1967-02-01

Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre yesterday questioned the propriety of certain departmental officials using the first row behind the press gallery for the performance of their responsibilities as departmental or ministerial officials. I indicated to the hon. member that I would look into the situation, and I have now had the opportunity of doing so.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
There is a degree of uncertainty, as I indicated yesterday, in respect of the first row behind the press gallery; that is, whether it is an extension of the press gallery, an extension of the official gallery, or part of the general gallery.
In view of the uncertainty of the situation 1 took the opportunity to suggest that when space is available in the recognized official gallery the departmental officials should use it rather than other galleries for the exercise of their official responsibilities.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In view of the fact that all of us in this house expect full, complete and correct answers to our questions, be they oral or written, I should like to bring to the attention of the house, the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary that I asked a written question to which I received an answer on Monday. Part of the question was:
Who are the auditors for the Company of Young Canadians and what yearly audit fees have been paid?
The answer to that part of my question was
The Auditor General. No fees are charged.
That is completely wrong because, as I recall, the act did not stipulate that the Auditor General would be the auditor, but that the Governor in Council would appoint an auditor for this organization. To the best of my knowledge no auditor has yet been appointed. I have brought this situation to the attention of the house because I feel we should receive full and correct answers.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify this matter-and I am very sorry if my hon. friend thinks he has been misled in any way-let me say that during the current year payments on behalf of the Company of Young Canadians have been made through the comptroller of the treasury. As a result all these expenditures come under the scrutiny of the Auditor General. In succeeding years it will be necessary for the cabinet to appoint an auditor as provided in the legislation. In respect of the current year the answer given is quite correct.



ROYAL VISIT


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that on September 13 last it was announced from Government House that Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh had accepted an invitation of the government of Canada to attend ceremonies in our national capital, celebrating the 100th anniversary of confederation.
I am happy to be able to state now that the dates of the visit of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness have been confirmed. They will arrive at Uplands airport in the late afternoon of Thursday, June 29, and will remain in Canada until late in the evening of Wednesday, July 5. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, on this occasion, will visit the national capital and will have one day, July 3, at Expo '67.
Her Majesty will address members of both houses of parliament assembled on the anniversary of confederation, Saturday, July 1

February 1, 1967
Impending Royal Visit 1967 at which time the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons will each present a loyal address to Her Majesty.
Following these addresses Her Majesty will deliver a special centennial address. Later on July 1 a reception will be held for members of both houses of parliament and their wives at which Her Majesty will attend.
Other details of the program for the royal visit are now being worked out and will be announced in due course from the office of the commissioner general for visits of state. I felt that I should make an announcement of plans for this meeting in the national capital at this time, so that members of parliament and senators may make their plans accordingly.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very welcome announcement the Prime Minister has made, that Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh will come to Canada for the celebration of our centennial. I am sure all Canadians will be happy with this announcement that the Queen of Canada will be with them on this occasion. I am also sure the Prime Minister has conveyed to Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness that they will be received in Canada with courtesy and a warm welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members and the people of Canada will be very happy at the announcement the Prime Minister has just made. It will give great emphasis to our centennial celebrations to have Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in this country. I am also sure that their visit will help to cement further those ties of loyalty which the Canadian people have to the crown, to the commonwealth and to the principles of democracy and justice which they represent.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, members of our group were glad to hear the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) inform hon. members that Her Majesty the Queen is planning a visit to Canada next June 29 and will, on that occasion, visit Expo '67 and address members of both houses.
Mr. Speaker, a visit by Her Majesty during our centennial year means that Canada is worthy of such a visit by Her Majesty, and

we should be proud of this fact. Hon. members and, indeed, all Canadian citizens must endeavour to give the Queen a fitting reception. As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the Queen was never the cause of any trouble in our province, except for a disturbance by a few on one occasion. As French Canadians and plain Canadians, we bid her welcome.
I hope her stay will be a pleasant one and that her return to England will be filled with happy memories of Canada. I should like her to be sure that Canada will make as much progress over the next one hundred years and that, just as any other head of state, she will always be welcome in Canada.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit party I join with the other party representatives in the house in welcoming the announcement the Prime Minister has just made. Certainly we are more than pleased that the Queen of Canada will be able to visit this country during the 100th anniversary of Canada's confederation. It is, I think, a very excellent thing that Her Majesty the Queen will be able to be with us on July 1. I could not help but think, as we listened to the announcement, that it would have been a wonderful birthday present for Canada if the provincial premiers and the federal government could have agreed on an amending formula for our constitution, so the Queen could have carried it back with her after her visit with us on July
1.	We join in the expression of loyalty and gratitude to Her Majesty that she will be able to be with us.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Godin: 1.	What is the amount of Canada bonds held by Canadian individuals?
2.	What amount of interest is received by these individuals?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Government of Canada bond issues other than Canada savings bonds are in both bearer and registered form and it is not possible to establish the amount held by Canadian individuals. Canada savings bonds may only be purchased by Canadian individuals and for the purpose of answering the question it has been interpreted as referring only to Canada
February 1, 19G7

savings bonds. On such an interpretation the answers are as follows:
1.	The approximate amount of Canada savings bonds outstanding as at December 31, 1666, was $6,089 million.
2.	The amount of interest payable in 1967 on the Canada savings bonds referred to in part 1 would be $299 million.


TELEVISION ADVERTISING FOR R.C.M.P. RECRUITS
Mr. Priltie: 1.	Have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police placed any advertising intended to attract recruits with television station KVOS?
2.	If so, what has been the cost of such advertising?
3.	Have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police placed any advertising intended to attract recruits with television station CHAN, Vancouver, B.C.?
4.	If so, what has been the cost of such advertising?
5.	Have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police placed any advertising intended to attract recruits with television station CBUT, Vancouver, B.C.?
6.	If so, what has been the cost of such advertising?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Nil.
3.	Yes.
4.	Nil.
5.	Yes.
6.	Nil.


REGULATIONS RESPECTING TELEVISION COMMERCIALS
Mr. Orlikow: Has the Board of Broadcast Governors formulated regulations (a) limiting the number of television commercials which can be shown in any program (b) limiting the time that television commercials can be shown in any program and, if so, what are these regulations?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows: 1. (a) No; (b) Yes. Section 8 of the radio (T.V.) broadcasting regulations states:
8 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no station or network operator shall, during any clock hour, broadcast commercial messages the aggregate duration of which exceeds twelve minutes.
(2) A station or network operator may, during any clock hour, broadcast commercial messages the aggregate duration of which exceeds twelve minutes but does not exceed thirteen minutes if, during either the immediate preceding or succeeding
Questions
clock hour, the aggregate duration of commercial messages is reduced by an amount equal to the excess time over twelve minutes which was broadcast.


REPORTS ON TELEVISION COMMERCIALS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Does the Board of Broadcast Governors require television stations to report on the number of television commercials and the time taken by these commercials which are televised for each program?
2.	Does the Board of Broadcast Governors monitor programs either regularly or on an ad hoc basis to compare the reports, if any, which it receives from television stations, with the actual production of these stations?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows: 1. Stations are required to keep weekly program logs which include the duration of each commercial message except in the case of a sponsored program where the aggregate time of all commercial messages is entered in the log.
2.	Yes, on an ad hoc basis.


COMPLAINTS RESPECTING TELEVISION COMMERCIALS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the Board of Broadcast Governors received complaints from the public about excessive televising of commercials?
2.	Have these complaints been investigated and, if so, what were the results of such investigation?
3.	Has the Board of Broadcast Governors, as a result of its investigations, or as a result of complaints, discovered violations of its regulations with regard to television commercial usage by television stations and, if so, in how many cases?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	All complaints are investigated. In most cases the stations have been operating in accordance with the regulations.
3.	The log examination section reports on all instances in which the station logs appear to indicate excess commercial time. Each case has to be investigated before it can be established to the satisfaction of the board that a violation of the regulation has occurred.


PROSECUTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF BROADCAST REGULATIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What action has the Board of Broadcast Governors taken when it has discovered that its regulations are being violated?

February 1, 1967
Questions
2.	If prosecutions have been ordered or recommended, what was the number of cases, and what was the result of such prosecutions?
3.	If discussions have been held with television sations or television networks, how often have these discussions been held, when were they held, what agreements if any were reached with the stations or networks, and have these agreements been lived up to by the television stations or networks?
4.	Has the Board of Broadcast Governors drafted any new regulations to control television commercials being used and, if so, what are these new regulations?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows: 1. Each case in which the logs disclose an apparent violation is brought to the attention of the licensee and is investigated by the board to determine the circumstances and to satisfy the board that there is a case with which the board could proceed successfully under section 18 of the Broadcasting Act.
2.	During the three month period September, October and November, one case has been taken to court and a plea of guilty was entered. Another case is before the court. Other cases are still under study.
3.	See 1 above. The board expects each station to comply with the regulations and therefore there is no need for an agreement in this respect.
4.	No.


USE OF METRIC SYSTEM IN CANADA
Mr. Stanbury: 1.	Is there under way in the government any program for promotion of wider use of the metric system in Canada?
2.	If so (a) what is the nature of the program (b) what results has it had to date?


Hon. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. No. There is no comprehensive program at present to promote the wider use of the metric system in Canada. Encouragement is being given to the study of the subject in various sectors of Canadian industry, particularly with respect to the impact on export trade. Any consideration of the adoption of the metric system of measurement must take into account the requirements in Canada's main export markets and practices in the countries which are the principal sources of Canadian imports of technology.
2.	See (1) above.
[Mr. Orlikow.l


SOUTH WEST MARGAREE R. R. No. 1
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Was authority given for the establishment of South West Margaree rural route No. 1 to provide the patrons concerned with direct R.M.D. service?
2.	On what date was this service scheduled to begin operating and what was the detail of travel for South West Margaree rural route No. 1?
3.	Were the patrons concerned instructed by officials of the Post Office Department to either purchase rural mail boxes or, alternatively, to provide their own mail boxes?
4.	Were the patrons concerned advised by postal authorities to complete the application for rural mail delivery service which is found at the back of booklet 9 R.M.D.?
5.	Were the patrons concerned advised in a further circular letter of October 4, concerning the establishment of South West Margaree rural route No. 1, that the new service would begin on November 16, 1966?
6.	In the circular letter of October 4, were the patrons concerned again advised to purchase and erect rural mail boxes?
7.	Were the patrons concerned later informed on November 18, 1966, that the establishment of South West Margaree rural route No. 1, was to be held in abeyance for the time being and, if so, for what reason has the establishment of this rural route been held in abeyance?
8.	What representations were made and by whom to the effect that this proposed rural route not be established and for how long is the establishment of this rural route to be held in abeyance?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) 16th November 1966; (b) The detail of travel for South West Margaree rural route No. 1 is as follows: To leave South West Margaree post office daily except Sunday as soon as possible after receipt of mail from highway service trip 29 and proceed: West on highway No. 19 to south west Margaree road, 0.2 mile; South on south west Margaree road to Kiltarlity road, 4.8 miles; West on Kiltarlity road to Vincent MacKinnon's lane, 0.6 mile; Retrace and go south east to east side river road, 0.9 mile; North on east side River road to highway No. 19, 5.3 miles; West on highway No. 19 to south west Margaree post, 0.2 mile; office, Total distance, 12.0 miles.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.
7.	(a) Yes; (b) It was not found advisable to inaugurate service on the 16th November.
8.	(a) The postmaster of the Gillisdale post office, which will be closed upon the
February 1, 1967

establishment of south west Margaree R. R. No. 1, requested that the office remain open until the end of the 1966-67 winter season, (b) The proposed south west Margaree R. R. No. 1 will be inaugurated on the 1st April 1967.


TARIFF ON CLOTHING AND TEXTILES
Mr. Madill: 1.	What is the tariff level on clothing?
2.	What is the tariff level on textiles?
3.	How long has the present level been in effect?
4.	What is the net effect of this tariff policy on the Canadian consumer?
5.	What is the net effect of this tariff policy on the Canadian textile and clothing industry?
6.	How many people are employed in the manufacture of clothing and household linens?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue, Finance and Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. Under the British preferential tariff the rates of duty vary from free to 25 per cent, under most favoured nation tariff, from 10 per cent to 35 per cent, and under the general tariff, from 25 per cent to 55 per cent. There are, in addition, several tariff items which bear a specific rate of duty and an ad valorem rate, and under these tariff items the value of the goods governs the level of the tariff. In the absence of value information these are, therefore, not included in the above.
2.	On textile goods other than clothing, the British preferential tariff rates vary from free to 27 per cent, the most favoured nation tariff rates, from free to 37J per cent, and the general tariff rates from free to 55 per cent. There are, in addition, several tariff items which bear a specific rate of duty or a combination of specific and ad valorem rates, and under these tariff items the value of the goods governs the level of the tariff. In the absence of value information, these are, therefore, not included in the above.
3.	While many of the tariff items in the clothing and textiles schedules have remained unchanged since the general agreement on tariffs and trade became effective on January 1, 1948, there have been a fairly substantial number of changes since that time, particularly those effective April 1, 1960, which resulted from the tariff board's recommendation to the Minister of Finance following textile reference No. 125.
Questions
4 and 5. It is not possible to measure the net effect of the tariff on the Canadian consumer or on the Canadian textile and clothing industry.
6. Estimated number of employees in the clothing industries in 1966 is 126,000.
The number of employees in the manufacture of household linens is not available. These products are not classified as a separate industry but are included in miscellaneous textiles, cotton yarn and cloth mills industries.


