge of the matters herein contained and declared to.
2.	I was requested by the standing committee on defence to appear before them on the 23rd of June, 1966 to provide a briefing on Maritime Command. I prepared for the committee the information I believed necessary to give them a clear understanding of the state of the command.
3.	I prepared two briefs for the standing committee. First, an unclassified brief which could be fully reported in the minutes, and second, a classified brief on operations which could not be reported.
4.	I delivered both briefs orally to the Minister of National Defence on the 22nd of June, at his request, in the form and detail intended for the standing committee on defence.
5.	I was, through my attending staff officers, required to hand over to the minister's staff a copy of the unclassified brief, that is, the brief which would be reported in the minutes.

forces and in civilian occupations supporting the armed services. In addition, we have 1,200 people who are directly employed in aircraft parts manufacture, aircraft overhaul and repair. That industry, incidentally, is almost totally dependent on defence production and purchasing. Also, more than 1,000 people now work on the repair and overhaul of ships and ship components. Five hundred more people work in the more delicate and sophisticated communications equipment field. Another 200 to 300 people are employed in the production of sonar equipment which is of such high calibre that it gives Canada one of the most efficient underwater detection forces in the world today. The minister has said this often and I agree with him. The only thing wrong is that the ships are not at sea. They are tied to the docks.


An hon. Member:: You are at sea.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister and I appear to be the only ones at sea. There are no ships there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Speak for yourself.


J. Michael Forrestall: There are 21 defence critical industries in the Halifax area. I have mentioned two or three. But when the personnel of those are combined with the men in the armed services and also those directly employed in places such as H.M.C.S. Dockyard, the Armament depot, the magazine, or at H.MC.S. Shearwater, they amount altogether to about 30 per cent of the labour force in Halifax. I have been told, and I have no reason to doubt it, that the government intends combining under one roof H.M.C.S. Shearwater, R.C.A.F. Greenwood and R.C.A.F. Summerside. I read that in an April issue of Aviation Weekly and Space Technology. It is only right, after all, for the United States to know more about what is going on in our defence structure than we know.
The Royal Canadian Navy is about to disappear. In Vancouver the chief of the defence staff, General Allard, some four or five months ago said that the role of the R.C.N. within five years would be reduced to one of troop transport. This, I am told, was confirmed on October 18 in conversation at a dinner meeting with representatives of TRIO. This is also confirmed by the failure of the Minister of National Defence to contradict this statement clearly in order to set the record straight with regard to what the chief of defence staff said. That failure must also be taken as confirmation of the intended role
Interim Supply
for the R.C.N. That is one side of the confirmation. The other side of the confirmation lies in the failure of the minister to let the defence committee meet for any purpose prior to the introduction of the legislation which will deal the final blow to our defence services. Why he should want to carry out this major step in the manner that he has remains beyond all comprehension. These are things that all servicemen are wondering about. Many of the backbenchers on the minister's side are also wondering about them. I am sure that if the minister bothered advising his colleagues in cabinet they would also wonder why things are being done as they are.
It has been suggested that perhaps the minister is trying to hide something. I agree with that. I think he is trying to hide something. He is trying to hide his own confused state of mind about the tiger he has by the tail, because he does not know what to do with it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


J. Michael Forrestall: We shall question the
Minister of National Defence during the course of the next few days about his premises with regard to unification and integration, his premises that they would save the country money, that they would provide for greater and more efficient services. We have evidence other than newspaper articles and other matter which has come before us during the last three or four months to indicate that the minister's premises are wrong.
We will show graphically and pictorially that the matters to be dealt with are much more serious than they would appear to the minister at his level in this game of do away with the services. We shall show that integration so far has produced such little gems as bringing the cost of a 45 cent engine block drain up to $451 and some cents. I am not sure about the cents. We will show, for example, and this fact is demonstrable, that the amount of paper going into his integrated command headquarters for purposes of administration has gone up so fantastically that the increase itself can be measured in terms of tonnage. I have not got around to counting the pencils yet but I shall.
The whole question of the integration and unification of the Canadian armed forces is one that should not be dealt with until the people of Canada have had an opportunity to understand fully the implications of what the

October 31. 1966
Interim Supply
minister intends to do. We should not be satisfied, now or ever, with the impression that everything will be done to prevent anybody who is critical of this plan voicing his concern. As the junior member for Halifax I do not intend to let that happen. There are about 1,100 or 1,200 questions which need serious consideration and answers by the minister before he can with honour bring this house a measure designed to disrupt and abolish not only our current defence structure and the traditional pattern of defence but all those men who have spent the greater part of their lives working toward meaningful defence postures for Canada in the eyes of the world.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
If the minister has any feeling or concern for Canada he must spell out to the people and to the House of Commons just how it is he intends to save money. It is not enough to say that cut-backs up to 60 per cent can be achieved in some cases. That is not the answer. It does not show us where the dollars and cents are being saved. Do not tell us you can save 60 per cent in administration costs at the dockyards in Halifax without telling us where it will pop up elsewhere in the administrative structure.
Let the minister tell us the full story. Let him not hide under the guise of acting in the best interests of the country. Let him not try to tell the people that we have the best and most efficient underwater defence structure in the world. At least, let him not tell me that. I see it every weekend when I am home-tied up to the docks. What good is it if it is tied up there? Why have men left the navy? Why do hundreds and hundreds of them write to me? Surely the minister is not fooling anybody when he says blandly in the press that his visit to Halifax was a most interesting and informative one. Surely he does not pretend to be fooling anybody. Why does he say these things? We know he was booed and heckled. He had no right to put officers and men of the armed services in a position where they felt impelled to react. How could Canada contemplate a position where an admiral in the navy would have to tell his men to sit down and shut up? What kind of a country do we live in when we permit such things to be done to the infrastructure that men's emotions are driven to a loss of concern for dignity and a loss of respect for authority?

These are things which have happened. It is useless for the minister to deny it. Surely he must have seen from what took place that somewhere along the line he was possibly not 100 per cent right and that somebody else might possibly have a view which ought to be considered.
I am one of these-the minister is not aware of this but it is not my fault-who would be quite prepared to sit down in the defence committee and listen to answers, answers which are not facetious or tongue-incheek or emanating from some sycophant in the minister's office. Let him talk to us and tell us what he wants to do. Does he wish to abandon present defence policies? If he wants to change them, maybe he is right. But until he tells us what it is he wants to do, he must not expect us to support him.
We have wasted a good deal of time over this business, time which might perhaps have been better devoted to other matters. All the minister had to do to take this matter out of the House of Commons was to say: by all means let the defence committee sit, if there is a feeling that it did not have full opportunity to question the witnesses brought before it.
I have not heard any member of the defence committee complain about the meetings being a waste of time. The minister is the only one who has made that complaint. I am prepared to sit at seven o'clock in the morning or at midnight if there is any question of interfering with the time of the house. Let us talk with people other than the minister who can tell us meaningful things about the direction in which present defence policy is carrying us and where it is to end. If the minister wishes to have a highly mobile police force to place at the disposal of the United Nations to help them clean up their problems around the world, then let us talk about that. But let us not follow the invidious practice of encouraging people to say one thing privately and another publicly. Let us bring some sense and reason to these considerations and take a first step by letting the defence committee look again at the evidence.
Had the witnesses who appeared before that committee during the winter months not been reluctant to talk freely, perhaps this debate on interim supply would not have been necessary. This is not the best place in which to go into details of what is happening in terms of dollars and cents or to discuss the impact upon regional economies of any serious tampering with the present structure. It
October 31, 1966

should be done in committee. It should be done in a manner which would give the areas affected ample opportunity to prepare themselves. The business community in Halifax should have something more positive to go on than the disguised approach which the minister has adopted up to this point.


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


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not continue, though there are many matters of detail I should like to discuss. I will await a further opportunity and close simply by asking whether it is possible to suggest calmly to the minister that he should rise at some point this evening and tell us why he does not want the defence committee to meet. Just tell us. Do not kid us. Just stand up and tell us.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Chairman, one of the unfortunate things about debates on interim supply is the fact that they bounce around from subject to subject. I regret very much it was not possible for me to be in the chamber earlier today when the subject I want to speak on, Great Lakes Transmission and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, was first brought up but, like my colleague the hon. member for Port Arthur, unfortunately I had a very important committee meeting to attend and it was with a certain amount of surprise I came back into the chamber and found that this subject was being discussed. Therefore possibly hon. members will excuse me if my remarks are not as rounded and as fully researched as I would have preferred them to be.
This is a subject of very great importance to northwestern Ontario and I find myself in the classic position, along with Edmund Burke, of trying to decide what is the responsibility of a member to the nation, whether I should stand four-square for my region against the interests of the nation or for the interests of the nation against the interests of my region.
23033-591 i
Interim Supply
My region is a natural resource producing area and, generally speaking, every such area I have visited suffers from the same disability. Such a region is continually exploited by centres outside its control. It has a very limited amount of control over its own existence and it always seems to be subject to the forces which come into it from without.
In my area there is a sense of frustration, a feeling that we do not have command over our own resources. Even more important is the feeling that forces work against us to make sure that we do not get the services we require from the provincial government, while the federal government seems to step, over us to move from Toronto to Winnipeg,! with no stops in between to deal with our very pressing problem.
To give you an example, Mr. Chairman, it has come to my knowledge today that a distillery company has been looking over the Canadian lakehead as a possible place to build a new plant. I am told that the men involved like it. They know it has an adequate labour supply, adequate industrial land and adequate supplies of fuel. But they are not going to locate there. They are going to locate on Georgian Bay, not because condi-i tions are any better there but because Georgian Bay happens to be in a portion of the country which comes under the government's area development program. It is this sort of apparent discrimination which makes the people of my area very fed up and frustrated with governments at various levels.
With this background out of the way I would now like to say a few words about the proposal which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has submitted and which the federal government has accepted. It concerns the building of the Great Lakes Transmission pipe line from Emerson, Manitoba, through to Sarnia, Ontario, and the so called by-passing of northern Ontario for a period of ten years.
I think it is fairly evident that there are two main issues involved, first, the emotional issue and second, the question of gas. I think I have given some of the background to the emotional issue. We feel that our interests are not being fully considered because the northern line through northern and northwestern Ontario is not being looped or twinned. We feel we are losing certain economic advantages as a result of this in the form of municipal taxes, in the form of jobs as construction goes through and in the form of continuing maintenance. These are simple facts, and for the present we will lose these