ADVERTISING BUDGET FOR EXPO '67
Mr. Coates: What is the present advertising budget for Expo '67, how much of this budget has been earmarked for the United States, and what proportion of the moneys earmarked for advertising in the United States will be used in that section of the United States within a 600-mile radius of the city of Montreal where there is a total population of seventy million people?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The total Expo advertising budget for 1967 is approximately $6,000,000 and of this amount approximately $4,500,000 will be spent in the United States. Approximately 75 per cent of the United States advertising moneys are spent to cover 600 mile radius of the city of Montreal.


CANADAIR-ESTABLISHMENT OF BRANCH OFFICE IN ENGLAND
Mr. Allard: 1.	Is the government aware that Canadair is about to open an office for draughtsmen and instrument technicians in England?
2.	Is the government aware that Canadair has already begun to publish advertisements for employment in British newspapers?
3.	Is the government aware that Canadair will set up this branch ofRce at Potters Bar in Middlesex on the outskirts of London?
4.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966, what is the number, nature, and value of the contracts awarded to Canadair by the government of Canada?
5.	With respect to future contracts between the government of Canada and Canadair, will the government demand that these contracts and the work involved be carried out entirely in Canada by Canadian workers?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
Questions

February 1, 1967
3.	Yes.
4.	The following figures represent the number and nature of DDP contracts and related contract values awarded in the calendar years indicated. The value excludes government
financed equipment such as power plants, avionics, accessories awarded to other contractors. A portion of the values shown would however be subcontracted to Canadair's airframe subcontractors.
Contract Type Aircraft Production Aircraft Development CL89 Drone Development CL91 Vehicle Development *Product Support
	1963		1964
No.	$M	No.	$M2	50.4	2	4.31	0.8	1	6.61	1.0	1	4.51	0.4	1	0.2100	18.1	77	13.6105	70.7	82	29.31965	1966No.	$M	No.	$M1	0.7	2	89.3**0	-	1	0.61	0.5	1	3.20	-	1	0.2106	7.9	138	9.1108	9.2	143	102.4
*Product Support includes spares, repair and overhaul, technical support, field service representative, mobile repair parts, modification kits, engineering studies, technical publications.
* includes CF-5 aircraft contract.
5.	With respect to any future production contracts between the Department of Defence Production and Canadair, the department will employ its normal practice of seeking to obtain the maximum Canadian content of labour and materials, consistent with technical and economic feasability.
The prime purpose of the London office is to bridge the gap existing temporarily in Canadair's design engineering capacity for their United States military C-5A jet transport aircraft subcontract program, which was executed directly between Canadair and Lockheed Corporation.
[English1


NEW POSTAL GUIDE AND INFORMATION BOOKLET
Mr. Allard: 1.	When will the Post Office Department publish a new postal guide and postal information booklet in the two official languages?
2.	When did the Post Office Department publish the last postal guide and information booklet?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. The Post Office Department has no plans at this time to issue a new postal guide. It is expected the department will publish a new postal information booklet in both languages in April of 1967.

2. The Canada Postal Guide, Part 1, "Postal Law and General Information" was issued in both languages on the 30th June 1965. Six revisions have been issued to date. Part 2, "International Mails Rates and Conditions" was issued in both languages on the 1st October 1963. Nine revisions have been issued to date. The last postal information booklet was published by the department in 1963.


EMPLOYMENT ON PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has any department of the government made any estimate of the number of persons likely to be employed in the construction of the Northumberland Strait Crossing?
2.	If so, what is the estimated number per year of projected construction?
3.	Is it the intention to give priority in employment to workers from Prince Edward Island?
4.	Has the government of Canada given any assistance in the training of potential workers on this project and, if so, what is the nature and extent of such training?
5.	To date, how many men have obtained employment on this project?
6.	Of these, how many are residents of Prince Edward Island?
7.	When is it intended to commence construction of the highway approach from the Prince Edward Island side of the crossing?
8.	What portion of the approach to the highway on the New Brunswick side has been completed?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, but the estimates are confined to the work on site directly involved in the construction of the
February 1, 1967

crossing. No attempt has been made to estimate the numbers of men who will be employed indirectly or in related work because of the construction of the crossing. Estimates relating to an undertaking of this kind become increasingly tentative for each future year.
2.	The estimate of the numbers of men to be employed on the site in 1967 and the next three years are respectively as follows: (a) 621, (b) 1549, (c) 1833, and (d) 2004. Figures beyond 1970 are very highly tentative.
3.	The standard government contract clause will apply. Clause 27(2) of the general conditions of the standard government construction contract states: "Subject to subsection (1) the contractor will employ labour from the locality where the work is being executed to the extent to which it is available and shall use the offices of the National Employment Service in the recruitment of workers wherever practicable."
4.	The government of Canada, under the technical and vocational training agreement, is assisting the provincial government of Prince Edward Island in training men for this project. Thirty men are now enrolled in a course on basic heavy duty maintenance. This course will be repeated three times. Six men are in a course on welding. This course will be repeated. Nine are in the tugboat masters course. Fifty-two are in a boat crew course; and 60 already have completed this course. Twelve are enrolled in an upgrading course for carpenters. Additional training courses will be started when the requirements are anticipated.
5.	A total of 284 men have obtained direct employment on this project.
6.	149.
7.	A contract has been awarded; and the work entailed is now about 35 per cent complete.
8.	The work entailed by the contract awarded on November 3, 1965, has been completed. The approach road has now been brought to the standard required for the construction of the crossing.


NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OFFICE, RIMOUSKI, QUE.
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): 1. How many job vacancies were brought to the attention of the National Employment Service office in Rimouski during 1965-66?
Questions
2.	How many persons obtained work through the National Employment Service office in Rimouski during that same year?
3.	Which ridings are included in the area covered by this office?


Mr. J. C. Mur.ro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. There were 3,734 job vacancies
brought to the attention of the National Employment Service office in Rimouski in the year 1965. A comparative figure for 1966 was 3,241.
2.	The number of persons placed by the same office in the year 1965 was 3,301; for the year 1966 a comparative figure amounted to 2,845.
3.	The area covered by the Manpower Centre in Rimouski includes:
(1)	Electoral district of Rimouski, excluding that area which is a part of the county of Riviere du Loup.
(2)	Eight municipalities which form a part of Matapedia-Matane electoral district:
Price
Grand-Metis
St-Octave-de-Metis
St. Antoine-de-Padoue
St. Noel
St. Moise
Ste. Jeanne d'Arc
St. Damase


PAYMENT OF SCHOOL TAXES, POLYMER CORPORATION
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Does Polymer Corporation Limited pay school taxes?
2.	If so (a) what were the amounts paid in the last three years (b) for each of those three years, what amounts were paid (i) to the public schools (ii) to the separate schools?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Insofar as Polymer Corporation Limited is concerned:
"As a crown company, Polymer Corporation is not legally obligated to pay municipal or school taxes. However, it does make an annual grant to the city of Sarnia in the same amount as its total municipal tax would be (including the amount for schools) if it was subject to tax."

February 1, 1967
Questions


CANADIAN PRODUCTION OF U.S. MATERIAL FOR USE IN VIET NAM
Mr. Maiher: Of the United States defence orders placed in Canada in 1965 and 1966, what was the amount, in dollars, of material destined for use in Viet Nam?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Under the Canada-United States production sharing program, the United States in 1965 purchased $259.5 million and in 1966 approximately $300 million in defence supplies from Canadian sources, including both prime and subcontracts.
All Canadian produced defence supplies sold to the United States government under this program are delivered to the Department of Defence inventories in the continental United States. The Canadian government has no information as to logistic arrangements for further distribution beyond these points.


ROAD CONSTRUCTION, BELLETERRE-LE DOMAINE, QUE.
Mr. Lefebvre: Is a road being built from Belleterre, Temis-kaming county, to Le Domalne and, if so (a) is this road being built under a federal-provincial plan (b) what have federal expenditures amounted to thus far, annually, for this project since the beginning of construction of this road?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Foresiry and Rural Development):: (a) Yes, federal-provincial forestry agreement; (b) federal share of expenditures to date, $119,308.82. Federal share of expenditures, annually: 1964-
65, $43,177.11; 1965-66, $49,849.11; 1966-67, $26,282.60.


U.S. CONTRACTS LET IN CANADA BY DEFENCE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT
Mr. Allard: What is the increase in the net value of contracts of a general nature awarded on behalf of the United States by the Department of Defence Production in 1966 as compared with 1965?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Contracts on behalf of the United States government are awarded to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. The corporation subsequently places a contract with Canadian companies for the supplies required and these contracts are administered by the Department of Defence Production.
In 1965 the net value of prime contracts and amendments awarded by the United States government to the Canadian Commercial Corporation totalled $162.94 M and in 1966 the value of these awards was $143.71 M, resulting in a net decrease of $19.23 M.


DOCK REPAIRS, TROIS-PISTOLES, QUE.
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): 1.	In the past five years, how many times each year has repair, maintenance or development work been carried out on the dock at Trois-Pistoles?
2.	Who was the contractor for this work?
3.	What was the cost in each case?
[Translation1


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1, 2, and 3.-Listed below:
Year	Frequency	Contractor	Amount1962	Once	Adrien Berube	$ 23,903.041963	Once	Albert Cote	1,240.001964	Five Times	Paul Malenfant	2,508.59Jean B. Rioux	2,449.55Albert Cote	154.00Trois-Pistoles Electrique Enr.	211.23Albert Cote	1,106.351965	Three Times	Jean B. Rioux	113,064.09Les Betons de Riviere-du-Loup	4,784.00Leopold Tremblay	4,451.211966	Four Times	Albert Cote	2,790.00Albert Cote	6,947.40Trois-Pistoles Equipment Enr.	6,492.33Albert Cote	593.00

February 1, 1967


WHOLESALE VALUE OF MOTOR VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Mr. Hales: 1.	What was the wholesale value of the 901,230 motor vehicle units produced in Canada in 1966, and the wholesale value of the 855,476 units produced in 1965?
2.	What was the wholesale value of the 696,088 passenger cars produced in Canada in 1966 and the wholesale value of the 710,811 cars made in Canada in 1965?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1 and 2. These figures were taken from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics' monthly report for December 1966 entitled "Preliminary Report on the Production of Motor Vehicles", catalogue number 42-001. These preliminary, production figures are compiled monthly but corresponding values are not collected.
Values of motor vehicles are collected annually in the form of shipments from plants. Final figures for 1966 will, therefore, not be available for some time since the motor vehicle manufacturers are only beginning to submit their reports for 1966.
1965 final figures are:
Number	Value
Total motor vehicles
shipped	843,845	$1,919,969,000
Total passenger cars
shipped	705,620	$1,561,154,000


VISITS TO PROVINCES BY TRADE COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Deachman: Will trade commissioners making the centennial export promotion tour of Canada as announced recently by the Minister of Trade and Commerce visit all of the provinces?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The senior Canadian government trade commissioners participating in the program known as "Operation Export 1967" will visit the following eight major business centres over a period of seven weeks on the dates indicated: Montreal, April 17-21; Vancouver, April 25-28; Edmonton, May 1-2; Saskatoon, May 4-5; Winnipeg, May 8-10; Toronto, May 11-24; Halifax, May 29-30; Saint John, June 1-2.
Exporters in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island will be approached directly
Questions
and invited to meet trade commissioners of their choice in either Halifax, Nova Scotia or Saint John, New Brunswick.


INCOME FROM TOURISM
Mr. Isabelle: What was Canada's Income from tourism in 1966? [Translation]


Jean-Charles Cantin: Information on travel expenditures in Canada by non-residents is not available for the last quarter of 1966. However, during the four quarters ended September 30, 1966 these totalled $813 million.


TRADE FAIR EXHIBITS BY TRADE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Walker: How many trade fair exhibits will be organized by the Department of Trade and Commerce during the 1967-68 fiscal year and in what markets will Canadian products be displayed?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The Department of Trade and Commerce will sponsor exhibits in 48 trade fairs during the 1967-68 fiscal year. Canadian products will be displayed in the following markets:	Britain, Czechoslovakia, France,
Germany, Ireland, Italy, Peru, Spain, South Africa, The Netherlands, United States and Yugoslavia.