October 31. 1966
Interim Supply
things. The pipe line itself is a symbol of our belonging to the country, of belonging to Canada, and we are not going to have that feeling of belonging.
Then, we get into the more difficult area which concerns the question of gas. On two or three occasions I have read exhaustively the National Energy Board report to the Governor in Council concerning the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and in spite of myself, in spite of my regional emotions, I find that we are not getting as bad a deal as we anticipated.
On August 25,	1966, when the Prime
Minister in a press release announced that the government had turned down Trans-Canada's original proposal, I was one of those who were very happy, very pleased indeed, as were all my constituents. But we were all shocked and surprised when, according to the press release issued on October 4, the decision that the Governor in Council had reached on August 25 was apparently reversed.
The reason for this apparent reversal was the fact that in the August 25 press release the Prime Minister said nothing about the continuation of negotiations between the National Energy Board and Trans-Canada, and so we were led to believe by that press release and the manner in which it was reported that it was only a matter of time until Trans-Canada went ahead and built a twin line through northern Ontario.
In spite of the fact that the second press release did answer all the objections which I personally had, objections which I raised with the ministers concerned, I was still shocked at the news because we had not been prepared for it. It seems to me that one of the government's great faults, and a fault of ordinary members too, is that we have not mastered the use of the media which enable us to communicate with our constituents, with the result that when we do make changes and shift our positions, the public does not have the background knowledge which is so necessary if it is to understand what is taking place.
I come now to the question of gas or, to put it another way, industrial development for northwestern Ontario. This to me is of supreme importance because of the fact that with gas we have an opportunity to broaden our industrial base. During the course of debate on this subject some rather uninformed and on occasion ridiculous statements

have been made. One is recorded at page 9227 of Hansard for October 28:
The line which is now being approved by the government will be the main line, and the requirement that Trans-Canada will twin its northern line, commencing in 1970, means that for 15 years this government has placed a moratorium upon industrial and economic expansion in northern Ontario.
These words were spoken by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me to say so, they show a complete lack of knowledge of the situation as it exists.
One of the reasons for this agreement, in fact one of the advantages that will accrue to us, is that we will be getting lower priced gas as a result of the agreement, plus the fact that we are to have increased supplies of gas made available to us. In other words, while we have to get over the emotional aspect of not getting the pipe line, we must remember that we will be getting additional supplies of gas at a cheaper price. This is a point which was exhaustively gone into by the National Energy Board several times.
This is based upon the fact that by lowering the price to the people to whom it supplies gas Trans-Canada expects to find a larger market for its product. By looping a line through the United States and bringing the western supplies of gas to eastern and southwestern Ontario it anticipates that the capacity of the northern line, which passes through northern Ontario, will be made available to northern Ontario for its industrial and economic expansion. So while we may not be getting all we want, and one never does, we will be getting increased supplies of gas and we will be getting that gas at a less expensive price.
As a matter of fact, to give one example, Northern and Central Gas Company, on the basis of the Great Lakes project, has contracted with two of the mines in my constituency, Steep Rock Mines and Caland Ore to provide them with gas at cheaper prices. The actual difference is 3.4 cents per m.c.f. on the basis of the Great Lakes Transmission project going through. But if this project does not go through then it would seem reasonable to me to anticipate that the price to these companies would go up, which would have the effect of putting a damper on our economic expansion.


Murdo William Martin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Mercer Reid: Certainly.
October 31. 1966


Murdo William Martin: Does the hon. member have any idea what the price of gas might be if the northern line were twinned now?
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Chairman, If you will take a look at the National Energy Board report, page 5-2, you will find a chapter entitled "Canadian Markets-Evidence." I read from page 5-2:
-Trans-Canada indicated that the total demand in Canada during the 10 years to 1976 would be some 11 per cent below the level estimated "with Great Lakes".
The reason for that is that they would not be able to sell the volume to bring about a cut in price on the basis of increased volume. The last sentence in the paragraph reads:
The rates that might be available to distributors should the Great Lakes project not be built were not specified, but Trans-Canada suggested that its current rates or higher ones were indicated.
In other words, we would not get any decrease in the price of the fuel which we desperately need if we are to expand. This project seems to me to be a very good thing for our area which is in desperate need of this type of assistance from government. It is interesting to see that this type of assitance is not coming from government; it is coming from a private company. To back up that last statement further, because I wish to be thorough, on page 5-3 there is a table giving for the years 1967-76 the estimates of market potential for natural gas in all of Canada. This is outlined with the Great Lakes project and without the Great Lakes project, which I interpret to mean the twinning of the lines through northern Canada. For my area and all of northwestern and northern Ontario the difference in volume per cent will be directly attributable to our increased volume of gas. This will be 9.6 per cent and on this we are to get, as I said, a reduction of 3.4 cents per m.c.f. Therefore we are not getting too bad a deal at all.
On behalf of those from northern Ontario and northwestern Ontario who presented their case before the National Energy Board and those who organized a delegation from northwestern Ontario to press this point upon the government, I think at this time I should indicate their thanks to the members of parliament from northwestern Ontario and to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Resources for
Interim Supply
taking time off during a very crucial dominion-provincial tax conference to meet our delegation and discuss and explain these things. This is a courtesy and we recognize it as such; we are appreciative of it.
The other thing I should like to talk about is what guarantee are we going to have that we are going to get a twinning of the northern pipe line, because it has been well pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that there has been a certain commitment by Trans-Canada that the main pipe line must be in Canada. I think all of us realize that our party will support that position. What guarantees do we have? There are a variety spelled out in the document which the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Resources tabled yesterday.
Trans-Canada has covenanted with the government of Canada to begin building another pipe line through northern and northwestern Ontario in 1970. There are two points to this. First and most important is the fact that the pipe line must remain Canadian. Second, Trans-Canada has given assurance to the government that 60 per cent of the volume of natural gas transported each year by Trans-Canada from western to eastern Canada will be transported through the northern Ontario line. To accomplish this, in the light of its growing markets Trans-Canada will begin on its own initiative to twin the northern line.
It is further provided in this agreement that after the fine is completed they must provide a minimum of 65 per cent of Canadian requirements through the northern line. The obvious assumption from this is that the line going through the United States will become mainly an export line presumably to pay for the construction of the northern line. In item 5 on page 9 of the document Trans-Canada, if it does not fulfil its obligations and if it is not prevented from doing so by an act of God such as a hydrogen bomb explosion, binds itself to pay $1 million to the government. This is a rather substantial amount. I do not think this agreement was entered into in a light way.
The third point is, what will happen to Great Lakes? Is there any guarantee that Trans-Canada will not sell it for a quick capital gain? The answer to that is in clause 8 on page 10 of the agreement, whereby 50 per cent of the shares which are to accrue to Trans-Canada are to be deposited in trust with the government. Therefore the company

October 31. 1966
Interim Supply
will not, without the consent of the government of Canada, dispose of its 50 per cent of the interest in Great Lakes Transmission.
As I said before it is most unfortunate I was not able to be here when this topic was brought up, but I did hear part of the speech made by the hon. member for Bow River and the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Needless to say I disagree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on grounds of philosophy. I do not believe that we as a country or that northwestern Ontario as a section of Canada should be inward-looking. I believe we should look outward because the world is a big place and we have a large role to play if we can find the courage of our convictions.
We in northwestern Ontario feel that in many ways we have been hurt by the arrangement the government has entered into all times. I think this is absolutely true. In the future, when governments make arrangements which affect the welfare of any region I believe they have an obligation to get into contact with the people of the region and explain precisely what they are trying to do. The type of performance we have had from the government in this pipe line issue is typical of something which has to be eradicated. It is necessary to take people into one's confidence, and in this case the government did not. Perhaps it is because for the first time in a long while northwestern Ontario has not had a representative in the cabinet that our interests are not fully looked after. There are, as I am sure hon. members of the official opposition sitting on the back benches know, very stringent limitations on back bench members when conclusions already have been reached.
I should like to think that the ambition of the people in northwestern Ontario is to look forward to the time when they can settle their own fate and do not have to come to the government hat in hand. We resent the attitude of the government in this matter. We recognize there are certain benefits for us in it and we accept them gladly. We look forward to the building of the second line through northern Ontario in 1970-or else.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the last speaker on the extent to which he seems to have defended the government on the basis of saying, as they have so often done: We have now made up our minds,

please, oh please, do not confuse us with the facts. That seems to be the policy of the Minister of National Defence and if the committee will bear with me I propose to discuss the untenable position into which the government has got itself as a result of what I can only, in considered terms, describe as an improper, unconstitutional and illegal position taken by the minister with regard to committee hearings and the methods and means by which witnesses are to be examined.
This subject has been touched on in part by the hon. member for Calgary North. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona dealt with this matter quite specifically, but I propose to refer to this aspect only collaterally. I do not suggest that it is transcendent in importance to the main points they have brought forward. Nothing can transcend the gravity and importance of problems of national defence.
I suggest that the position in which the government has now placed itself as a result of statements made by the minister and confirmed by the Prime Minister must give us pause for thought. The hon. member for Calgary North earlier today put on record statements that have not been denied by the Minister of National Defence which were contained in a news report and subsequently repeated by him outside this house. I think that quite obviously these are his definite views.
It is strange that what in a minister is decisive, strong and bold often becomes stubborn, dogmatic and bull-headed. This position has been reinforced by the Prime Minister. I asked the Prime Minister on October 17 if he subscribed to the view expressed by the Minister of National Defence that serving officers can only give evidence to committees when allowed to do so by the minister and that their evidence must conform to the views of the minister irrespective of the facts. I then called it to the attention of the minister and the government that if this were carried to its extreme it would not be in keeping with the Senate and House of Commons Act, section 249, which says that the Senate and the House of Commons may administer the oath to witnesses examined at the bar of the said houses. By practice the rules which prevail with regard to the Senate and the house have been carried into the committee structure.
The minister has now taken a position which I suggest is unconstitutional; yet he feels this position is all right. Let me place on
October 31, 1966

record the fact that with a great flourish of trumpets the government said in the last parliament that it was producing changes in the rules, including a new committee structure which would be a great benefit and which this house must have. This was the statement made during the debate, as found on page 12544 of Hansard for March 18, 1965:
As far as committees are concerned, and the work of committees-and this is the main subject of this report-there is no doubt that we do not use the committees system to its best advantage.
The next sentence contains a reference to myself and with due modesty I will omit it. The Prime Minister is then reported as having said:
This is a situation which has occupied the attention of all students of democratic parliamentary institutions in recent years, because with the executive you have not only the cabinet but you have behind the cabinet a growing body of expert officialdom which is inevitably becoming more and more important as government becomes increasingly complex.
I remember some years ago attending a luncheon in London, England, of some senior officials of the British government, departmental heads and some cabinet ministers. One of the ministers said to me as we sat down: "Here is the government of the United Kingdom, with two or three ministers." There is this problem-the growth of the executive, the new despotism, as Lord Hewart called it, and how to prevent it destroying the efficiency of the legislature. Could we strengthen the legislature by deepening and broadening the committees structure? There are some recommendations in this report which, I believe, when implemented may well have this effect.
Let me emphasize these final words:
-but after the committee had been set up it was surely not only the responsibility but the obligation of the government to leave it to do its work.
That was what the Prime Minister said on March 18, 1965. Those were his views at that time.
Let me refer to what the Minister without Portfolio has said, though I am not sure whether he had acquired his present eminence at that time. On March 19, 1965, as reported at page 12587 of Hansard, the Minister without Portfolio said:
-it is our duty here, as representatives of a working democracy, to restore the balance between freedom and efficiency-
Later he said, and this is a very correct statement:
This reform would achieve two main results. First, it would allow an individual member of parliament access to information upon which to base intelligent criticism.
Interim Supply
How in the name of heaven can a member make an intelligent criticism if he is not allowed in committee meetings to ask witnesses factual questions and receive factual answers? Are witnesses to be compelled to prepare their evidence to meet the views of their ministers? If that is so we might just as well throw our whole committee structure out the window.
The Minister without Portfolio said, having regard to the average member:
As a result of his power on that committee he will be able to call witnesses either from the civil service or from outside government to give him the information and the documentation on the basis of which he can make decisions. Evidence from civil servants and other summoned before the committee to testify as to the facts concerning the proposed legislation will make each member of the committee a more intelligent critic.
Let me relate that to the public accounts committee of which I have some knowledge. How in the world would it be possible for the public accounts committee, the function of which is to inquire into complaints which the Auditor General has made about certain things he has found in the course of his examination, to perform its task efficiently? How could it be possible for the members of this committee to honestly, intelligently and conscientiously discharge their responsibilities without being free to call civil servants, including deputy ministers?
It is my suggestion that since time immemorial committees have been free to call witnesses to give evidence as to facts, irrespective of what a minister may want to be given as evidence by those witnesses. That is the problem we are facing today. What will be the thoughts of civil servants and serving officers who read Hansard and examine the statement made by the Minister of National Defence as to his view about the function of witnesses? What will be the thoughts of those civil servants who may be called in future to give evidence? Are they going to think as a result of the statement made by the minister and confirmed by the Prime Minister that they will have to check with their minister before giving evidence? If they are called, are we to take it that they must go to the minister and say: "Sir, here is what we intend to say. What would you suggest we should delete? What is your policy?"
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
This is somewhat similar to what happened during the course of the war. I do not remember the exact details but I think we

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
were told that if we were taken prisoner all we had to give was our rank, name and serial number. Other hon. members can tell me if I am wrong. This is exactly what civil servants will be-name, rank and number witnesses. A deputy minister will say: "I am the deputy minister; I have seen my minister. He is a good minister and I like his policy." This is as far as they will go. It may be a question of reductio ad absurdum but I do not think it is.
I have said before in the house and elsewhere that governments must increasingly accept greater responsibilities as they face more complex and difficult tasks. They are facing great industrial complexes and great trade unions so they must be free to move rapidly and with greater flexibility. Every statute that we see contains somewhere within it the right to make ministerial decisions, the right to move by order in council, the right to act by regulation.
Recently we were discussing the question of the importation of Volkswagens. This is an illustration of what takes place day after day in the business of the government. At times I am prepared to accede to the requests of the government and give them the power they seek but on condition that we have the opportunity to call before us, through the committee structure for which I give credit to the government, witnesses for the purpose of examining and questioning the extent to which the government has used the powers we have given it. We want to examine whether they are operating well and functioning properly and the extent to which we can improve on those functions. If we do not have that opportunity then I think we will have to start saying no to the government when it asks for increased powers.
Let us take the particular instance of Admiral Landymore's evidence. I have read with some care the transcript of what Admiral Landymore intended to say and what he did say. I doubt that a witness should either be asked or compelled to answer questions on direct government policy.
I think the chairman of the committee has the right and duty to stop such a question or answer, and the witness himself has the right to say that this is an infringement on the domain of the government. However, there should be absolutely no restriction on anything else the witness may want to say. What is it that Admiral Landymore said? I refer members of the committee to pages 18, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the brief. I will not go into all these statements but on pages 23 and 24 alone

there are two very brief statements which I will repeat to the committee to illustrate my point. On page 23 there is this statement which Admiral Landymore had included in his brief:
However, there has been a significant decline in re-engagements tor the subsequent terms. Over the same period of three years there has been a 10 per cent decrease in men re-engaging for their final term, and a 6 per cent decrease in those re-engaging for the third time. This represents a serious loss of our most valuable senior men.
How can this be anything else than a statement which it not only is the right of the admiral to give but his duty to give, and any attempt to suppress it is an infringement on his freedom.
In reading through the details of the brief as presented by the admiral I find nothing there resembling this at all. How is it possible for members of the defence committee to make an intelligent and accurate appraisal of the situation as it exists without information of that kind? How many other witnesses were placed in the same position? What about witnesses in the future? We hear that the committee will be called to examine the legislation which the minister proposes to introduce. What undertaking and what guarantee is there that when members of the committee sit down to examine witnesses they will not be placed in the same position? What confidence can they have in the testimony of witnesses who will be called before them?
I suggest that this is a serious situation. I have no doubt that many of the provisional rules which we now have will expire at the end of the session. Probably before that time *-I would hazard a guess it will be as late in the session as possible-the Minister of Public Works will ask the house for an extension of these rules. I want to make it quite plain that I will not give my consent. I will refuse to make it possible for unanimous consent to be given to the extension of the provisional rules until the government has made a firm, clarifying statement, allowing debate if necessary, on this very important and fundamental question regarding the appearance of serving officers and departmental officials before committees of the house so that the committees will in the future have some idea as to the validity and value of the testimony they will be hearing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal briefly with some of the points that have been raised this afternoon and this evening. First of all, may I say that I welcome the
October 31, 1966

opportunity to make a statement in respect of the question which has just been under discussion, the appearance of civil servants and serving officers before parliamentary committees. Not much has been written on the subject of civil servants and serving officers appearing before parliamentary committees because under the parliamentary system the appearance of such officers is the exception rather than the rule, and the conditions under which they give testimony have been quite restricted.
Therefore I would like at the outset to discuss the principle involved. It has not been the usual practice in Canada to permit serving military officers to make statements or answer questions before parliamentary committees. The minister and the associate minister or one of their civilian officials, usually the deputy minister, have spoken for the Department of National Defence, and serving officers of the armed forces have been merely consulted in respect of technical questions.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In addition, the discussion of national defence estimates-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the minister is now reading from a document.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, who has the floor?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Get to the point.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that no member is permitted to read in this house. The Minister of National Defence is fully aware of the situation of the armed forces and therefore he should be able to answer questions in this house without referring to a written document.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. member for Calgary North read a speech. I did not object to it. As the statement I am making is of some consequence I thought the usual courtesy would be extended to me.
Interim Supply


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the minister just said I read my speech. I did not read my speech. I had reasonably full notes. I read from them to a certain extent but I would think that well over half of what I said this afternoon was not written down at all.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I stand corrected, Mr. Chairman, and I will stick to the same percentage if that is agreeable to the committee.
As I was saying, the minister and the associate minister or one of their civilian officials, usually the deputy minister, have spoken for the Department of National Defence, and serving officers of the armed forces have merely been consulted in respect of technical questions. In addition, discussion of national defence estimates was usually limited to the consideration of supply in committee of the whole house and on those occasions when special committees on defence were set up or matters pertaining to defence were considered by the public accounts committee examination was almost always limited to past events and not a discussion of current expenditure or future defence policy.
Two new peacetime precedents have therefore been set by this government: first, the establishment of a standing committee on defence to consider current and future defence policy. This is a complete departure from previous practice and in fact you will find many pages of Hansard full of eloquent argument as to why special or standing committees on defence should not be constituted to consider defence policy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You took the opposite view.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My hon. friend is quite right. The Prime Minister and I felt, however, on the basis of our experience in opposition, that the lack of such a committee meant that inadequate information on defence matters was available to members of parliament and, through their deliberations, to the Canadian people. We felt that the quality of debate would be improved and that the background information required for intelligent discussion of defence matters warranted the establishment of a defence committee notwithstanding the historical objections. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, the committee has been established, and I think on balance it has been most useful and has in fact filled the function of providing opportunity for a more thorough

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
examination not just of defence expenditures but of the policies associated with those expenditures.
The second departure has been the appearance of senior military commanders to make statements and answer questions. It is a matter for debate whether this is in fact desirable under the parliamentary system. With a full appreciation of the obvious risks involved I felt it would be worth while to see if some practical midway point could be reached between the United States congressional and the traditional parliamentary systems which would enable members of parliament to get a better appreciation of military matters directly from the people involved. I have therefore concurred from time to time in the appearance of military officers to make statements and to give testimony. I felt that this departure from custom was in order at this time when we are undertaking such a fundamental reorganization and when there are so many complex technical questions that could best be answered by the military staff themselves.
This does not mean and cannot mean, of course, that departmental officials and serving officers appear before the parliamentary committee as private individuals speaking on their own behalf. They are there as representatives of the department.
I should like to quote from the editorial page of tonight's Ottawa Citizen an article by Ben Malkin:
The constitutional position is clear enough. A departmental official should not criticize departmental policy in public, either explicitly or implicitly. The minister answers for policy, and the minister alone. And the minister takes the responsibility for policy. If it were otherwise, the cabinet, although established to make policy, would lose control to its departmental officials; this would be intolerable in a parliamentary democracy.
I should now like to refer to the book "Cabinet Government" by Sir Ivor Jennings. At page 118 he states:
The real reason for having ministers at the head of departments is, however, that this is an effective method of bringing government under public control.
Later on he states:
Under our constitution it is impossible to place any direct control over the army, over army organization, in the hands of any man except one who shall be directly responsible to the House of Commons.