CLAIMS BY CANADIANS AGAINST POLISH GOVERNMENT
Mr. Langlois (Meganlic): 1.	What is the nature of claims made by Canadians against the Polish government, as a result of nationalizations?
2.	Since when have negotiations on this matter been carried on with the Polish government?
3.	What are the names of the Canadians involved in these claims?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The claims of Canadians against the Polish government which are registered with the Department of External Affairs are, generally speaking, in respect of property in Poland which was expropriated or otherwise taken without compensation by the Polish authorities after World War II. The claims arose out of the nationalization of

February 1, 1967
Questions
urban residential property, farmland, industries, and other property. According to a well-established principle of international law, the Canadian government advances those claims which belonged to Canadian citizens at the time of loss and continuously thereafter until the presentation of the claim to the Polish authorities.
2.	Within three years after the end of World War II, the Canadian government approached the Polish government with a view to reaching a settlement of nationalization claims of Canadian citizens. However, although this question was reviewed periodically, no basis for progress was found until 1965 when an understanding was reached whereby the Polish authorities agreed to enter into negotiations toward a lump-sum settlement of Canadian claims on the basis of principles similar to those applied in settlements which Poland has concluded with other countries. The Department of External Affairs issued a public announcement on September 1, 1965, inviting Canadians to submit their claims against Poland to this department before January 1, 1966. This deadline was subsequently extended to May 1, 1966. These claims are now being examined in the Department of External Affairs in preparation for negotiations with the Polish authorities. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, upon his return from an official visit to Poland among other countries, stated in the House on November 17, 1966, that "the Polish government is desirous of settling the long-standing matter of the claims of certain Canadians arising out of post-war nationalizations, and in the very near future we expect to enter into detailed negotiations to that end".
3.	The Department of External Affairs had on record, as of January 26, 1967, 562 claims against Poland. Some of these claims are not eligible for espousal by the Canadian government because the requirements of the rule of continuous nationality (see part 1) have not been met. In other cases, the claim may not be espousable because there is no evidence of loss or because the Polish government is not responsible in international law for the loss as, for example, where the loss occurred as a result of a general devaluation of the currency.
It is not usual practice to reveal the names of registered claimants prior to inter-govem-mental claims negotiations.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Latulippe: X. With regard to each proprietary corporation, who convenes the board of directors and how is this done?
2.	For each of the last three fiscal years, how many times has the board of directors of each proprietary corporation held a meeting and how many days does this represent?
3.	Does the Minister of Finance, the responsible minister, or the governor in council give instructions to proprietary corporations and, if so, what are those instructions?
4.	Who decides on the agenda for such meetings?
5.	Are there any internal regulations with regard to the operation of the board of directors of each proprietary corporation?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO LOUISBOURG, N.S.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Were any payments made by any department of the federal government or by any crown corporation to the town of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia, between January 1, 1960, and November 30, 1966?
2.	If so (a) on what dates were such payments made (b) what was the amount of each such payment (c) what was the purpose for which each payment was made?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for papers No. 202 is acceptable to the government.
Would Your Honour be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 200?
I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



C.B.C. PAYMENTS TO MESSRS SAYWELL AND RICKER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 200-Mr. Cowan:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents, dated since January 1, 1961, exchanged between the Secretary of State or any agency or department of the government of Canada relating to payments made to John T. Say well and/or John C. Ricker by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and a list setting out in detail each such payment to each such person.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is no correspondence between the Department of the
February 1, 1967

Secretary of State or any other agency or department of the government with respect to the matter in question, and I would therefore ask my hon. friend whether he would be prepared to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the matter be transferred for debate. I asked not only for the production of correspondence and telegrams but also for other documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



C.N.R. LEVEL CROSSING, METROPOLITAN TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 202-Mr. Sianbury:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Board of Transport Commissioners and any other organization, group or person, with reference to the level crossing of the Canadian National Railways line at Cummer avenue and Leslie street in the borough of North York in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him what is the government's policy in the face of action sponsored by the Students Council for Peace Action to assist the entry of United States draft dodgers into Canada. Is the government making immigration facilities available, are working permits to be granted, and is there any policy with regard to such people of military age seeking entry into Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the rules regarding the admission to Canada of United States citizens would apply in the normal way to men in this category. The fact that these people were draft dodgers would probably be unknown to the immigration officers in any case, and I am sure my hon. friend would not wish to do anything which would interfere with the maximum freedom of movement across the border.
It is very difficult to take action in individual cases but we would certainly not do anything to encourage admission to Canada of this category of United States citizens.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister say whether the government has been approached for any further assistance for the Student Council for Peace Action in addition to the grant that body was awarded last year from the Company of Young Canadians. What is the government's policy with regard to the activities of an organization which cannot but damage relations with the United States at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know of any assistance the government is giving to this particular organization. Certainly it is not an organization that should be assisted in this kind of activity.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Is
the Prime Minister ready to make any statement concerning the request made by the Canadian Quakers for financial assistance in aiding the victims of war in both North and South Viet Nam? He said the other day a request had been received.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I received a communication on this matter this morning. I would prefer to take notice of the question and look into it.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the information placed before the committee on justice concerning the thousands of defects in Canadian manufactured cars, some of which were of a serious nature, does the Prime Minister not think the time is long overdue for a national car safety code with adequate federal inspection? Is the government prepared to introduce such a measure in the near future?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I hope to be making a statement to the house judicial committee on this particular topic tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Having in mind the gap
which sometimes exists between reports of committees and legislative action, may I ask the Minister of Industry if the government has undertaken the preparation of such a car safety code, and if it intends to bring such legislation before the house?

February 1, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps after I have made my statement to the committee, Mr. Speaker, I could have some conversation with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to ascertain if he is adequately informed. It would take some time to explain the whole thing on orders of the day.



CEREALS-DISCUSSION AS TO ENTRY INTO EUROPEAN MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce related to the negotiations that will begin next week in Geneva respecting cereals and the Kennedy round of trade negotiations. I should like to ask him if Canada intends to ask for a discussion with respect to the price of cereals entering the European common market, and also if Canada is being made aware of the terms and conditions under which cereals will enter the common market.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In general I could cover the whole question by saying the answer is in the affirmative. This and other aspects are being discussed. Particularly, as I said before, we are advocating a higher price for cereals for Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to tell the house how much of an increase Canada is advocating in the maximum under the international wheat agreement.


Robert Henry Winters: I really do not believe it would be in the public interest to disclose that at this stage of the negotiations.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I wonder if the minister could advise us if the United States position in these negotiations has been known to the government, and if so what that position is.


Robert Henry Winters: I am not at liberty to say what the position is. The position of the United States is known to the negotiators. It developed after long weeks of discussion.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Can the minister advise the house whether it is true that Canada will be seeking a new maximum of $2.50 per bushel for wheat?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think I can add to what I have said on the matter of price.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
I would like to know whether the Canadian government has officially invited His Holiness Pope Paul VI to visit our country and the World Exhibition on the occasion of our centennial?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there have been questions previously of the government on this matter, and I can only repeat what has been said most recently by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the Papal Delegate has indicated to the government that His Holiness will not be in a position to make a visit to Canada or to North America during this year. This is the latest information we have on the subject.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has been approached by the government of Ontario with regard to assisting in its crash housing program which was announced in the legislature yesterday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister responsible for housing has been in touch with the Ontario representatives in connection with this matter, but I would prefer to have a word with him to see whether he can answer the question at greater length tomorrow.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister inform the house whether for the first time the federal government is going to take part in a plan to provide capital grants for the construction of senior citizens homes and homes for the aged?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss this matter with my colleague the Minister of Labour.
February 1, 1967



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. I would ask the minister whether, if he has not already done so, he will give this house an undertaking that he will make a definitive determination whether the C.P.R. intend to give effect in 1967 to its pledge to commence payment of municipal taxes in certain areas of western Canada.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I did give an undertaking during the debate that I would take up this matter with the Canadian Pacific Railway as soon as the bill had been dealt with by parliament, and I intend to keep my word.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question. Can the minister say whether the same answer would be applicable to the requests of the municipalities in the maritime provinces that C.N.R. properties in those provinces pay full municipal taxes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter for determination by the government.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to whom I have given notice. My question arises from a column in yesterday's Citizen on the subject of pollution. Mr. Dworkin, the Citizen's financial editor, points out that unlike Ontario, because of lack of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt-


John Maxwell Roxburgh: This is leading up to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: If you would let me ask it-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I would ask him to give me an opportunity of making my speech. I would point out to the hon. member, and indeed to all members, that according to the
Inquiries of the Ministry rules hon. members should not refer to articles, newspaper reports or telegrams in prefacing their questions. A question should be asked directly.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I will do that, Your Honour. I should like to ask the minister whether his department has done anything or is doing anything to correct pollution of the water of the Ottawa river, which is an interprovincial river, which pollution originates from the province of Quebec.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, an investigation in connection with the Ottawa river was conducted in recent years, but if my memory is good the investigation was not concerned with the problem of pollution in particular. However, I will put forward the hon. member's concern in future negotiations with Quebec regarding the matter of water.
I might add that we are now negotiating with Quebec on another water matter, and I will add this to the subject being discussed in the present conversations.



STEPS TO INCREASE EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the questions and answers yesterday with reference to the petroleum industry, is the Prime Minister now in a position to assure the house that the minister of trade or his officials are having serious discussions with the Department of the Interior in the United States of America in connection with increasing export targets for petroleum products, instead of having them cut back?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, discussions have been going on, and are continuing, between representatives of the Canadian government and officials of the United States government in connection with this matter.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the scene
12526	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry which was shown on last night's C.B.C. television news of members of the international control commission being rebuffed in their attempts to gain access to North Viet Nam via a bridge represent the "channel to the north" that the minister talks of when discussing Canada's role on the commission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my only reply to that question is that whenever the Canadian member on the commission wishes to go to Hanoi this access is extended to him at once. Mr. Moore was indeed there on January 6 for 11 days, and there will be another visit to Hanoi shortly.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of this most recent information that has been made available I wonder whether the minister would reconsider allowing Victor Moore when he returns to Canada to appear before the external affairs committee so the members of this committee can be informed of the viability of the I.C.C. at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have given consideration to this suggestion which the hon. member made in a question the other day. I do not think, in view of the nature of Mr. Moore's recent assignment, or that of his successor, that this would be a helpful way to reach the objective the Canadian government and the Canadian people have in mind.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why not?


Mr.   Mariin@Essex Easl: For the simple reason that there is too much public discussion about this matter. If we want to bring the war to an end I think it is time we showed more prudence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Churchill:: We thought it was Hellyer who was the dictator.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises out of his answer to the question put by the hon. member for Prince. Does the minister feel that the appearance of Mr. Moore before the external affairs committee, either in camera or otherwise, would be of no benefit to the members of the committee, and that their knowledge of external affairs and Canada's foreign relationships would be so primitive, as suggested by the Minister of

DEBATES	February 1, 1967
National Defence, that the experience would not add to this knowledge of foreign policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question is in order.


Mr.   Mariin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: If the house allows the minister to reply to the question. However, I suggest it is not a question but argument.


Mr.   Mariin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I can very well understand-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the minister has not unanimous agreement to reply to the alleged question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: The question was disallowed. There can not be a supplementary question.


PROPOSED TRIP BY PRIME MINISTER'S PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I am sure he will like to answer. I ask about the proposed world junket that his department is arranging for the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary. Is the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) being sent on a public expense tour because he prefers the Minister of National Defence to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as a future prime minister?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not accepted. It is not necessary for me to say that it is at least hypothetical.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I understand that the hon. member for Leeds will go on a world wide fact finding tour, visiting Britain and France to investigate trade problems. We realize that the minister needs assistance. Is this the type he desires?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I hope it will be allowed. Considering the great interest
February 1, 1967

shown by the house in the Far East, could the Prime Minister give some indication what topics will be discussed during that part of his parliamentary secretary's tour?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the scope and nature of the visit of my parliamentary secretary to the Far East has been greatly exaggerated in the press statement which I saw this morning. He was invited some time ago to visit Taiwan by the government of Taiwan and accepted that invitation with my approval because it was considered useful to have a Canadian government representative visit there. While in the Far East he will take advantage of the opportunity to visit two or three other countries in Asia and then he will return to Canada.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of press reports of certain discussions held in Nova Scotia. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether the government is now prepared to consider extending the area of operations of the proposed crown corporation in Nova Scotia to take over all possible operations, including steel plants in Nova Scotia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to add anything to what I said on this matter a week or so ago, when I replied to a similar question that it is not our intention at the present time to extend the field of operations of this corporation.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not the view of the government of Nova Scotia that this extension of the authority of the corporation should be made; and is it not advisable to do it now while negotiations with the province and DOSCO are under way?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is argumentative.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer the Prime Minister has just given to the hon. member for York South, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would look at the previous answer given
Inquiries of the Ministry to this question to see if there is not a clear indication in that answer that the government was considering taking over steel plants? All the Prime Minister needs to do is to check his own answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that can be read into my previous answer, which I will be glad to look into again.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question is actually one of privilege arising from the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. member for York South, his answer to my supplementary question, and the implication that something was being read into his answers that was not there. To substantiate my question of privilege with respect to the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member might raise his question of privilege when the question period has expired. I am afraid we might use up the time that is required by hon. members who want to ask questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South on a question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to bring to your attention arose from the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. member for York South, his answer to my supplementary question, and the implication that hon. members were reading something into his answers which was not there.
For the benefit of the house, and particularly for the benefit of the Prime Minister, I would direct attention to Hansard for January 12, 1967, at page 11692, second column, where my question to the Prime Minister was recorded as follows:
Would the right hon. gentleman consider the purchase of DOSCO as a unit in order to maintain the steel operation where it now is, rather than provide a springboard for the transfer to Quebec?
The Prime Minister's answer to me was:
This is a far reaching question involving government intervention in industry, and one which I certainly do not wish to answer on the orders of the day. It is too important to deal with in this way. There will be an opportunity to discuss this whole matter before long in connection with legislation, or even earlier. This will be one of the aspects of the question that will be considered.
The Prime Minister has referred to the fact that I have taken certain inferences from

February 1, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry answers given to me with respect to industrial problems in Cape Breton. I would respectfully ask him to review his own answer and to realize that this is a promise which he has already made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hardly expect the house would want me to rule on the question of privilege. I suggest to the hon. member that he is simply arguing the point. He disagrees with an interpretation made by another member of the house, and that is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on this same question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If hon. members want to undertake a full fledged debate on this question of privilege I will hear them, but I suggest with respect, to the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, that I have ruled there is no question of privilege. I suggest to him that we should not pursue this debate.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, there is no one I would rather listen to than yourself, because you grace your position with great honour and I should take your advice, but on this occasion I would like to assert my privileges in the house. Further to what the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said, on that same day I posed questions to the Prime Minister following questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Cape Breton South. In the right hon. gentleman's reply already referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South he said:
This is a far reaching question involving government intervention in-
And I would ask you to notice, Mr. Speaker, that he said at that time "in private industry."


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I did not say at that time "in private industry". I said "in industry".


Robert Muir: I heard what the right hon. gentleman said. Next day when it appeared in Hansard I mentioned it specifically to the house leader of our party and referred to the fact that "private" had been eliminated or deleted from the proceedings of Hansard. To verify

this further may I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that in my supplementary question to the Prime Minister I said:
I assume that when he previously mentioned taking over private industry, that pertained to the coal industry.
The reason I mentioned "private industry" was that I was reiterating what the right hon. gentleman had already said when he referred to private industry.
I might also add that when I mentioned this to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) he said "Keep your eye on it. Put a note in Hansard. It will certainly come up again, because it has been deleted." I would like to make that point because there appears to be a change. When we were referring to private industry I naturally assumed we were referring to the DOSCO steel industry in Sydney. Not only that, but the writer for the Halifax Chronicle-Herald assumed the same, and I am sure the right hon. gentleman and his colleague from Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) interpreted it in the same way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respect the hon. member as much as he respects me, but in spite of this I have to rule against his question of privilege.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of what has been said, Mr. Speaker, I assume you will give me an opportunity to reply. It should be made quite clear that in my reply to this question I said:
This is a far reaching question-
That is the question of DOSCO steel industry.
-involving government intervention in industry-


Robert Muir: "Private".


Lester Bowles Pearson: The word "private" does not appear.


Robert Muir: That is right; it does not appear now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -in industry, and one which I certainly do not wish to answer on the orders of the day .... There will be an opportunity to discuss this whole matter before long in connection with legislation-
Surely my hon. friend does not wish me to say to the house that there will be no opportunity to discuss this matter when something comes before the house in terms of legislation. That is what I had in mind, and the words make that quite clear.
February 1, 1967	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Malcolm MacInnis: Further on the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already spoken. He cannot speak twice on the same question.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The question of privilege in any event has been ruled out, but I will hear the hon. member's point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: My
point of order involves the reference just made by the Prime Minister to a question which was put to him in respect to the matter of DOSCO as a unit and the steel operation in particular, and the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a point of order. From the beginning it was my impression that there was no actual, justifiable question of privilege. Hon. members know what a question of privilege is. I am sure I do not need to quote the various precedents, chapter and verse. A question of privilege arises in respect of a very extreme matter such as a breach of the privileges and rights of hon. members in a very serious manner. To my mind there is no relationship whatsoever between a question of privilege and an argument in respect of the interpretation of a statement made in the house. I have ruled against both hon. members, and I do not think the subject matter should be pursued further. I suggest this, with great respect, to the hon. member.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I should like to call the attention of the Chair and the house to the fact that when the Prime Minister mentioned this problem he definitely eliminated the last sentence which provided the answer in respect of which I raised my point of order in the first place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Inquiries of the Ministry Has the minister recently met with the Quebec and Ontario authorities with regard to the Grand Canal project?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, but in his absence I direct it to the acting minister. Would the acting minister please advise the house whether he would consider making a grant to the provincial government of Newfound-land-Labrador to purchase food for "Moby Joe", an 80-ton finback whale now stranded off the coast of Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to give that question all the consideration its obvious importance merits.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my fishing expedition is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received a request from the provincial government of Nova Scotia for more assistance under the Health Resources Fund Act, passed during this session, for the Sir Charles Tupper medical building in Halifax. If so, what action will be taken to meet this reasonable request?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be on the order paper.


NATURAL RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the announcement by Hon. Donald Brothers, minister of mines for British Columbia, that the provincial cabinet had approved an order reserving the continental shelf rights for the

February 1, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry crown, and considering that the constitutional question of the ownership of the continental shelf has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision, has the Prime Minister any comment to make with respect to this unusual announcement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on a matter now before the Supreme Court of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I correctly informed that Hon. Donald Brothers agreed with some of the Prime Minister's colleagues, when he was in Ottawa conferring about this question, that the proper way to deal with it was to refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as this question involves the attitude of a member of a provincial government, I had better check the record.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norlh):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice know when the decision of the Supreme Court in this matter may be expected?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have no information, Mr. Speaker. We hope that the decision will be produced with the least possible delay as it is important to clear the legal aspect of the matter.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saini John-Alberi):: My question is supplementary to the matter of offshore mineral rights. Has the government received communications from the premier of New Brunswick on this matter. Would the Prime Minister check into this, and if communications have been received will he table the letters?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of any communication of that kind from the premier, but one may have come and I shall look into it.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the failure of the Minister of Agriculture to send statements with payments to dairy producers?

What action will the Prime Minister take to correct this situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know of no failure on the part of the Minister of Agriculture.


Edward Nasserden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister will take the trouble to inquire he will not have difficulty discovering that statements have not been sent with these payments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I believe there is considerable urgency, as I understand that Abbey House, a building adjacent to the Houses of Parliament in London, is about to be demolished. It was in a conference room in Abbey House that the terms of the British North America Act were drawn up. The room is marked by a plaque to commemorate this event. I am sure the house would like to know what the government intends to do to preserve this plaque.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the house may be apprised of what the government wants to do by way of the order paper.


CANADIAN CONFEDERATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
The premier of Quebec, Mr. Daniel Johnson, following the premier of Ontario, said yesterday at a press conference in Quebec city how pleased he would be to take part this year in a conference on the constitution. Would the Prime Minister agree to change his attitude and take right now the initiative in calling such a national conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I should wait for the prime minister of Ontario to reply to my communication before making further statements on this.
February 1, 1967


INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING OF BY-ELECTIONS On the orders of the day:


Mr.   R.-E. Regimbal@Argenteuil-Deux-Monlagnes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Since it would be advisable that all ridings be represented in the House of Commons during centennial year, could the Prime Minister tell us if a date has been set for by-elections in the ridings of Hull and Sudbury and, if so, when it will be announced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I share my hon. friend's interest in this date. It will be announced before long.


PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEES FOR OVERTIME AND LOST HOLIDAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: My
question is directed to the government house leader. Can he tell this house why the loyal and efficient employees of parliament did not receive payment in January for lost holiday time and overtime, some of which goes back to 1964? The employees were under the impression that such payment had been agreed to by those responsible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question cannot be asked now. It is the type of question which should be directed to the Chair in writing.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I understood-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There can be no discussion on the point.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance and it is based on a news report in today's Ottawa Citizen.


An hon. Member:: You cannot. Order.


Colin Cameron: I can base it on a report; I will not quote it. The report appears to show that the minister is negotiating with the Mercantile Bank of Canada to arrange a special provision for that bank not applicable to other
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian banks. I ask the minister if the government is considering giving a special privilege to the Mercantile Bank, or the National City Bank of New York, with regard to permitted foreign shareholdings in a Canadian bank.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. Perhaps I should add that, as the newspapers reported, I did meet with representatives of the Mercantile Bank yesterday, but they made no proposals to me and I made none to them. The situation was not advanced at all by the meeting we held.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I wish to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I apologize for not giving him prior notice. Perhaps he will take this as notice and give an answer within the next day or two. Would the minister bring the house up to date on the Pembina river development project that affects important agricultural areas of North Dakota and Manitoba and is presently being considered by the International Joint Commission?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secreiary of Stats for External Affairs: As the hon. gentleman has suggested, Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to Hon. James Ilsley, who passed away just a short while ago, will the Prime Minister advise the house on his current thinking with respect to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and the filling of the office of chief justice of that province?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it would take far too long to express my current thinking on this matter on orders of the day, but we hope to make a statement soon on this important post.
February 1, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment DIVORCE



APPEARANCE OF PROVINCE OF ONTARIO BEFORE JOINT COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. member for High Park who is the chairman of the joint committee on divorce. Has the province of Ontario made any application to appear before the joint committee on divorce which is now hearing the views of different groups.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Not to
my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hellyer for the second reading of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in my closing remarks last night I had begun to refer to the economy which is supposed to be effected by the unification of the armed forces. The minister and his propaganda team have attempted to leave the impression that there will be a saving in respect of defence. In this regard they have made many references to the white paper of 1964. I challenge any member on the government side of the house to show me where in the white paper of 1964, there is any reference to savings for the Canadian taxpayer in respect of defence spending. This is only a further indication of what the minister's propaganda team is doing.
I should like to quote in part from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press under the heading "False Economy":
This pattern of local unit identification, developed by the early settlers all across Canada to guard their homes, has been a mainstay of Canadian defence services all through the years. Due to our vast geography, local regimental identification has been a more important factor in Canada than perhaps any other country.
In the past week a series of three articles on this page outlined two major errors in the government's current plan to integrate the three defence services completely. It is considered by many qualified observers that by sacrificing regimental spirit and identification Canada will lose far more than she can gain in dollar economies or efficiency by forcing integration down to the level of combat units, either army, navy or air force.