In his book "Government of Canada" Robert MacGregor Dawson describes ministerial responsibility at page 219 of his book as follows:
The minister can never afford to forget that he will be expected to defend and justify his department's policies before parliament and the country. And yet at the same time he realizes that his policies must be technically and administratively sound if they are to meet the need which has called them into being. Inasmuch as the minister is politically responsible for everything done in his department, he is given supreme authority and he therefore has the power to overrule any of his civil servants at any time.
Even in the United States congressional system it is clear that the elected officials have not only the right but the duty to see that their policies are fairly presented to the people. In Theodore Sorensen's book entitled "Kennedy", in the section on speech and statement clearances, you will find the following:
The President reviewed some speeches on his own. Occasionally he would ask us to co-ordinate in advance and monitor in progress all congressional testimony by administration witnesses with differing points of view on a sensitive issue under hearing...
Some important gains resulted. Several defence department speeches were rendered less, "missile-rattling" ... The speeches most difficult to check- and most dangerous to leave unchecked-were those by high ranking military officers, whose remarks had not always reflected the President's point of view about peace... But it was clearer than ever that military officers on active duty were not to undermine the final decisions of their commander in chief in their speeches or legislative testimony, not to confuse the world about the nature of America's foreign policy, and not to undertake as an official responsibility the political indoctrination of either their troops or public opinion.
While in Canada the Governor General is commander in chief on behalf of Her Majesty, the minister and the government responsible to the House of Commons have the duty to see that their policies and programs are fairly presented. It is fundamental to our parliamentary practice that the minister responsible for a department will have the sole discretion as to the limits of the special material that his officers may present.
At the meetings of the standing committee on defence earlier this year a number of staff papers were presented in respect of the reorganization of headquarters and commands. To assist in examining the command structure in greater detail I felt that the committee would wish to consider each command individually. The question then arose as to whether the briefs should be prepared at Canadian forces headquarters and co-ordinated there or
October 31. 1966

whether they should be drafted by the commands themselves. I decided that the commanders, because of their current expertise and close association with the technical details of their own organization, should prepare and present the material.
Drafts were prepared at command headquarters in several instances. Where their presentation was to be made in Ottawa commanders arrived a day or so in advance to permit the minister, or the associate minister or a member of the staff, to see the material and make any suggestions they felt were required. Often observations were made on points which might be clarified or improved.
The draft brief presented to the minister and associate minister by the maritime commander was much longer and broader than requested by headquarters staff and consisted of two parts, one which could be declassified and one of a secret nature. Once we had seen the brief, however, the associate minister and I concluded that it would be in the interests of both the Department of National Defence and the standing committee on defence if the secret part was included because it gave a more comprehensive picture of the remarkable improvement in the anti-submarine capability of maritime command. Admiral Lan-dymore was authorized to proceed on the basis of presenting both parts of the submission.
It is impossible for me to recall in detail the comments I made at that time. I do recall, however, congratulating the admiral on a very fine presentation, but I pointed out that I was sure the Department of External Affairs would appreciate our deleting some of the references to foreign powers, to which, as I recall, the admiral readily agreed. I also made some reference to the number of world war II frigates shown on one of the charts and mentioned that there was an inconsistency between the draft presentation and the chart showing "Present Maritime Forces- June 1966".
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I do not recall precisely what was said regarding the section of his draft dealing with manpower but I feel certain that I raised an observation as to whether his statistics were consistent with those at headquarters, which had the over-all responsibility for personnel matters. I also suggested that reference might be made to the cyclical system and any effect it might have had on morale and manpower requirements.
Interim Supply
It was suggested that some extra copies of the unclassified portion of the brief might be made available. Subsequently members of the staff went over the brief in detail and suggested a number of changes including the rewriting of the section on personnel requirements and statistics. This section was sent to me to look at and following a quick reading at my desk in the House of Commons where it had been delivered to me, I noted that it was all right in so far as I was concerned, assuming the admiral was in agreement. I did not direct any changes and I had no reason to believe that those that were made were less than completely acceptable to the maritime commander. The admiral made no objection to me and I had no reason to suspect that he was not completely in accord.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He made no objection-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do not strain our credulity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He made no objection to the staff members responsible for the revised draft. Under the circumstances I think we were all entitled to conclude that the amendments were acceptable to him. Admiral Landymore then made the presentation to the committee without comment on June 23. That was the last I heard of the whole question until I read the admiral's allegations that appeared in the copyright article in the Toronto Star on July 23, fully a month after he made his presentation to the standing committee on national defence.
A brief review of the chronology of events from June 23 puts the allegations of censorship or tampering in interesting perspective. On July 15 Admiral Landymore called his press conference for Halifax while still in uniform and still commander of maritime command. He stated his opposition to the unification of the armed forces but no mention was made of censorship or tampering. On July 19 I held a press conference in Ottawa at which I announced that Admiral Landymore was being retired forthwith but in view of his long and distinguished service to the Royal Canadian Navy he would be retired without reduction in his pension. Subsequently Admiral Landymore made many statements to the press, including a long article in the Halifax Herald, and at no time was there any mention of censorship.
On July 23, in a copyright article in the Toronto Star Admiral Landymore charged for the first time that the section of his brief

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
dealing with personnel was thoroughly censored and rewritten. On August 12 Admiral Landymore released what was referred to as the uncensored version of his testimony intended for the parliamentary committee. Parts of the draft were reported in the London Free Press of that date.
Subsquently numerous references to this so-called censored testimony have been made in the house and the press. I therefore decided to release on October 28 the entire draft of Admiral Landymore's presentation together with a side-by-side comparison of what he actually presented to the standing committee on June 23.
It must be appreciated that the admiral's draft would normally be considered privileged. It was merely one of a series of drafts commencing first with the admiral's staff in Halifax and then going through the usual stages of correction and refinement up to the time of the actual presentation. All drafts are privileged and the only reason an exception was made in this case was due to the fact that parts of the changes between the final draft and the actual presentation had been made public by Admiral Landymore on August 12 and others had been alluded to by hon. members opposite.
I felt that in these circumstances it was in the public interest to table the draft in full although in doing so I would not want my action to be cited as a precedent. Future requests for drafts will be considered privileged.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable to me that Admiral Landymore would accept what he considered at the time to be censorship without indicating his concern to his minister or to the standing committee at the time of the presentation. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there was no question of censorship involved in this case or in relation to any of the briefs prepared for presentation to the special and standing committees on national defence. Clearly the minister must retain the responsibility for material presented to parliament by his department. He cannot abdicate that responsibility to a civil servant or a serving military officer. To do so would destroy the fabric of our parliamentary democracy.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister permit a question? Does the minister assert that his responsibility relates to facts as well as to policy?
[Mr. Hellyer.l


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the minister, Mr. Chairman, permits an officer to give testimony and to answer questions, he should permit them to be answered fully. That was the case. If you look at the question and answer part of the testimony toward the end of the hearing, you will find that there is no restriction whatsoever in respect of the facts presented. There were, in fact, references to manpower requirements.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about the facts that were not presented, the censored facts?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to deal with some of the questions raised this afternoon by my hon. friend from Calgary North. I was disappointed in his speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not as badly as I was about yours.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thought that with his background and experience he really could have contributed more to this discussion. He stated, for example, that in essence we were not maintaining a real military capability. I went over all this last year and I would be glad to go over it again this year. In almost every command, in almost every area of our military structure, our capability is higher now than it has been for some time. Compared with three and a half years ago it is infinitely higher. Three and a half years ago the air division in Europe-


An hon. Member:: You cannot be believed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -had no weapons. It was unarmed. It was not operational. It was ineffective due to the policies of the then government of the country. Since then it has been armed. It is very effective and is fully operational. It has won all the prizes in Europe for the best air division in the NATO group.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It always did throughout the whole period we were in office.


An hon. Member:: You do not know what you are talking about.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The air division was completely defunct when my friend left office. As a matter of fact, that was one of the reasons he left office, as I recall it.
Then it was alleged that we had made no savings. In answer to a question in the house the other day we gave a whole list of the reductions which have been made as a result of the integration process. I should like to
October 31, 1966

report, Mr. Chairman, that real savings have been made, savings of the order of over $100 million a year.