As indicated in the earlier articles, England, although adopting a degree of integration, after a serious study of the factors has stated that regimental identification of combat units will be preserved as an absolute essential to morale.
Yesterday I referred to the fact that we now have a propaganda team working under the minister. This is a most shameful occurrence in a country such as Canada. Is it any wonder that the C.B.C. disregarded the representations made in parliament by the representatives of the Canadian people and televised an interview with von Thadden of Germany, when here Canada under this Minister of National Defence a propaganda team, has been established, something which belongs only under a dictatorship? As I indicated, these gentlemen who have appeared in the gallery recently and have passed notes back and forth feeding to the press propaganda which the minister himself cannot get across should be ashamed of the fact that they are on such a team. If they have any pride they should retire or resign immediately. They are as guilty as the minister. They are participating in something originated by this minister which we should not have to put up with. Again I say, is it any wonder that the C.B.C. would defy authority and do business with a neo-Nazi?
On the matter of unification the minister and his propaganda team are directing their propaganda to one segment of the economy. The minister says that the veterans and serving officers and men of the Canadian armed forces do not mean a thing. They are directing their propaganda to an age group which has never had any personal involvement or experience with the armed forces of this country. They say this is where the voters are and that these are the people whom they have to convince.
I ask the minister, where is the support for unification in his own party? I have yet to hear one member of the government defend the policy of unification. In fact during all the time I have been present in the house I do not recall an occasion when even a member of the Liberal defence committee has risen to defend it. Why are they not taking part in this debate? Why are they not supporting the minister? It must be because they do not believe in unification. If they did, that would be all the more reason for them to stand up and say so. By their silence it is very obvious that they cannot find in themselves any desire to get up to speak out on behalf of the minister and his policy in respect of unification. Not one member of the defence committee
February 1, 1967

from the Liberal side of the house has taken the opportunity during this defence debate to stand up and support the minister's approach. I said "the minister's approach". I must apologize; that is all wrong. The propaganda team has sold the minister on this policy. In fact I think they did a snow job on the minister. They have convinced him that they are doing the right thing and he has swallowed it. So far as I can see he is the Charlie McCarthy end of the Bergen-McCarthy team.
There is no doubt that Mr. Lee has been brought in as the team manager. He has taken over; he is the puppeteer and the minister and his colleagues are dancing to his tune. He is pulling every string. When members of the defence staff have something they want to direct to the minister's attention they have to know how they stand with Lee before they do anything because he is the man who is directing Canadian defence. Mr. Lee and his cohorts are a great bunch of note passers. I will not go into that further but will leave it there. Mr. Lee is the man who is directing everything that goes on. Perhaps there may be some competition from those involved in private industry who may be looking to him as a public relations man. What he has done to the defence minister is absolutely astounding. When we examine what we have as a defence minister we will realize just how far Mr. Lee has taken him.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Among the ideas they have sold the Canadian people is the one that Canada is leading the way in unification and that this defence policy will be copied by every other nation in the world. That is a downright lie. We have had indications from the British people that unification is impossible and they want no part of it. They have maintained that regimental identification of combat units must be preserved as an essential of morale. That is the approach of the British. The United States has also turned thumbs down on this idea and wants no part of it. New Zealand examined it and wants no part of it.
One British expert, in commenting on unification of the services in Canada, summed up the situation very nicely when he said that Canada cannot afford Hellyer's economies. That statement was made by a leading British authority who suggested, in spite of the minister's claims that it would effect a saving for the country, that Canada could not afford that kind of economy.
Let me again direct the minister's attention to the propaganda squad that has been
National Defence Act Amendment brought to the House of Commons. I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail today, and again this is recommended reading for the minister. Under the heading "A contempt for Parliament" it is stated:
For a government that considers unification of the armed forces so important as to rate second-to-top priority on this session's legislative list, and for an opposition that considers the unification legislation so terrible as to gird for a last-ditch fight to defeat it, both sides of the house were acting blase this week. When the debate was at its height on Monday, there were only 25 MPs in the commons, five Tories, 13 Liberals, five New Democrats, one Socred and one Creditiste.
The fact that nobody else seemed much interested did not, however, justify Defence Minister Paul Hellyer in his behaviour, or in the tactics he permitted to be introduced into the house.
The minister sat for the most part silent and inattentive, giving the impression that he was not even listening, only rarely rising to meet a point. But up in an official's gallery of the house the minister's executive assistant, William Lee, and a small army of other defence department supernumeraries met every attack of the opposition with a rain of pamphlets, copies of speeches, information sheets and whispered points directed at members of the press gallery.
This is an indication of the contempt that the minister has shown for parliament. The approach he has taken in this regard can be likened to a springboard from which he has launched a propaganda machine. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and other members of the cabinet should take a good look at this approach and put a stop to it immediately. The minister has gone too far in his contempt of parliament.


An hon. Member:: It is like the truth squad.


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes, this seems to be a followup of the truth squad. The minister should remember what happened to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) as a result of her association with that group.
The minister may sit in his place in silence if he wishes, but I suggest that is a contemptible approach to his responsibility to this country. It is a contempt of parliament on the part of this so-called Christian gentleman. If that is the attitude adopted by members of the government it is no wonder that representations made to the C.B.C. were ignored and that the interview with a neo-nazi was carried on television.
February 1, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
Let me make further reference to this editorial in respect of the minister's contempt of parliament:
What Mr. Hellyer disdained to answer on the floor of the house his faithful assistants, that army of the non-elected, made certain reached, in its most favourable form, the ears of the press.
It was a performance that showed contempt for the practices and principles of parliament, and one that would not have been permitted to continue five minutes in Westminster. The Mother of Parliaments belongs to the elected representatives of the people, and oppositions attack and ministers answer on the floor of the house. All others are present on suffrance, and the minister cannot catch 40 winks while his flunkies by-pass the other half of parliament to take the word direct to the news media.
Mr. Hellyer may be an exceedingly efficient administrator-
I disagree completely with that opinion. The editorial continues:
-but the more one sees of his attitude toward parliament, of what can only be described as his arrogance toward parliament, the more one must question his aspirations to lead his party.
To that I would add, amen. The minister has continually disregarded questions posed to him in respect of defence matters and he refers to anyone who does not go along with the information passed on to him by Mr. Lee, which he uses as his own, as archaic. What else can one expect from a McCarthy-Bergen team? The minister should take a leaf from the page of his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), who stands up in this house and presents prepared answers to questions he has been asked. All the questions we have directed to the Minister of National Defence have been ignored, and I am quite sure that unless they were brought directly to the attention of Mr. Lee he would not understand them.
Not too long ago I directed a question to the minister, and I was not being facetious, but in spite of the fact he has had weeks to look into the matter he has yet to provide me with any answer. We have already had an example today of an answer that was incomplete but at least the department concerned gave some answer. The answer to the question I asked might well have been of some advantage to the Liberal party. It was my understanding that experiments were being carried out in respect of providing packaged dinners to service personnel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether the subject matter of the hon. member's comments at this time have any reference to the second reading of the bill before the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I think any matter concerning defence is relevant. The subject of rations is a vital consideration in the matter of unification because without proper rations we will not have any forces to unify. I remember an old saying to the effect that an army travels on its stomach. That is as applicable today as it was 200 years ago and it is applicable not only to armed forces but to all of us. I venture to suggest that members of parliament would not care to go upstairs and be served packaged dinners. Our armed forces personnel do not deserve that kind of treatment.
0	(3:50 p.m.)
The Department of National Defence apparently has been experimenting with packaged dinners, T.V. dinners as they are commonly called, as a method of feeding our armed forces. If that is so and that type of ration is to be adopted, I am sure some packager will receive a lucrative contract. No doubt that kind of patronage will be handed out by the Liberals in the usual way. This would no doubt have a great bearing on whether the experiment would be carried out.
1	have yet to receive a denial from the minister or an answer of any kind to that question. I received this information from a source I have no reason to question. As far as I am concerned, until I receive a definite no on this matter I believe the Minister of National Defence is again taking a very precarious step and one that will lead to nothing but augmenting the coffers of the Liberal party by way of lucrative contracts.
I have also asked the minister a question in respect of another matter. I have asked him to provide me with a proper answer and again he has failed to do so. I interpret his silence as meaning that if both these questions were looked into the allegations I have made would be borne out. The second one involves an incident that took place at Camp Gagetown where a number of army servicemen were paraded, if you please, before a senior R.C.A.F. officer to be told about promotions. It is my understanding that when these young men were paraded it was indicated to them that promotion would be available to them if-and here was the condition-they would leave their families behind when their units went overseas. I will allow a little time to the minister for that matter to sink in.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should not give the minister too much time because his time is just about up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
February 1, 1967	COMMONS


Malcolm MacInnis: Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. It has registered now, and I am quite sure that somebody in the gallery has taken note of it. I ask the minister to consider this army procedure of giving promotions only if members of the armed forces will leave their families behind when their units go to Germany. This is an approach one would expect from nobody else but the Minister of National Defence, because anybody with any experience or knowledge of the services realizes that it is a most detrimental and degrading step. But, then again, it was introduced by the Minister of National Defence.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall start with a stock phrase: another day, another speech.
At the outset of my remarks, I thought of pointing out that since the beginning of this debate on the unification of the armed forces most speakers have noticeably dealt with the subject with much restraint and objectivity and that everyone has put forward ideas that I find, constructive even though I do not approve them all. I am taking the liberty just the same, in spite of fairly recent events, of passing this remark and congratulating the members of the opposition on their participation in this debate.
On the other hand, I must attempt, in a general way, to restate the theory they have set forth. It seems to me that most Conservative members feel they are in favour of a status quo, that is, they accept and even endorse integration, but they wish to stop its progress at this point. I think my friends opposite will find that I am explaining their thinking correctly in saying that.
They are in favour of the status quo. Consequently, the status quo means that they are for integration, but against unification.
On this side of the house, we claim that integration and unification are simply different stages of the same operation. We advance from integration to unification, which is a logical consequence of integration. This attitude could naturally be expressed by a joke which has been made on the subject and, with all due respect for my hon. friends opposite, I should like to recall it. On the basis of comparison, it was said that they are in favour of conception, but against motherhood. Yet, one follows the other. It seems to me, in any case, that some things are being overlooked in all this quesbon of integration and unification of 23033-793
National Defence Act Amendment the forces, when the status quo or even, in some cases, backtracking in being urged. My esteemed friend for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) waxed nostalgic, the other night, over the three former services. I cannot blame him, but I noted that he was nostalgic over the services at a time when all of them were divided and operated separately, except on occasion, when they might come together, and I said to myself: We are no longer involved in ntegration, we are backtrack ng.
There is nevertheless a fact that must be taken into account, Mr. Speaker. It is that the government has some responsibilities. Everything is changing these days, and it certainly is not the time, in an area as significant and mportant as national defence, to ask the government to advance in every area except in the area of defence. And among the various responsibilities of government, one of them is to ensure that Canada continues along the road to Deace and prosperity. Any nation, large or small, cannot negate the vital task of keeping abreast of the progression of new ideas.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Indeed, the government would be shirking its responsibilities to the nation and to the people if it did not incorporate new ideas and new ventures which generally can provide our citizens with a better life and better opportunities.
In the field of defence, this government seemingly is providing a force structure which will enable Canada to maintain its sovereignty, which is of course the first objective, and at the same time to make its contribution toward the maintenance of international peace and the deterrence of war. In so doing, we in government would be neglecting our responsibilities to the nation if we did not ensure that the very large portion of money allotted to defence will be spent in a manner which will give our forces the proper equipment they require to support our national and international objectives.
I am convinced we can do this and at the same time generate savings. I feel that the government is more than living up to its responsibilities, to its mandate, in this regard.
As we look at the world we live in, we find ourselves in an era of advanced technology where the armed forces of countries both large and small, possess greater fire power than ever before. We find ourselves in a world whereby fire power has increased so much that we in turn must increase the protection for our troops in the field. We find
February 1, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment ourselves in a mechanized world of armoured personnel carriers, ships that can wash themselves of nuclear fall-out, and self-propelled howitzers which carry their own armoured protection.
We live also in a world of instant communication, of orbiting satellites, tactical communications and radio facilities which can reach any part of the world almost instantly. Thus we live in a world of mobility where long-range heavy transports can fly troops and equipment to the most remote parts of the world at a moment's notice; where helicopters can carry troops to the front lines of battle; where very short take-off tactical fighters and transports have all become part of the armed forces inventory.
Realizing this, it is obvious that no country can be insular. No country can stand alone in the world and say-we are not a part of the international community or we are not affected by the events of the world. And because of all these things, it is clear that each brush fire war which now occurs, has the inherent, potential danger of escalating to an international conflagation. Every armed dispute between any nations must be viewed as one which has a potential danger of disrupting international stability, thereby endangering national security.
We are all aware of these dangers and we are also aware that even the large stable alliances such as NATO must be designed, not only toward stopping a major assault, but also toward stopping minor conflagrations which may break out on any flank. Recognizing this, Canada undertook to provide to the Supreme Commander of NATO, a 1000 man force to the ACE Mobile Force in Europe. It is in this sort of contribution that Canada recognizes her international responsibilities and fulfils her desire and her intention toward maintaining international stability and the deterrence of war.
With these responsibilities in mind, there are a number of options that were available to Canada in the early '60s. We could, for example, contribute all our forces toward the maintenance of peace by placing our forces under the United Nations. As someone has said

"We could put all our eggs in the peacekeeping basket."
The second option open to us was to commit all our forces to the deterrence of war by making additional contributions to NATO and to NORAD and by building up our nuclear capability beyond all reasonable and even logical requirements.


The third option was to keep only enough forces that we would require to maintain our national sovereignty.
Let us examine these three options. If we committed all our forces to the United Nations, then it seems to me we would have to depend upon the United Nations to maintain our national sovereignty, but since the United Nations has neither the military structure nor the forces currently available to undertake such a task, we would be neglecting our responsibilities to the nation and our role which is precisely to maintain national sovereignty.
If we committed all our forces to the deterrence of war in such organizations as NATO and NORAD, we would be neglecting our international responsibilities to the United Nations by not having the forces available for United Nations peacekeeping and peace-restoring actions.
If we undertook the third option of only keeping forces to maintain our national sovereignty, we would place ourselves in an impossible insular position and we would not be living up to our international responsibilities. To put it in very frank terms, we would be saying-"I'm alright Jack, and the rest of the world be damned". That would not be living up to our international responsibilities in the family of nations.
Thus we come to a fourth option. This is the option we have taken. This is the option which permits us to create a proper mix of forces which can be used to contribute to international peacekeeping, which can be used to contribute to the deterrence of war and which can be used to maintain our national sovereignty. This, to me, is the only logical option available to a country of our size, with our population and with our resources. With due respect to those who would suggest that we should take one of the other options, I would simply say that I do not think that the greatest number of Canadians would agree with you.
The Canadian choice of the option that I have just described has been taken because we possess the advanced technology required by our forces to engage in the deterrence of war. The Canadian choice has been taken because we have the resources and the manpower which permit us to accept this proper mix of forces. The Canadian choice for this option has been taken because we are able to produce or procure the necessary equipment for our forces to participate in these various types of conflict.
February 1, 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Above all, however, the Canadian choice of these options has been taken because as good neighbours to all nations, we wish to make our contribution to international stability. For all these reasons, we firmly believe that our choice of these options is not only the right choice but the only choice. I think that Canadians have a sense of pride in the members of our armed forces who are doing their job in NATO, NORAD, in the United Nations and in every part of the world where Canadians are making a contribution to international peace and to the deterrence of war.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of discussion by members of the opposition regarding our force structure. From what I can gather, and they expressed opinions which in some cases are contradictory, I understand they would have us create a separate force for UN duties; another force for NATO; yet another force to maintain national sovereignty and possibly another force to keep at home for riots, insurrections or what have you. This would be simple, but, I submit, very, very expensive. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it would be a waste of manpower and money.
What we have done and, what I suggest the members of the opposition conveniently ignored, is to create a functional command structure which permits us the flexibility to assign portions of one force to these commitments as the conditions and occasions require. This, in my opinion, is making the maximum effective use of our manpower, equipment and financial resources.
Look at it this way. We have made our choice of options. This choice includes contribution to the deterrence of war; the maintenance of peace, the continuance of national sovereignty and aid to the civil government for internal stability. In all the range of possibilities, there is only one case which comes to mind in which our force structure could not possibly operate. That case would have to include an outbreak of major war in Europe plus many UN peacekeeping operations in separate parts of the world, plus a direct enemy land/sea and air attack on Canada and finally insurrections in all the major Canadian centres. This is what the opposition wants us to prepare for, but I submit in such a case, Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if any force structure we created would withstand the test. In fact what I am describing is total world anarchy-something which none of us realistically expect to happen.
On the other hand, it would be incomprehensible to have forces which are only 23033-793J
National Defence Act Amendment trained and equipped to fight a nuclear war committed to UN peace restoring action or to restore civil order elsewhere. Now, I admit that there are the two extremes, but between these extremes we are committed to provide a force, or portions of a force, depending on the requirements.
This is the crux of the problem. From a single force containing land, sea and air elements, we must be in a position where we can detach the required portions necessary to fulfil a particular commitment. If the particular commitment requires a combination of land and sea elements, or land and tactical air elements, or just a land element we can provide this portion by detaching from the single force the strength and type of force required.
We can apply various combinations of this force at home and abroad as the case may warrant. It may be to stop an enemy lodgement on our shores; it may be to assist in UN peace restoring action; it may be to further assist NATO or it may be a combination of these tasks. The point remains, however, that with this type of structure we know what our force is, what it can do, how it can be supported and most important of all, we can give it the required flexibility to meet these changing commitments.
Now, some people have advanced the argument that all this can be done while retaining the three separate services. I suggest to them, however, that it is both dangerous and expensive to retain the separate services. It is dangerous because we have already experienced some of the bitterness of inter-service rivalries. We have seen previous cases where one service will press for particular equipment it feels it must have to carry out a specific function without relating that specific function to over-all defence objectives. We have seen previous cases where a particular service refuses to alter its equipment so that it can carry dual instead of a single function. We have seen previous cases where the purchase of military equipment by the services was made before government policy had been decided on the use of such equipment. In other words-and to this I think we can all agree-there have been times in past years where the three services have procured some types of equipment for themselves without any reference to the needs and requirements of the other services.
In so far as expenditures are concerned, I think that the expense required to maintain the three separate services is both unnecessary and unwarranted. I do not intend to list
12538	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment all the areas of duplication and triplication necessary to maintain three separate services. They are well known to all members of this house, but here are some examples:
1.	Separate and distinct uniforms.
2.	Separate personnel policies and the duplication of manpower required to support these policies.
3.	Duplication in areas of common training.
4.	Duplication of the communications systems.
5.	Different logistics systems.
I realize that the retention of the separate service identity is an emotional concern but in this emotionalism there are a number of illogical suggestions. To be perfectly frank, I am not concerned whether the Chief of Defence Staff is navy, army or air force. What I am concerned about is that we have the best Chief of Defence Staff available no matter what his previous service may have been.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: In a similar
view, I want the Canadian Armed Forces to be able to pick the best man for every position despite the confines of his previous service. Only by removing the limits imposed by the three separate service concept can we make the maximum effective use of our manpower resources.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, having examined what the new force structure is capable of doing I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the equipment that these forces will be provided with in the early '70s. It has been suggested that we will have nothing but a peace-keeping force. Look at the $1.5 billion five-year program for re-equipping our forces:
Two more operational support ships which materially increase the effectiveness of our surface fleet; seven Restigouche class destroyers to be fitted with new submarine detection equipment and the ASROC anti-submarine weapon system; approximately 1000 armoured personnel carriers, command post vehicles, cargo vehicles and anti-personnel machine guns; self propelled 155 mm. howitzers for the brigade in Europe; antitank guided missile equipment; medium anti-tank weapons to replace present weapons in the field forces; a quadrapartite 81mm mortar having greater accuracy and lethality for infantry battalions. These are just some of the equipment purchases we are making.

DEBATES	February 1, 1967
Mr. Speaker, the equipment we are procuring combined with the force structure we have created gives us a capability to undertake a variety of tasks anywhere in the world. In cases where we can use our forces for different circumstances, we have insured that our troops will have the proper equipment and fire power to carry out their commitment.
Where we can employ our equipment for different purposes we have built in a dual capability. Thus, for example, our new operational support ships can not only provision the fleet at sea but carry heavy equipment and stores required to support our land forces wherever they may be assigned.
Our CF-104s, previously limited to a nuclear strike role, now have the dual capability of nuclear and conventional strikes. These are but two examples. There are more, for example, our CF-5 aircraft can be used for ground support but also have the ability to intercept and engage in air-to-air combat.
I am therefore convinced, Mr. Speaker, that our forces have been correctly structured to meet the needs and requirements posed by the events we face today and those we foresee in the early '70s.
In a similar vein, I am convinced that our forces are receiving the right equipment to carry out the defence policies of this nation.
Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I mentioned unification and I heard again and again in this debate the question "What is meant by unification?" Here is what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) said about unification, and I quote:
"Integration-to-unification is a series of interlocking steps designed to provide Canada the best military course possible to meet our international obligations for a reasonable expenditure. It is quite difficult to determine any clean break between them because there was never intended to be one. Integration is actually the first phase of the total process of unification. Whatever special meaning the word may carry in any given context, in practical terms the process of integration can be but a means to an end and not an end in itself."
Or here is what Lt. General Moncel said about integration and unification:
"I must stress, however, that we must not allow integration to become our whipping boy. Far from being the cause of our troubles it is their best cure. In the final analysis, perhaps integration is the wrong word altogether and it is unification of which we should speak-one force with many facets operating at the will of our commands in the fulfilment of our nations defence policy.
I think there can be no mistake that integration and unification are well known and
February 1, 1967

that those who are particularly charged with operating a unified force know full well the terms and meaning of unification.
Coupled with the question about unification is the charge that we are creating a hybrid force. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how it can be made more clear than the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) made it when he stated on second reading:
One general principle should be underlined again -the combat units will retain their identity and their specialized functions and training. It is important to state that it is not and never has been any part of the planning associated with unification to convert our servicemen to "jacks of all trades". An infantry soldier will not be asked to do the job of a sailor in a fighting ship; a sailor will not be asked to fight in an infantry platoon: and a fighter pilot will not be required to drive a tank.
And Gen. Moncel stated:
There is however, one last point which I would like to make. It is that we shall retain sea, land and air units and formations, each with its own environmental expertise and professionalism, for exactly as long as our defence policy requires. In my estimation, this is likely to be for as long as human beings are inclined to quarrel with each other on the sea, on the land and in the air.
It is clear to me that the creation of one unified force, with land, sea and air elements is not the same as three separate forces, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force each with their own training, logistics, equipment and specialized tasks trying to co-operate on the same tactical problem. Three armed services trying to co-operate does not fulfil the criteria outlined by Gen. Moncel, and I repeat:
One force with many facets operating at the will of our command in the fulfilment of our nation's defence policy.
Now another charge levelled by members opposite is that in this process of integration and unification there have been no savings. I would refer hon. members to an answer tabled in the house on October 19, 1966 in reply to this varied question. First, let me read in some detail some parts of the reply to that question:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It is not possible to relate specific details in terms of dollars to a particular fiscal year due to the time lapse involved for the necessary reorganization subsequent to actual decisions being taken. Savings already achieved through the integration of headquarters and services since July 1964:
Headquarters-a reduction of 26% in staff; Training-a reduction of 13% in staff; Recruiting-a reduction of 33% in staff; Information Services-a reduction of 60% in staff; Construction Engineering -a reduction of 45% in staff; Cataloguing Section Materiel Command-a reduction of 26% in staff; Canadian Staff London-a reduction of 44% in staff;
National Defence Act Amendment
Canadian Staff Washington-a reduction of 34% in staff.
Despite increased costs of materials, supplies and services generally actually expenditures for 196566 compared to 1964-65 show a net saving of $12 million.
To be perfectly fair, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not also bring to the attention of the house an additional part of the answer where it is stated.
It is forecast that additional savings due to integration in 1986-67 will not be sufficient to compensate entirely for continuing increased costs including the general military pay increase effective 1 October 1966.
But in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I think all members will realize that the armed forces like the civilian economy, is suffering from the increase of costs found in any booming economy.
Next, I want to deal with the rumours that we are closing out bases. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) raised this point on Monday night and I know that there is great concern in this area and other areas of the country. We have replied to this question, but I would like to bring our reply to the notice of hon. members and to the citizens of the country who are directly affected. We answered as follows:
As was stated in the White Paper 1964, the aim of the reorganization of the Canadian Forces is the achievement of increased efficiency and economy based upon the overall national interest. The proper positioning and grouping of activities and forces, and their amalgamation where practical, is now under study, and it is anticipated that this study will extend over a considerable time. In any event no major bases, including Rivers, will be closed out during 1967. Of course, this does not preclude the possibility of moving units or activities from one base to another. If. and when a decision is taken to close out a specific base the maximum possible advance information will be provided to those who are directly affected.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am firmly convinced that we are upholding our governmental responsibility to our armed forces and to the citizens of our country, when dealing with unification.
The force structure that has been created, the projected operational course of deployment planned for the early '70s plus the equipment we are purchasing through our five year $1.5 billion procurement program will enable our armed forces to carry out their duties and responsibilities in support of our national policy.
I am not convinced that we have in any way been secretive about our plans and projections. Canadians have never been more
February 1, 1987

National Defence Act Amendment aware of our plans concerning our defence policy than they are today. Some people charged that Canadians do not care about defence any more-that it is a dead issue- I do not believe that at all. I believe that Canadians have real knowledge of our defence policy and are secure in the knowledge that what we are doing in the field of defence is good for them and in the best interests of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a discussions of the principle of unification. I believe the Canadian Armed Forces are anxious to carry out the task of unification.
We are not engaged in the process of destroying the old organization. We are on the threshold of developing a unified force which is the best type of force to carry out our defence policy. It may not be the best way for all countries. I do not know about that. But I am confident that it is the best type of force for Canada and fully in keeping with our desire to deter war and maintain international peace and stability.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with quite a bit of what the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) has said. I have a high regard for the associate minister and for the capable way he has carried out his duties.