An hon. Member:: That is what we are told.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can tell my hon. friends that if it had not been for the savings that have been affected the military budget for next year would be materially greater than it will have to be. My hon. friends, as taxpayers and as citizens of this country, should be grateful that we have been able to make such substantial reductions in our costs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We pay more money for less defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My hon. friend knows that the cost of his groceries has gone up in the last three or four years, and we have the same problems that he has. Because of the fact that we have managed to keep our total requirements as low as we have, I think we should be congratulated rather than condemned.
My hon. friend further suggested that I had ignored advice. I have indicated that the responsibility for decisions, regardless of where the advice comes from, rests with the minister. Had I time and were I inclined to do so I could give my friends examples of advice that I should have ignored.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Give them to the committee. There will be time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps my hon. friend would like to raise the question of the "Oberon" submarine. That is the type of advice I might have ignored.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would you like to cancel the program?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Also, the allegation that we have been proceeding with unification without authority is just unabashed balderdash. A clear reading of the act, if anybody has taken the trouble to read it recently, will show that not only have we been living within the framework of the law as it presently exists but that we could go farther than we have already gone without any change in the law. The law is very broad and gives us very wide powers and will permit us to do many of the things which will be required in the remainder of the cycle during the next three or four years. Notwithstanding this, we have decided to come back to parliament and ask for new permissive legislation
Interim Supply
to create the new single force so that parliament may have an opportunity to review the situation, acquaint itself with the progress to date and pass judgment with respect to what the department has been doing.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
On the subject of the committee, I think it is fair to say that never in the history of this country has so much information been made available to the house through members of the defence committee as has been the case in the last few years. I believed, and I still believe, that the greatest possible amount of information should be made available because in that way an intelligent debate can take place. It is for this reason that the committee was set up; it was my belief it would contribute to a better level of debate in this house.
There has been no muzzling of the committee. On the contrary, if one looks at the evidence presented, if one looks at the questions which were asked and the answers which were given, one cannot but be impressed by the frankness of the witnesses and by the fund of knowledge they had and the great amount of detail which was made available. Hon. members might look at the testimony given at the last meeting by the maritime commander and remind themselves of some of the questions which were asked and answered at that time. One of those questions was asked by my hon. friend from Leeds. It was, if I may say so, a leading question and it evoked a full and honest answer from the witness. It was typical of the questions and answers heard that day. I believe all members are satisfied that every effort was made to produce the maximum of information and to provide experts in as many fields as possible so that hon. members opposite could educate themselves as to what the results of our reorganization program really are.
The hon. gentleman also said that our antisubmarine capability had been decreased. This, again, is contrary to fact, though it is a mistake which is easy to make if one falls into the error of assuming that because there are fewer ships our capability is less. It is something like saying that for certain purposes four bows and arrows are better than one rifle. It is not a conclusive argument when addressed to anyone who knows the relative effectiveness of the two weapons systems. Had the hon. member been a member

October 31. 1966
Interim Supply
of the committee and had he heard the evidence presented by the maritime commander he would be completely unable, in conscience, to make the allegations he made this afternoon. I am sorry the hon. member was not a member of the committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the contrary, I am surprised the minister should have the gall to say such a thing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I state it as an incontrovertible fact. The anti-submarine capacity of the navy today is greater than it has ever been in peacetime and I will stand by that because I can prove it to the satisfaction of anybody who is willing to look at the facts.


Donald MacInnis: Would
the minister permit a question? He has told the committee there has never been interference with defence committee meetings. Does he not recall a point of order being raised in a defence committee meeting after he himself had interfered with an answer given by a witness and interjected his own answer?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated earlier, any questions which raise policy considerations or relate to future equipment procurement are questions with which the minister has to deal. They do not fall within the area normally ascribed to expert witnesses.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister review the evidence to find out why the point of order raised that day was allowed to stand and the witness was told to answer the question and the minister was asked to keep his mouth shut?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be glad to reread it, and perhaps the hon. member would do the same.


Donald MacInnis: I have done so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The next allegation concerned the reduction in personnel. First of all, a large part of the reduction in personnel had been made possible by the reorganization and, indeed, demonstrates the advantages of the integration process to the extent that it has already taken place. I do not say integration has been responsible for all the reduction in personnel, but it is a fact that it has been responsible for a considerable part of it. Actually, the number is more than 20,000, about 23,000 civilians and servicemen in the course of some three and a half years. If we still had these additional 23,000 people to pay

next year at current rates I would say we should have to find at least $150 million more in our budget than we will be asking for in present circumstances. Is the hon. member really suggesting that our budget should be $150 million greater than it is in order to employ a number of people the great majority of whom would not be required?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am suggesting that the defence capability has been reduced because the numbers available for defence are considerably less.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have said that the defence capability is greater today than it has been at any time during peacetime years. Of course, if we could get more recruits in certain trades our capability would be improved. This is not denied. We have shortages, and I have mentioned them both inside and outside the House of Commons. There are many departments and agencies in the country which are short of labour in various categories and we have to compete with all those agencies.


Donald MacInnis: Now
the minister is denying what he said five minutes ago.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not.


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order, I will prove to the minister that he is now denying what he said less than five minutes ago. He has spoken of a shortage of men in the services. Five minutes ago he referred to the fact-


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order. That is injecting an argument.


Donald MacInnis: That is the man in the back row who breaks confidences. I am perfectly prepared to wait until that snake pit has quietened down again. I am waiting. I say that the minister has denied what he said five minutes ago. He has just referred to shortages in the services. Five minutes ago he spoke of our defence budget keeping up to our total requirements. He can check his blues and he will find out that he talked of total requirements. Now he says there are shortages of personnel-a complete denial of what he said five minutes ago. But that is not unusual. Hon. members over there are denying their own statements every day.
October 31, 1966


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Finally, in respect of the hon.
member's suggestion that expenditures for equipment were decreasing, as I have indicated, they were not as high last year as we would like have seen them. I hope they will be higher this year; I am sure they will be. But I can say this, Mr. Chairman: they were many tens of millions of dollars higher last year than they would have been but for the integration of the armed forces and the substantial reductions in costs which integration made possible. I can say to the junior member for Halifax that there has been, in other words, a substantial additional saving for maritime command. We are planning to spend more money on new equipment, also more for maritime command, than the former government did during the preceding five years. I think the hon. member should be grateful for this because it is a by-product of reorganization and he should give some credit for the advantages which accrue to maritime command and to his home town of Halifax which is so dependent on military expenditure.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: I just ask you to put the ships to sea. It is no good to have this equipment if the ships are tied up to the dock, and they are all there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not correct. My hon. friend knows we have problems but we have to be honest in reporting them.


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, the ships are tied up at the dock.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I resent this kind of day-by-day allegation from people who should know better.


Donald MacInnis: Deny it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would like to ask my hon. friends opposite where in fact they get their military advice, because I think it could be substantially improved?


An hon. Member:: We used to get some from Lee.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would like to ask the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona if in fact he has been getting military advice from Admiral Brock? I would like to ask him whether this is the case or not?
Interim Supply


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I understand he has offered me some but not nearly as much as he offered the minister, which he was not wise enough to take.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a little excerpt from a radio report and have my hon. friends opposite advise me as to its authenticity.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You can have five minutes.


Maurice Rinfret: Is there unanimous consent to enable the minister to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Five minutes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I have been interrupted two or three times and I appreciate the committee's good will in allowing me these extra minutes. This is a report broadcast on October 28 over CKPM, and I would like to have some indication from my hon. friends opposite as to its authenticity:
The hassle over integration and unification continues on Parliament Hill, but the action has shifted from the House of Commons to the smoke-filled rooms.
And the smoke-filled rooms are occupied by the Progressive Conservative opposition and one Admiral Brock.
Admiral Brock is an outspoken critic of Defence Minister Paul Hellyer's plans to integrate the armed forces: and has been here in the capital for the past few weeks, watching proceedings from the galleries, meeting the press and in general, acting like a man who feels the forces will be destroyed if they integrated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do you accept responsibility for this?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I continue:
The last big kafuffle came when Terry Nugent in his own inimitable, hilarious way, charged that a member of the press gallery committed a breach of privilege and demanded that Marcel Pepin be called before the bar of the house to be dealt with. Well, that has died down, but there are other details that never came out at the time.
For instance, two members of the Tory party were feuding over the way Nugent handled the affair.
Another for instance, that Admiral Brock was instrumental in the secret paper that was drawn up outlining the Tory defence policy.
Also 19 of 20 copies were destroyed when the Tories got fearful they would fall into hostile hands.
Here's the complete story:

October 31, 1966
Interim Supply
Is this authentic or is it not? I am just asking my hon. friends.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister has been reading from some document which he has not identified-


Some hon. Members:: He did.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and I presume he is taking full responsibility for this statement. Are these the minister's own words?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am reading from what is supposed to be a transcript of the radio broadcast, and I will be glad to table it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who is the author of the transcript? This is what we want to know. We have to have a name.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand Ron Woods was the author of the story, one of the members of the press gallery.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Is this an actual transcript of the broadcast with regard to this matter? Can the minister guarantee that it is an actual transcript?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot guarantee it is.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister is not even making an allegation that it was something that was actually said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It says here:
Admiral Brock has been working out of Hugh Horner's office, that member of parliament having been away for a while.
The admiral has been meeting with Opposition Leader Diefenbaker just about every day, and as a matter of fact, was seen leaving the Tory leader's office this morning, and it wasn't the first time by a long shot.
When Terry Nugent was busy attacking Defence Minister Paul Hellyer, he was being briefed each day beforehand by Admiral Brock outside the gallery, and contrary to reports, he never received signals from the gallery.
An east coast Tory, Mike Forrestall, who has been working closely with Admiral Landymore was surprised and not a little annoyed when Nugent stumbled onto the story and jumped the gun on him in the commons.
Forrestall reportedly was of the opinion that he should have been carrying the ball, because it mostly concerns people in his riding and near his riding.
That difference of opinion supposedly has been patched up, but that hasn't been confirmed.
As for that Tory paper on defence, Admiral Brock was the man who guided the pen, so to speak, and helped draw up the 20 copies.

Later, the first 19 were destroyed by fearful Tories. That was just too many copies. The last copy is somewhere in someone's hands, and speculation has it in the hands belong to John Diefenbaker.
My source says he fully agrees with what Admiral Brock set out to do, that is, stop integration, but disagrees completely with the way he's doing it.
The source says Admiral Brock doesn't realize that he's being used and manipulated by the Conservatives and feels Brock will be terribly disillusioned when its all over.
Defence Minister Hellyer's reaction to this has been simply, ''Well, the Tories have every right to consult and be guided by someone who is an expert in the field." And if they have chosen Admiral Brock, more power to them.
Meanwhile Admiral Landymore, that other gentleman who figured so prominently in the affair, is reportedly unhappy with the way Brock is going about the whole thing.
Landymore feels that his colleague is going to blow the whole thing by getting mixed up with the politicians.
Admiral Landymore hasn't been heard from much lately, and that may be the reason why.
But the one interesting point here is, Admiral Brock has, along with a few key members of the Tory party, including Mr. Diefenbaker, drawn up the opposition's paper on defence policy which will eventually, if it hasn't already, form the basis for the Tory defence policy.
And that will be a change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You can say that much yourself.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I continue.
Why they destroyed the 19 copies isn't clear, but when these things occur some people get carried away with the intrigue and start seeing figures lurking behind every pillar, or water cooler, so that was likely done in a moment of panic.
The final big question is, what happens after this is all done-will the admiral decide to seek election as a federal member of parliament?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister has asked for comment on the authenticity of this report and I would like to comment, because he has asked for it. First of all, I admire the courageous way in which the minister has brought this forward. He does not even have the guts to say it is actually a radio broadcast. He pretends to this committee that somebody has made a broadcast like this, not identifying it as to date, time or anything else, and I suspect it is something written by Bill Lee for him to deliver, which is a cowardly method of presenting it. Just contrast that with what happened previously. This minister stood up and suggested that if we had charges to make, then make them. I stood up and made a charge, taking full responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
October 31, 1966