Mr. Hellyer:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: I regret that the time has long passed, if it ever existed, when I could say the same about the minister.
I agree with the associate minister that this question is important, and I hope he is correct when he expresses the opinion that Canadians generally have a vital interest in it. I should like to see some evidence of that. If it is so, I am delighted. It is important from many points of view, not only because of cost. In this fiscal year we are spending something like $1,575 million on defence. For a country such as Canada with its small population this means an expenditure of something like $75 to $80 for every man, woman and child.
But unification is vitally important from other points of view. It is important not only because of the cost of our defence effort and what we get for our defence dollars but also vitally important because in our course of action we are taking a virtually irreversible step in doing away with the defence set-up that has served us well over the years and substituting another one for it. No matter how unsuitable it may prove to be for Canada

it will be almost impossible effectively to unscramble the situation and get us back to the position we are now in or something like it, regardless of how desirable returning to this situation may be.
I do not want to refer at great length to the associate minister's speech. He talked about things which are true and valid, the desirability of equipping our forces with modern equipment that is versatile, and that sort of thing. That does not necessarily imply that unification, as this bill before us would have it, is necessary to achieve these other desirable ends. In a number of instances the associate minister's reasoning was perfectly correct and valid but in some instances he started with false premises. Naturally, though his reasoning process was correct, he ended with wrong conclusions. He said that this is a time of change, that we have to be adaptable. Nothing could be truer. It does not follow that because you change you make progress. Progress is not automatic. Though you have to change to progress, it does not always follow that by changing you always progress.
When the debate began on this stage of the bill in December the minister spoke for an hour and three quarters. I read his speech carefully. It contains scarcely a statement which cannot be validly challenged. Last evening I saw some remarks reportedly made by the retiring president of the Canadian National, Mr. Donald Gordon. They describe Canada's difficulty at the present time. Mr. Gordon said, "It aint the things you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's the things you know for sure what aint so." In my judgment that is the difficulty with the minister. No matter what authority is quoted, no matter what facts are put forward he simply dismisses them by saying they aint so.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We could benefit by examining the experience of other countries in this important matter. Having one armed force instead of three is not a new idea. There is nothing new under the sun. Probably dozens of countries have thought of it but in every case have discarded it. In July, 1963, Great Britain produced a white paper entitled "Central Organization for Defence" which in part said:
The object is to improve the central control of defence policy without impairing the efficiency and morale of the fighting services. Their separate identities will be preserved.
The services must preserve their separate identities. In action they are increasingly interdependent. This interdependence must be expected to increase. Nevertheless all experience shows that the fighting spirit of the individual man in battle derives
February 1, 1967	COMMONS
largely from his loyalty to his ship, his unit, or his squadron. The traditions and battle honours of the individual services are a vital factor in morale and fighting efficiency. This must be preserved.
What has been the experience in the United States? Up to quite recent times, until the end of world war II, the United States had only-two departments, a department of the army and a department of the navy. There was also the United States army air corps which in world war II was a very powerful and decisive force but it was not a separate armed service in the sense that we are speaking of now. After world war II the United States examined the whole problem of the administration of its armed forces. The joint chiefs of staff appointed a committee of outstanding army and navy officers in May, 1944, to examine thoroughly three basic systems of defence organization: (1) two departments-war and navy; (2) three departments-war, navy and air; (3) one department-defence. In this connection I quote from a history of the United States air force by Alfred Goldberg, and I should like to emphasize that he is talking about departments, not services.
After ten months of study and travel in every theatre of war, interviews with 52 key military and naval leaders, and one hundred separate meetings in Washington, D.C., the JCS Special Committee, in March 1945, recommended a plan for one department of armed forces consisting of three co-ordinate branches. It advised prompt action to prevent reversion of the air arm to its prewar status and the loss of the gains in efficiency and co-operation made since 1942. The JCS plan included a military commander of the armed forces who would also be chief of staff to the president.
Again quoting from Mr. Goldberg's history:
In response to the president's message, a subcommittee of the Senate committee on military affairs, under Senator Elbert D. Thomas, began working on a unification bill with the representatives of the army and navy-Major General Lauris Norstad and Vice Admiral Arthur W. Radford.
I should mention that what was involved was unification of the departments, not of the services.
Numerous conferences with top leaders of the services followed, and nine separate drafts were prepared. The last draft was introduced as a bill in April 1946 and accepted by the whole committee in May.
This bill became known as the proposed Common Defence Act of 1946, because it provided for a Department of Common Defence comprising three co-ordinate arms. There would be a civilian secretary of common defence, a secretary and a commander for each of the arms, a chief of staff of common defence to rank above all other officers of the armed forces, a council of common defence, a national security resources board, and a central intelligence agency. This bill offered no assurance
National Defence Act Amendment
that the army and navy could retain their special air units.
That bill was not passed. It was withdrawn and another bill known as the National Security Act of 1947 was passed in its place.
The National Security Act of 1947 became law on July 26, 1947. The lawmakers stated their intentions at the beginning of the act in a declaration of policy: to provide a comprehensive program for the future security of the United States; to provide three military departments-the army, the navy (including naval aviation and the marine corps), and the air force-
I shall not quote further, but the interesting point is that in the United States approach the people concerned sought the best advice from the senior officers of their services as to what would be the most efficient and most desirable form for their armed forces to take. They also took the advice of their senior officers with regard to administration of the civilian department. That was in complete contrast to what we see here in Canada. Of course it can be said that Canada's problems are not on all fours with those of the United States or any other country. I would be the first to agree, but nevertheless I think we can learn from the experience of other countries.
It is said that defence policy is an extension of external affairs policy. The white paper published in March, 1964 contains the following at page 6:
In these circumstances, there have developed four parallel methods by which the objectives of Canadian defence policy have been pursued. They are:
(a)	Collective measures for maintenance of peace and security as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, including the search for balanced and controlled disarmament;
(b)	Collective defence as embodied in the North Atlantic Treaty;
(c)	Partnership with the United States in the defence of North America;
(d)	National measures to discharge responsibility for the security and protection of Canada.
I would like to know if this statement of our objectives is still valid or has there been some undisclosed, subterranean shift in our external affairs policy and therefore a shift in our defence policy which requires a different shape for our armed forces? If this is the case, and if it is the only reason for the proposed re-organization, then the Canadian people have a right to know.
Our forces have been reduced in strength. Many of them are not up to establishment at the present time. In that regard I should like to quote from an editorial in the Charlottetown Guardian of last Monday which in part refers to articles that appeared in the
February 1, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Winnipeg Free Press with which I am not familiar. The editorial reads in part as follows:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Morale in all three services, according to firsthand reports, is at an all time low and new recruiting is far below actual requirements as a result of Mr. Hellyer's policy.
Under the present faulty command structure, however, it is virtually impossible for the public, parliament, or even the cabinet now to ascertain the true state of affairs. As it now stands, individual members of any army council or defence council no longer have any official right of direct access to the cabinet, nor are they free to give their honest opinions. The present chief of the defence staff (in fact a commander in chief) and the minister are now able to control, dominate, and overrule all other members of the council or senior staff.
Through firings and early retirements of any seniors who had the courage to speak out, the minister has tended to gather about himself a clique of "yes men". No officer can now freely offer his advice to the cabinet. In short, the cabinet and parliament are now entirely dependent on such information as Mr. Hellyer and his "commander in chief" do or do not wish to report. For other officers to carry their case to the cabinet would be to place their appointments and future promotions in jeopardy, if not to risk being fired outright.
This is a formidable indictment by a leading Liberal newspaper, and it is not something that can be brushed off lightly. It is time, the Free Press maintains, to re-establish the post of inspector general-
I would agree with this suggestion if we are to retain the type of organization where there is only one channel of communication to the minister. Time and again it has been said that a unified force will provide flexibility. I maintain that the very reverse is true, that when you have a unified force it is only the opinion which results from one set of judgments which will ever come to public notice. If that opinion should prove not to be the best, then the error will be concealed for as long as possible, not through any malicious intent or inefficiency on the part of the commander in chief, the generalissimo, or whatever he might be called, but because human nature is what it is. When there are three separate services with three separate chiefs of staff and suggestions in respect of requirements and demands for equipment and so on are made on behalf of one of the three defence forces, these must stand up to the criticism, the judgments and suggestions which are presented in competition to them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was the trouble with the system; they did not.


John Angus MacLean: That is exactly what I am saying. When you have three chiefs of staff you have the best of at least three choices. Under the present situation there is only one type of thinking which will become government policy. I know for a fact that other countries such as Britain have toyed with the monolithic type of structure and have discarded it for that very reason. Where it is used, only one point of view prevails whether or not it is a completely valid point of view. In respect of this defence structure we have what one might refer to as the bed of Procrustes policy of the minister. If a senior officer, no matter how valid his position may be with regard to a policy matter, is a big enough man to stand up and proclaim his position through proper channels to his superiors, he will lose his head if his policy does not fit in with the accepted single policy. This is the practice which has been followed for the past two years.
I have mentioned the fact that on the east coast particularly our navy is under strength. The number of ships at sea and in commission has been seriously reduced. In answer to questions on this point which have been asked over a period of months the minister has replied that this is absolute nonsense. He says that the units which we now have at sea are so much more technically advanced-they have helicopters, variable depth sonar and so on-that eight of them are equal to twice as many of the type in commission four or five years ago. This is true in that limited sense. We must not forget, however, that technical advance among our potential enemies is not stagnating; it is not at a standstill. If one were to project the minister's reasoning beyond a period of a couple of years, perhaps over a few centuries, one would immediately realize that perhaps one world war II frigate would have disposed easily of the Spanish Armada. But that is not the problem we have today. We must keep abreast of developments and have counter-measures for every potential threat that is developed.
In connection with anti-submarine warfare I think it is not fully realized among the general public or the press that there is a new, tremendously important and extremely dangerous dimension to submarine warfare which did not exist in world war II. Up until some time after world war II virtually the only use to which submarines could be put was to attack merchant shipping or naval units. The defence against them was relatively simple. All one had to do was defend the sea lanes. The enemy could not produce any
February 1. 1967	COMMONS
damage without exposing himself to danger. The submarine had to come in close in order to attack. Virtually its only targets were merchant shipping and the naval units protecting that merchant shipping. So it really was a case of keeping the sea lanes open. That type of submarine warfare is still in existence, but it is of only relatively minor importance compared to the tremendous threat which has developed as a result of nuclear-powered submarines armed with nuclear missiles which carry for a very considerable range. They can park anywhere in a huge area of the ocean.
The potential threat to our cities and our communications from these nuclear submarines extends over a wide area. You do not wait for them to come to you. You must search them out. The problem is similar to looking for a needle in a haystack. In my judgment this is of tremendous importance and should not be downgraded. I believe it is the main reason that our naval strength must be kept up to date if we are to be in a position to meet our NATO obligations so far as our naval contribution is concerned.
In this regard there is an apparent conflict in the policy of the government. For the last two years the government has been pretending to have a policy of extending our territorial seas and declaring vast areas, such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the bay of Fundy, Hecate strait, Dixon Entrance, and other vast waters, as national waters of Canada. That policy also seems to be in a state of suspended animation or limbo at the present time. If the government pursues that course and the objective is achieved it will then have the additional responsibility of assuring our allies that we are capable of enforcing our sovereignty over those vast areas of water.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Our allies cannot afford to take the chance that the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for example, might become a sanctuary for potential enemies. Even during world war II it was not possible for us to keep the Gulf of St. Lawrence clear of enemy undersea craft. It will be even more difficult in peacetime to assure our friends and allies that there are not enemy submarines, capable of lobbing atomic missiles into some of the largest population centres of North America, lurking in that area. The minister should assure us that the capability of our navy is such as to be consistent with the implications of the other policy. Let me be perfectly clear by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the policy of extending our territorial waters, but we must face up to the accompanying responsibilities.
National Defence Act Amendment
Is it the government's intention to pass on some of our responsibilities for establishing and protecting some of our territory to a friendly neighbour? Are we going to default, cut down or bargain out of some of our obligations to NATO? I am not passing judgment on such a possible course, but we should be clear in this regard. Is it possible that the government intends to employ our armed forces for peace-keeping duties under the United Nations? That has been denied time and time again.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member surely listened to the associate minister's speech. I am surprised that he raises this subject again.


John Angus MacLean: I raise it again because the fact is we are contributing at the present time to peace keeping forces under the United Nations. If that is going to be a permanent role it should be carried out by a special organization within our armed forces. The effectiveness of our armed forces should not be reduced by gathering up ad hoc peacekeeping units to be shipped off to Cyprus or somewhere else when a special crisis arises.
The training of our armed forces is not particularly suitable for the duties required of peace keeping forces under the United Nations. Consideration should be given in conjunction with other nations to the creation of a special peace keeping force which would be specially trained for the specialized tasks involved. It would have to be a force trained in the diplomatic handling of tense situations. Its members would have to be long suffering and patient in order to be effective under most difficult conditions.
I am very much saddened and sincerely disappointed by the course the minister insists on pursuing. Not long ago we in parliament heard a great long list of legislation that had to be completed, according to the Prime Minister, before the next recess. That list should be culled and legislation of little or no merit should be deleted. Legislative items which the majority of Canadians believe are downright harmful and disadvantageous to the future interests of this country should also be deleted. At the top of the items for deletion I suggest should be the bill presently under discussion.
The policy embodied in the measure before us has all the earmarks of an idea conceived before arguments were gathered to prop it up. It is a tragedy that we should now find ourselves as a nation in the position of embarking upon this policy. I will not be surprised if
February 1, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment the bill passes in the course of time and the minister has his way, but if that turns out to be the case it will be little short of a tragedy for Canada.
One may ask how this could come about. I suppose it came about first because the minister got his way in the cabinet. Apparently for the sake of solidarity his colleagues, some of whom must have great reservations about this matter, went along with the idea. Perhaps the minister might have resigned had they not agreed and a weak government of this kind probably could not afford to have that happen. If I were in their places I should think it better to have the minister as an enemy than as a friend.
The government must have support in the house. No party at the present time particularly wants an election because we have had so many within a few years. It may also be argued that the whole matter of unification is something that is of interest to only those people who are directly concerned and that many many Canadians pretty well ignore it. As a result we are being subjected to the tyranny of the artificial majority which the government maintains in the house with the assistance of one or two splinter parties.