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yet the minister sits here too cowardly to face the inquiry. It is a dreadful situation, a terrible performance to witness. It is the first time in our parliamentary history such a disgraceful thing has happened, with the minister afraid to face an inquiry and afraid to face the facts. Then we get this sleazy exposition.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think this interjection has been very worth while but I would like to ask my hon. friend, did you in fact burn 19 copies of this memorandum because you were afraid it would see the light of day? Did you have to burn evidence because you were afraid of the impact on the Canadian people if they thought you were in fact taking your military orders from the gallery?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I don't know what you are talking about and you don't know either. I know I have been talking to Admiral Brock and to other people trying to get information, to get facts which this minister has been trying desperately to hide.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do you deny such a document exists, that there was in fact a memo prepared by Admiral Brock?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I have no idea of such a document.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have no idea? Are you denying there was such a document?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am not responsible for Admiral Brock's actions and testimony. I am sure he has given the minister briefs but I don't know whether the minister has destroyed them. Admiral Brock told me he has given the Prime Minister a brief but I don't know whether the Prime Minister has destroyed it. I am not responsible for his actions, just for my own.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This raises a very important point of principle and it should be explored-


J. Michael Forrestall: On a question of privilege-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member for Halifax on a question of privilege.


J. Michael Forrestall: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence is very concerned about the authenticity of a document and he has made some suggestions. My hand lies very deeply in that document and I am very concerned with it. The minister talked about drafts that were
Interim Supply
changed, and one thing and another. The first
19	were destroyed; indeed, the first 19 were burned. What came out of it I hope will be presented publicly at the right time to the Canadian people and will represent a viable, reasonable and worthy alternative to the utter nonsense we have listened to over the last
20	minutes. It is a very valid document.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I must say that my hon. friend has gone up a lot in my esteem-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, the minister was granted an extension of time for five minutes and no more. If no one else wishes to speak, I should like to have the floor.


Mr. Thompson:: On the point of order raised, we are in committee and I distinctly heard the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona make a speech. So if you recognize the minister now, Mr. Chairman, he has the right to another 30 minutes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I am quite willing to yield the floor to my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre. I will be speaking again later in the debate, if further points are raised. In all seriousness I should like to suggest to my hon. friends that a great deal of talk took place this afternoon and evening but I do not think anyone on the other side of the house addressed himself to the real issue before us, that is, whether or not the integration of the armed forces is the right policy for Canada. One would think that when this motion was presented they would use this opportunity to debate it intelligently, look at the real issues involved and not drag all sorts of red herrings across the scene. I hope they will use the balance of the available time for that purpose.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, it may be disappointing to the members of the house but I have no newspaper or other gossip about what goes on in the smoke-filled back rooms of the Tory caucus to give to the house. I propose to discuss the issues of integration, unification and defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.

October 31. 1966
Interim Supply


Francis Andrew Brewin: The minister has expressed his disappointment at the remarks of other hon. members of the opposition. He has said he will speak again in the debate and I hope he will deal with the problems I intend to raise.
In the earlier part of his speech which he read to the house the minister made some statements about representative witnesses giving evidence before a committee. A part of this statement, if adopted, would completely undermine the confidence of any committee in the integrity of evidence given before it. I will deal later with this matter. At the moment, however, I should like to deal with what I think is the main issue. I should like to join with and support the protest already raised by members of the official opposition against the continued and obstinate refusal of the Minister of National Defence and the government he represents to allow the committee on national defence to review adequately the merits of the unification proposals-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -before parliament is asked to give its approval in principle on second reading. In his remarks the minister boasted about how willing he had been that the committee should have the facts before it. In so far as he has done that in the past, I give him every credit, but I challenge him to let the committee on national defence have the opportunity to hear not just one side of the case from the minister and his representative witnesses but also to hear from that body of persons who happen to disagree with the minister so that when we are asked in this house to debate the principle of unification we shall not be doing so on the basis of a one-sided story produced by the minister. I think we should be in a position to deal with this very complicated matter after hearing from those-I will deal with them in more detail later-who express their unhappiness and disquiet about it. I say it would be absolutely unforgivable and indefensible if this house were asked to commit itself to this very important principle of unification, which the minister himself has described as a fundamental re-organization, before the views of qualified and experienced persons have been expressed. People have expressed very grave reservations about some of these proposals.
People who have spent their lives in distinguished careers in the armed services have warned that in their judgment the course proposed by the government may destroy the

effectiveness of our armed services. I do not say that that is either right or wrong. Indeed, so far as I am concerned, if certain conditions were met, I think I might be inclined personally to be prejudiced in favour of the minister's proposals for integration. I say, however, that to proceed without a full hearing of the viewpoint expressed by these men prior to second reading would be irresponsible; in fact, it would be playing fast and loose with questions which affect the national security of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Who are the men who have expressed their doubts? So far as the army is concerned, some of Canada's most distinguished soldiers have expressed their views. Two former chiefs of staff, General Foulkes and General Simonds, who supported the original idea of integration, have publicly expressed the view that unification as proposed by the minister is going too far. The same view has been expressed by Major General Volkes publicly. Brigadier R. S. Malone, according to the Winnipeg Free Press; has published a pamphlet entitled "Defence Forces Integration". He refers to the defence forces integration as a progressive step, and personally I am inclined to agree with him. He goes on, however, to say "this progressive step could be destroyed by two cardinal errors". Is parliament to be asked to give consideration in principle to proposals which such an informed and distinguished person as Brigadier Malone has described as cardinal errors?
On the side of the navy we have the contrary views of Admirals Landymore and Brock. Both have expressed the view that unification as at present proposed by the minister will seriously undermine or has already seriously undermined morale and contributed-I use the unexpurgated version of Admiral Landymore's words-to a desperate shortage of naval personnel required to meet commitments. I do not know whether Admiral Landymore is right, but as I say he should be heard again and be able to tell the committee, now that he has resigned or has been dismissed from the armed services, precisely what is the basis for this particular view.
October 31, 1966

The Halifax Chronicle-Herald of September 14 published another statement which is taken from a Canadian Press dispatch by Dave McIntosh. I should like to read it:
Sources close to the minister say he is inclined to regard as disloyal any officer who opposes unification on technical grounds-and that is where the main opposition lies.
I do not know who the source close to the minister is, but I presume he is close enough to the minister that he understands the minister's thinking. Apparently the minister regards as disloyal anyone who on technical grounds objects to unification. The dispatch continues:
This makes it awkward for staff officers who are supposed to give frank advice.
It was in such circumstances that three of the top five officers in the defence department lost their jobs in July. The dispatch further states:
Lt. Gen. Robert Moncel, vice chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Frank Fleury, comptroller-general, and Vice Admiral Kenneth Dyer, chief of personnel, advised Mr. Hellyer, after a careful study of unification to slow down the process.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Mr. Hellyer asked for and got their immediate resignations.
I do not know whether that is a correct statement, but-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member permit me to say that I have denied that categorically.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not know which part was denied categorically. Does the minister deny categorically that there was a careful study of unification made and a suggestion to slow down the process?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There was no paper advising a slowing down.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Was there a verbal statement made? The minister says there was no written statement or verbal statement and I accept his word, but I should like to know what Lt. Gen. Robert Moncel, Lt. Gen. Frank Fleury and Vice Admiral Kenneth Dyer would say about this issue. I would like to find out what they think about this process of unification and I should like to know why they retired before their normal time.
These are the sort of things this house and the committee of this house set up to look into these matters ought to know before the question of unification is presented to us. I do not know whether a careful study was made,
Interim Supply
but if one was made it has never been presented to the defence committee or to this house. I presume that careful studies have been made and I suggest that before this house is asked to deal with this complex and vital matter affecting the security of the country and the future usefulness of our armed services the committee set up for this purpose should hear both sides. I say to the minster and the house that so far the defence committee has only been allowed to hear one side.
In the early days of the defence committee, and I give the minister credit for this, we heard not only from the minister himself, from chiefs of staff and other officials but in addition we heard the views of retired officers such as General Foulkes and General Simonds who adopted a highly critical view about what was being done. We also heard from various outside independent critics.
At later sittings of the defence committee, and I want to point this out to the committee of the whole house, we did not hear from anybody except those who the minister said were in a representative capacity and to a degree which he himself has said, under the control and supervision of the defence department itself. I for one as a member of that defence committee believe it would be irresponsible to ask this house to deal with so complex an issue without permitting the committee and this house to hear from those who have expressed, after a lifetime of distinguished service, very grave doubts about the proposal of the minister.
What is the hurry in so far as unification is concerned? The minister has said that this is something novel which all nations should look at and regard. The minister has praised his own achievements to the sky, or at least his public relations officials have done so for him. Perhaps he is right. But if his proposals are so good why can he not wait a little while so that we can hear from the critics in a forum of this house where members can determine whether or not their criticism is valid.
The estimates of the department, as hon. members know, were rammed through by a majority of government members. I hope we are not going to have a change in the set-up of committees and that committees are not going to hear just official witnesses and then hear a government majority say: That is all; we will now report. I hope we will have committees which will truly weigh all sides of the question and produce somethin 1 useful.

October 31, 1966
Interim, Supply
In the early part of the minister's statement he read us some learned dissertations about the functions of representative witnesses. As a background to my statement I should like to read from the report of a select committee on witnesses which reported to the British House of Commons on May 9, 1935. Paragraph 8 of that report states:
Your committee think it of great importance to emphasize this. Whatever may be the character of a committee, whatever may be the nature of the evidence to be tendered by a witness, any interference with a witness's freedom is a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.
The minister speaks about witnesses appearing in a representative capacity. I do not know whether he thinks that as a businessman he can tell these witnesses what to say, but I want the minister to pay attention to this part of the report:
A witness who is to give evidence in a representative capacity must, of course, consult beforehand with those whom he is to represent: and, apart from this, any witness may properly ask advice before giving evidence before any committee. Such advice may properly take the form of suggestions as to how he can best marshal his facts, no less than as to how he can best state his opinions, or the opinions of those on whose behalf he is speaking; but it is as improper for his adviser to interfere with his opinions, whether individual or representative, as to interfere with his facts.
I suggest that any interference with a witness before a committee of this house which takes the form of not just suggestions as to how he can best express himself but specifically urging him to change what he is going to say to the committee is a breach of the privileges of this house.
What are we to make of the memorandum that has now been produced as to the variations which were made? The minister says that so far as he knows the admiral did not object to these changes. I think that makes very little difference. A witness has been tampered with and whether or not he acquiesces makes no difference at all.
What is the difference between the two versions? I suggest that in discussing manpower the admiral expressed views on a matter of fact, peculiarly within his knowledge, which were watered down to the point of material suppression. Let us consider the words of Admiral Landymore dealing with manpower as contained in the unexpurgated version:
-I would like now to turn to my most valuable asset-manpower. This is the area of my greatest concern today because I am desperately short of the naval personnel required to meet my commitments.

As a member of the committee hearing those words I would have regarded that as a very strong warning to the committee that in the view of the admiral we were running into serious trouble in meeting our commitments. How does this statement appear in the expurgated version? It reads as follows:
This is the area of my greatest concern today because I am experiencing a shortage of the naval personnel to meet my immediate commitments.
The desperate nature of his concern is suppressed and the commitments are changed to immediate ones. So far as I an concerned, whether or not the minister chooses to call committee meetings or allow his officers to give evidence is one thing, but if they do give evidence and they do express in the drafts that they have prepared serious warnings to the members of the committee about matters of fact peculiarly within their knowledge, that is another thing. Who knew the situation better than Admiral Landymore? Yet because his knowledge perhaps reflected on policies of the minister-possibly it was through no fault of the minister that there was a desperately serious situation involving a shortage of naval personnel required to meet naval commitments-his brief was changed. I say that the committee and through it this house was entitled to the unexpurgated warning which the admiral wanted to give when he gave evidence on this occasion.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The minister has suggested to us that we did not discuss the issue of unification, and that is perfectly true. I do not think anybody has dealt with it very directly, but I would like to say a few words about it. I do not wish to suggest that either I or any member of this party is committed to opposition to the minister's proposal for integration. In fact, I am inclined to believe from what I do know that it may be a very important and worthwhile step forward. But I say to the minister that the time has come for him to explain clearly why this is necessary. It is not good enough to go on repeating that it is going to save us money. Of course we are all in favour of saving money; every rationalization saves money and this is the minister's duty. To the extent that he does it we commend him for it.
But the minister himself said that this proposal of unification is a fundamental reorganization, and the basic question has never been answered by him at all. From this I do not exclude the white paper. We have not been told what is the role of the Canadian forces and what they will be supposed to do.
October 31. 1966

I suggest that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to form an intelligent judgment about whether or not we should have unification until we are told what particular functions the minister and his government envisage the armed forces being called upon to perform. I say to the minister that if he came out boldly and said: "We are giving up some of these particular roles we have had in the past because they are now obsolete and we are going into a special role for Canada which will involve a unified operation and for this purpose integration would add to efficiency", he might get the enthusiastic support of the people of Canada, of the armed services and certainly of some of the members of this party. But he has not said so. Indeed, the government, typically has faced both ways.
At one time it was suggested we were going to phase out of the roles we occupy in NATO, reduce our brigade, our division, our anti-submarine forces, and our Bomarc missile active defence against air attack. The minister suggested in his vague way that maybe we will concentrate on a new role for Canada. He has completely failed to lift one little finger to change the present role of the armed services.
When this government was first elected three years ago, and even before it was elected, we heard that we were going to have a bold new policy and that the government would review the role of the Canadian armed services. We then had the white paper on defence which implied that some of these roles were obsolete, but we have never suggested it to our allies. At the present time, when the British, the Germans and the Americans are discussing a new approach to the problems of the military defence of Europe, we do not even hear a whimper from this government about any change it proposes to make. I suggest that as long as we carry out an isolated role integration makes no sense at all. If we are going to have a brigade of the army, as we have in the forward defences in Germany with the air support of the British and supplies which mainly come from the U.S. forces, and if at the same time we are to have a completely separate role carried out by the R.C.A.F. as another contribution, if we are to continue our anti-submarine role which is primarily the role of the navy although the air force may be partially concerned with it, and if we are to have a continued active defence through Bomarc
Interim Supply
missiles to prevent what I think is an obsolete and non-existent threat of a bomber attack, then we will have four or five isolated functions each of them performed by a separate service.
I suggest that to talk of integration in these circumstances is to talk nonsense. I say to the minister that he should give up all this press publicity about what a wonderful idea integration is. He should first of all tell parliament through the committee precisely what is planned and what it will involve. Second, he should tell the people of Canada through this parliament what it is all about. Third, he should make it clear to the armed services.
I cannot believe that the retirement of all these officers before their time is simply due to their desire to get out of the services early or through some obstinate resistance to change. I believe that if the minister will take the people of Canada into his confidence and produce a role for the armed services that makes sense, if he will say that to carry out this role effectively we need the integration of our services and this is how we will carry it out, he may get a great deal of support. The time has come for us to go behind the grandiose talk about how many millions of dollars have been saved, which has never been demonstrated to anybody's satisfaction, and get down to fundamentals. We want to know how our Canadian forces will be used and how the proposed integration will fit into the roles which will in fact be performed by those forces.
I conclude by saying to the minister once again that it would be irresponsible and unforgivable if he tried, in his enthusiasm for his own particular plans and for getting his own way, to force a majority in this House of Commons-no doubt the loyal backbenchers of his party will support him-to support his plan before any real opportunity has been given to the numerous qualified people who have given their lives to the services to point out before the committee just what are their reasons for their fears and apprehensions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I have a few introductory remarks which I will make tonight and tomorrow I will follow with a real speech. However, in the one minute left to us may I just say that the minister has told us he has reduced the forces by 23,000 men, he has saved $150 million, and now our forces are more effective than they have ever been in the past. Next year he can drop another
October 31, 1966
9358	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion 23,000 men, save another $150 million, and then tell us his forces are more effective than they were in 1966. That sums up the ridiculousness of the minister's statement to us tonight, and tomorrow I will deal with some of the other nonsensical remarks that he made. I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I presume we will carry on tomorrow with interim supply and the intensive study of defence.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, the government proposes to continue with interim supply. Later in the day we will call Item No. 101, second reading of Bill C-241, to be followed by Item No. 93, the resolution dealing with the Export Credits Insurance Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39 (A) deemed to have been moved.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on October 11 I asked the following question of the Prime Minister as reported at page 8514 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, In the absence of the Registrar General I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he can give us a report on the housewives' boycott of the supermarkets in Ontario.
The Prime Minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to do that now, but I am following this boycott very carefully.
I presume that the Prime Minister is still following the boycott because he has not yet returned to tell us about what he has discovered. In the meantime I have been taking steps to find out something about this boycott which began in the city of Ottawa in the province of Ontario. I now find that it has become a Canada-wide protest which is growing as the days go by. The original Ottawa Consumers Protest Association is now in contact with similar groups in many Ontario cities and towns from Toronto down in size. It is in contact with Inflation Fighters, a large group in Montreal, with groups in the maritimes, in Calgary and in other prairie
(Mr. Churchill.]

points. Finally, no later than this afternoon they were in contact with the Vancouver "WASPS", which does not stand for what you might think but for "Women Against Soaring Prices". WASP is a very well chosen name, I think, and certainly will sting.
The boycotting of supermarkets is spreading geographically. As a matter of fact, it is not confined to Canada. During the past two weeks I have been in the United States and daily boycotting has been making the headlines of the New York papers and the front page of the New York Times on a number of occasions. Pictures of women boycotting supermarkets have been appearing practically every day. The boycott is spreading geographically and it is lengthening time-wise. This is the fourth week in which the women are maintaining their protests in Canada, and their numbers are considerable. I have been informed by the Ottawa group that they can count on something in the neighbourhood of two-thirds of the women in Ottawa to go into supermarkets only for certain items which have come down in price or are bargains. Otherwise they will stay away altogether. Very large numbers are affected.
Why are the women doing this? They are doing it for two reasons, to protest against the soaring price of food and to get the government to realize that they are in earnest and that something must be done about it. This is no fancy movement, Mr. Speaker. They feel that the price of basic food is spiralling out of range and that they must do something about it in the meantime by way of protest. But this has to be followed by government action.
I have heard a great deal said to the effect that women should not be bothering about the business of food, that other things such as medical costs, rents, steel and other segments of industry are equally important. But our women are deeply concerned about food prices and a large number of people on modest incomes as well as on very low incomes are affected. Welfare workers in this city have told these women that they are concerned, not only in this city but across Canada, about the serious way in which rising prices are affecting the nutrition of people. No one is starving but people are becoming seriously undernourished, and the next generation is going to run up medical bills of a very serious nature unless something is done to deal with the price of basic foodstuffs and to regard the matter as a major national problem at this time.
October 31, 1966

According to the report I received from the boycotting housewives, the supermarkets are now feeling the pinch and have come back fighting. They are trying all kinds of devices to buy off the women or to frighten them by understocking their shelves. They are trying to get them away from the boycott by putting certain articles on sale at bargain prices. They advertise bread at two loaves for 31 cents. The usual price is two for 39 cents. Women go in thinking they will get bargains only to find that the bread is stale and has not been moved from the day before.
This is not having the effect of discouraging women. Instead it is making them angry. Next week they are to go in for a selective boycott. They will begin next week by boycotting those household articles which have gimmicks attached. I speak of things like cereals with toys inside, packages of soap flakes and detergent with towels inside, jams with spoons attached, and so on.
In the face of this sort of thing the government should realize that action needs to be taken. This situation should be treated seriously and there should be a policy to deal with it. I am going to suggest a few things that the government should give its attention to. It should look into these things without waiting for the committee which is investigating prices to come up with anything, because that is not good enough.
I suggest that the government should consider now, as an immediate step, a freeze on the price of basic foods. I know that constitutional difficulties will be trotted out, but I know there are ways and means of dealing with premiers and getting constitutional matters settled because I have seen that done over the last numbers of years when the government wanted to do something.
Second, I believe that old age pensions, veterans pensions and family allowances must be brought up now to meet the presently spiralling prices. For the last few months these allowances have not been adequate to cope with the rising cost of living. This also is something which cannot wait for the leisurely investigation by the committee reviewing prices.
Third, I believe that trading stamps and gimmicks should be abolished. Fourth-I have only six points so I will be brief -legislation should be passed to limit the allowable deductions for advertising. Fifth, we should establish a department of consumer affairs with a prices review board as a watchdog on prices, with the authority to roll
DEBATES	9359
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion back prices where they are unjustified. Sixth, the government should consider providing legislation to encourage co-operatives. All these suggestions should be given immediate attention in the face of the boycott situation.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the basic question posed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was whether the boycott is having any effect. The only way that can be determined is by statistics, obtainable from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, on the sale trends of supermarkets or the cost of living index. I will inquire of the Bureau of Statistics and report as quickly as I can. I doubt that there is any reflection in the statistics so far.
The hon. member talked about basic foods, but much of the high price of foods has to do with the cost of services that are generally required by consumers these days in processing a commodity from the basic food to the state in which it is required by the consumer. The hon. member mentioned being in the United States and the widespread nature of this boycott there. I was in New York myself most of today and 1 had an experience which leads me to believe that I would like to do a little boycotting myself.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I found prices down there fantastically high; the difference was notable even since I was there earlier. And I saw a new little trick. On the dinner bill of the hotel where I was staying there was an item: "B and B-$2". I questioned the waiter who told me it was the charge for bread and butter. That was the first time I had seen bread and butter itemized and a charge made for it. So I am tempted to do a little boycotting myself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you think it was the B and B Commission?


Robert Henry Winters: I will find out whether the statistical collection has revealed a trend and what I can present to the hon. lady in this regard. And I will be pleased to tell the Prime Minister that the hon. member has raised this question again, and also of the forceful manner in which she presented her case.



HOUSING-REQUEST FOR REDUCED RENTALS IN PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, in raising the question of the rental scales imposed on public housing in the city of
October 31. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Windsor I think I am bringing to the attention of this house a matter which is of great concern to the entire community. In doing so perhaps I might be permitted to say I think I am speaking for the industrial workers of Windsor and their families.
As the house knows, the economic rebirth of Windsor over the past few years has brought with it a serious housing shortage. This government, in co-operation with the provincial and municipal authorities, has done much to help deal with the shortage, but it still remains. This means that accommodation which would ordinarily be available for people earning income in excess of certain amounts who would otherwise not wish to live in public housing is almost not available at all, with the result that many industrial workers in Windsor are forced to pay the top penalty rate in the rental housing scale used in public housing in the city of Windsor.
They have little opportunity to seek accommodation in the private market because such accommodation is either not available to them at all or, if it is, the rents are, frankly, often exorbitant. I therefore felt it would be useful, as long ago as last February, to take up with the federal minister responsible for housing matters the question of adjusting downward the upper levels of these rental scales in a way which would be more realistic and take into account the wages presently earned by industrial workers in Windsor and the housing situation there.
I brought this matter again to the minister's attention this summer and again in September. On these latter occasions I was assured that the matter was under consideration in consultation with the Ontario Housing Corporation. I had hoped that this question might be decided at a recent board meeting of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I must say I was disappointed to find that this decision to reduce the upper levels in these rental scales had not been taken.
I think the situation could be summarized by reading a resolution which I received the other day from the Windsor city council adopting a resolution of Local 444 of the United Automobile Workers. It reads:
Whereas housing accommodation is a matter of great concern to the people of our community, and Whereas even when such accommodation is physically available, it is often made totally prohibitive because of the exorbitant rents asked, and Whereas while we welcome the geared-to-in-come accommodation now being provided, we must strongly object to the exceptionally high percentage of income called for under the present provisions, and

Whereas this prices these homes beyond the means of many, while extracting an unfair proportion of income from those who rent this accommodation,
Therefore, we urge that the maximum percentage called for be reduced from the present 31.8 to 25 per cent of income, and that city council quickly renew its application to the Ontario Housing Corporation and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that this be done, emphasizing the urgency of this matter so that a fairer rent program can be implemented as soon as possible.
As the Windsor Star put it in an editorial on October 27:
Whether the federal officials like it or not the rentals now being charged-
This refers to public housing.
-are beyond the capabilities of the industrial worker to pay. The majority of these workers fall within the maximum percentage of 31.8 per cent of their income, and rents in the majority of cases exceed $150 monthly for families.
The editorial went on to say:
-it should be realized the purpose of government housing is defeated unless rents are within the reach of the industrial worker with a family.
At the request of the mayor and city council of Windsor I have arranged a meeting with the minister for Thursday, November 10th, so that we may go into this matter again. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I urge the parliamentary secretary to take back to the minister these points which I have also raised with him previously in writing and in person with respect to the need for a favourable decision as quickly as possible on this matter which is vital to the city of Windsor and its people.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is very hard not to take account of the excellent summary just presented by the hon. member from Windsor. He and I have often discussed this particular problem which is very acute in Windsor due to the tremendous success of the recent automotive pact which, according to the hon. member, has resulted in thousands of people flowing into the Windsor area to take advantage of the increased industrial production and increased number of jobs available in the community.
This, of course, has given rise to the problem which the hon. member has brought to the attention of the house in such an eloquent fashion, namely, that there is a distinct shortage of housing for the workers in the Windsor area and, because of this shortage,
October 31, 1966
the ever present danger of speculation, particularly in areas of old housing which are not under some type of control.
It may be of interest in passing to mention that in my own community of Verdun we still have rent controls in force which were imposed during the last war and which, for some unaccountable reason, and I am happy to say it, have not been removed. I do not know if it is the last such community in Canada but perhaps this would be a solution in an area like Windsor.
The hon. member has taken up this matter at considerable length, both verbally and in correspondence with the minister, but in all fairness to the minister and to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation I should point out that no formal request has been made by the Ontario Housing Corporation to C.M.H.C. It is true that there have been informal talks between the Ontario Housing Corporation and members of C.M.H.C. but, until the Ontario corporation makes a formal application to C.M.H.C. for a reduction of rentals, because of the complex federal-municipal arrangements we have in Canada the federal government cannot walk into Windsor and reduce rents. It must first receive a formal request from the Ontario Housing Corporation.
While the hon. member is perfectly right in approaching the minister and drawing the whole matter to the attention of C.M.H.C., I think it must be pointed out that similar eloquent pressure must be put on the Ontario Housing Corporation to the end that both bodies concerned with the problem may sit down and do something about it. However, Mr. Speaker, no later than tomorrow morning I shall draw the hon. member's remarks to the attention of the minister.



BROADCASTING-PRIORITY TO EDUCATIONAL NEEDS IN HIGH FREQUENCY CHANNEL ALLOCATION

Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on October 27, as recorded at page 9168 of Hansard, I asked the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) this question:
As the minister knows, the Board of Broadcast Governors has just concluded two days of hearings on the future use of high frequency broadcasting bands in Canada. Is it the government's policy to give priority to educational broadcasting when the high frequency channels are allocated? I ask this question because some private broadcasters have been making applications.
9361
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
There is a small omission in the question as printed in Hansard because it should read ultra high frequency broadcasting bands.
One of the subjects which the B.B.G. dealt with at its hearings last week was the opening up of u.h.f. bands for television broadcasting. At the present time all television is carried on a very high frequency band which can only provide channels 2 to 13. It is further limited by international agreements. Canadian stations cannot interfere with American stations nearby, but the development of ultra high frequency broadcasting could greatly expand the available channels.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I should also mention in passing that most television receiving sets in Canada cannot receive u.h.f. I have a question on the order paper about this. Manufacturers will need to make some changes in this connection. Appearing at the B.B.G. hearing on October 27 on the matter of educational broadcasting were representatives of the Ontario Department of Education, the Alberta Department of Education, the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on School Television, McGill University, the Metropolitan Educational T.V. Association of Toronto, the Ottawa Public School Board, the Metropolitan Edmonton Educational T.V. Association, the Canadian Home and School Parent-teacher Federation, the British Columbia School Trustees' Association, and the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. So there is great public interest.
At present educational television in Canada is very limited. The people who want to broacast educational programs have to fit in with the broadcasting schedules of the C.B.C. and private broadcasting stations. The latter have given pretty good co-operation and some very good programs have resulted. Not all the provinces have been given the use of this but to my knowledge Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia have done the best work in this field with the limited time available to them on the channels.
Is it the government's policy to give priority to educational broadcasting when the high frequency channels are allocated? I ask this question because some private interests appeared at the B.B.G. hearing to ask for some u.h.f. channels. One applicant proposed a third television broadcasting network for Canada using both v.h.f. and u.h.f. stations. I will not comment at this time on the question of whether or not this country can afford a third network. I want only an assurance that

October 31. 1366
9362	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion educational television will have a priority over the C.B.C. or the private stations who want to get into these channels when they are available.
It seems to me that in our large metropolitan areas more than one channel on the u.h.f. band will be required for educational broadcasting. I am thinking of cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. I am also thinking of what has to be done through the elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities as well as the requirements of adult education. I am seeking an assurance from the government that educational television will have a priority over all other forms of broadcasting when the u.h.f. band is opened up.
fTranslation]


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the statement just made by the member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) in a commendable effort to get an answer to the question he put last Thursday to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), and which was ruled out of order by the Chair.

The hon. member probably knows that the matter he raised comes under the Board of Broadcast Governors. As he mentioned when he put his question last week, the Board of Broadcast Governors met on October 25 and 26 and discussed, among other things, the future use of very high frequency broadcasting bands in Canada.
At those meetings, representatives of certain provinces and organizations were able to express their views freely and openly and to put forward all arguments in favour of giving priority to educational broadcasting when the very high frequency broadcasting bands will be allocated.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, and I think the hon. member will agree with me, the government will have to wait until the B.B.G. makes a ruling before it can decide on this matter. The hon. member is fully aware that the B.B.G. does not make its decisions on the spot and that sometimes we get the reports two or three weeks after the hearings.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, November 1, 1966