An hon. Member:: Splinter parties?


John Angus MacLean: With the support of the third, fourth and fifth parties, if you like. I do not care what you call them. The fact is that the government at this time represents only a relatively small segment of the Canadian people. Its support is far less than 50 per cent. Under those circumstances the government does not have a mandate to proceed in a bull-headed fashion with highly contentious legislation without first examining that legislation very carefully and without first obtaining the best possible advice available.
For that reason I feel strongly that the subject matter of this bill should have gone to a committee for further study before the house was asked to approve it in principle. The government has no mandate to force its will upon the Canadian people. It is true that it is the largest group in the house and under our system is charged with administration, but it should seek a consensus in respect of highly contentious matters.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In this regard I have often been disturbed by the interpretation placed on the performance of parliament by our press and other mass media of communication, an interpretation which has found its way into the minds

of the Canadian people. I believe that the workings of parliament are of fundamental importance to our democratic system and that they should be understood. On reading the press of Canada I get the feeling one gets when walking through a hall of mirrors at an exhibition midway. In one place one's image is distorted in one way and in another place in another way. Even if an individual does by chance come across an accurate reflection of what goes on in parliament, there is no way for him to know whether it is distorted or whether it is the actual fact.
I believe that a press which holds the right of freedom of the press in such high esteem, and rightly so, should recognize the very grave responsibilities that go in this day and age with moulding public opinion. The moulding of public opinion should be based on objective observation rather than prejudiced or distorted, pre-conceived views of any situation. All the opposition ask in connection with this very important matter of unification is that it be thoroughly examined, that we have the evidence of witnesses, without prejudice, without trying to force the outcome one way or the other. If unification has the merits the government claims for it, it will stand up under that examination. If it has not, it should not be perpetrated upon the Canadian people.
With regard to what we in the official opposition are trying to do here in parliament I would like to read one quotation and then I shall have concluded my remarks. For convenience I quote from Beauchesne's fourth edition. The passage I shall quote contains quotations from other authorities on the subject of democracy:
In every country attempts have been made to ensure that there shall be some check on the powers of the majority. Lord Bryce said in "Modern Democracies":	"That a majority is always
right, i.e. that every decision it arrives at by voting is wise not even the most fervent democrat has ever maintained seeing that popular government consists in the constant effort of a minority to turn itself by methods of persuasion into a majority which will then reserve the action or modify the decisions of the former majority."
There is a special onus on a minority government when it proceeds on courses that are not reversible. The passage continues:
Decision by majority is not an absolute and unquestionable principle. "Our constitution, to use Burke's phrase, is something more than a problem in arithmetic." There is no divine right of a mere numerical majority any more than or kings. Majority decision is a measure of convenience essential to the dispatch of business, the result, "of a very particular and special convention, confirmed
February 1, 1967	COMMONS
by long habits of obedience." The idea that a majority, just because it is a majority, is entitled to pass, without full discussion, what legislation it pleases, regardless of the extent of the changes involved or of the intensity of the opposition to them, the idea in fact that majority edicts are the same things as laws, is wholly alien to the spirit of the constitution.
A minority party may question ministers, may criticize but cannot control in the ordinary case a government with a reasonably large majority. There can be no control of the executive where the supporters in parliament are prepared without question to obey the leaders of their party-through the whips. All that the minority party-the opposition-can do without support from members of the majority party is to question, inquire and criticize, but whilst this does not amount to control it is an important method of checking abuses of power. With the support of a majority-
I contend that the government is abusing its imagined power in this situation.
-of members it would be possible for a cabinet to suspend the sitting of parliament, have the minority members arrested, withdraw the safeguards of liberty such as habeas corpus and freedom of speech, and to establish virtually a dictatorship. All this, too, could be done within the law. It is surprising how few members of the general public appreciate how uncontrolled the cabinet is where it has the support of a loyal majority in parliament and that ''the supremacy of parliament" in this sense is absolute and subject to no real safeguards of any kind.
We may add that the majority of the House of Commons does not always represent the majority of the electors in the country. It often happens that, owing to the redistribution of electoral districts, a party may come out of the general elections with a majority of elected members without having received the majority of the votes given by the electors who went to the polls or whose names are on the electoral lists. That party may form a cabinet, but the official opposition together with other anti-ministerial groups, though sitting to the Sneaker's left, are the real representatives of the people: and their right to challenge bv legitimate means every measure or proceeding sponsored bv ministers cannot be disnuted. Tp such ca^es. when the house divides, members who oppose the administration may act on behalf of the majority while government supporters represent the minority of the people of Canada.
In respect of this legislation I believe that the government represents a minoritv, and a small minority, of the people of Canada. Therefore it is my intention to vote against second reading.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, implicit in the decision that this house is called on to make on second reading of this bill is much more than simply questions of organization, machinery, uniforms or ranks, important though these may be. The basic question posed by approval in principle of this bill is the whole question of the future role of Canada's armed forces, the purpose
National Defence Act Amendment and function which they are to serve and the contribution in the sphere of defence that Canada can best make to the security of the people of this country and of the world. Viewed in this light, I have come to the conclusion, somewhat reluctantly I must say, that I must support this bill on second reading. I say reluctantly because I resent, with others, the obstinacy with which the minister and the government have refused to do what it seems to me common sense and courtesy both require, that is, send the bill before second reading to the defence committee.
Many distinguished officers and others who have served this country have expressed serious apprehensions about unification. Why could they not have been allowed to present their views before the committee and the public in that way before we are asked to approve in principle this legislation? Another reason I am supporting the bill with reluctance is that it might seem to be support of the defence policy of this government as enunciated in the white paper and reiterated by the minister in his speech in this debate on December 7 last. I have very serious differences with the policy of the government. I find the defence policy of this government evasive, inadequate, ambiguous and unresponsive to the challenging opportunities that Canada's special position makes possible.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am reluctant because I have found, in one edition at any rate, that in the 65 pages of the minister's speech the reasons for unification given by the minister were uninspiring and non-persuasive. As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) pointed out, there was no explanation whatsoever of the future role of the Canadian forces which would justify the inevitable dislocations involved in unification. The minister has put the cart before the horse. He has told us that he will change completely the structure of the Canadian armed services before telling us what the function and role of those services are to be. In the 65 pages of his speech I find only two paragraphs referring to Canada's policy, and they are a reiteration of the policy in the white paper on defence. I remind the house that this policy consisted of a standpat acceptance of the obligations, regardless of whether they are dated or outdated, that had been assumed in the NATO alliance, and a complete failure to judge whether they were appropriate or obsolete at that particular time. This is still the policy that is put before us. However, if the appropriate question is
February 1, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment asked and the right answer given, then I think this answer justifies unification as the most appropriate and suitable way of performing the role which we consider to be the effectve and proper role for Canada.
What are the present roles of our armed services? Roughly speaking there are five or six. As is well known we provide, integrated with the forces of our NATO alliance, an army brigade in Germany and an air division which is either wholly in Germany or shortly to be moved there. We have our share of the North Atlantic anti-submarine defences. In NORAD we participate in the air defence of North America. We contribute peace keeping forces in a number of theatres under the aegis of the United Nations. We have a mobile command at St. Hubert.
It is our view that we should now abandon some of these roles. We should withdraw our brigade and air division from Europe. We should close down the totally obsolete and useless Bomarc SAGE air defences against a non-existent bomber threat. We should review our anti-submarine role. We should concentrate on a tri-service or unified, lightly armed, highly mobile force available for peace keeping and other intervention roles. We should provide the fire extinguisher which would help put out fires which might spread into major conflagrations. To use the modern jargon, we should be ready to put out the fires which might escalate into a nuclear holocaust.
If, as the present government asserts and reasserts continually, we are to continue our present roles in which different services perform isolated and different activities, then I think unification makes no sense at all, or at least it is not worth, the trouble that is involved. But if we contemplate joint operations in which the services combine in the operations, then unification becomes desirable if not imperative.
My criticism of the government is that it has failed to make a clearcut decision and therefore has failed to present what would be a compelling argument for unification. I say we should withdraw our brigade and air division from Europe. Why do I say so? I do not think it is good enough merely to make such a proposal without supplying the reasons for it. There are at least four reasons for withdrawing our brigade. Our brigade is armed with Honest John rockets or tactical weapons. It is stationed in the forward zone in Germany. It forms a small, although highly efficient, part of or contribution to NATO

strategy, the strategy of confronting a possible U.S.S.R. all-out attack on western Europe with tactical nuclear weapons.
This proposal was orginally made in 1954 and adopted in 1958. In our view it has become obsolete now and indeed provocative. I cannot go into all the reasons for this but I just want to say that one of the reasons is that both sides now have these tactical weapons the use of which would be so destructive as to be insane, and I do not think this word is too strong. General Ailleret, the French chief of staff, had this to say in the Novem-ber-December issue of Survival, a publication of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Great Britain:
It is clear that even a purely tactical nuclear exchange would wipe out Europe over a depth of 1,800 miles from the Atlantic to the Soviet frontier.
I ask the following question: What have we Canadians to do with potential involvement in this suicidal madness if it were ever to come about?
Defence Secretary McNamara has given additional information on this question. He said:
Thousands of U.S. warheads deployed on the continent for the immediate defence of Europe have a combined explosive strength of more than 10,000 times the force of the atomic bombs exploded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
He left no doubt whatever-and I remind the minister of this because at one time he was not too clear about it-that this tactical nuclear force represented a substantial preponderance over similar Russian weapons but not a monopoly.
The threat of a deliberate all-out invasion or the use of this massive concentration of power in Europe is at the very lowest end of the spectrum of possibilities, if I may use an expression which is used in this sort of discussion. Indeed, no sane person would launch intentionally such a cataclysm. But as long as this confrontation exists the escalation of threats and bluffs might precipitate a disaster. What is needed is that this massive confrontation be thinned out and eventually dissolved. It makes no sense at all.
Even if I am wrong about this, the need for a Canadian contribution is non-existent. General Foulkes informed the defence committee a year or so ago that as long ago as 1960 the military leaders of NATO approved of Canadian withdrawal from the front line into the position of a mobile reserve. He told us in the committee that this difficult situation, namely, the problem of supplies for the
February 1, 1967

Canadian brigade, was appreciated by the NATO authorities in 1960 and in view of the build-up of the German army to 12 divisions, the supreme allied commander, General Norstad, agreed to place the brigade group in mobile reserve and allow the German forces to take over this forward task on the east German border. This proposal was agreed to on the military level in the early 1960's but, perhaps for political reasons, it has not been implemented.
Then General Foulkes, after going on to point out that it cost about three times as much to maintain a Canadian brigade-indeed, for the price we pay a corps of two divisions could be maintained-asked whether this makes NATO sense? He replied in this way:
It was originally intended that as the European partners increased in economic and military strength, the North American forces would be brought home and provide a strategic reserve. This trend toward the Europeans taking over their own territorial defence is both militarily and economically sound and providing there are no serious political difficulties the change-over should be accomplished before the end of the decade.
I rely on the words of General Foulkes because I think they make common sense. There is no military reason whatever for maintaining our forces there. It has been suggested that there may be a continuing political reason and indeed in the white paper the so-called political reasons are the only ones that are advanced for the maintenance of this excessive commitment. The only political reason that I have ever heard is that the Canadian withdrawal would rock the NATO boat-a phrase used to justify from time to time a certain immobility by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). It is also said that it would persuade the United States, whose forces in Europe may perhaps constitute a stabilizing factor, to withdraw its troops.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I suggest this is nonsense. The United States is quite capable of deciding its own role without undue influence resulting from the fact that Canada, for its own good reasons, has decided to withdraw its brigade and air division from Europe. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, all the political arguments point exactly the opposite way. The cold war and the massive military confrontation in Europe have become an anachronism of which Europeans themselves, as anyone who has been to Europe knows, are heartily sick. The danger that the red army will engulf western
National Defence Act Amendment Europe and, by the parity of reasoning on the other side, the danger that the armies of NATO will seek to roll back the frontiers of the Warsaw Pact, are equally unreal. If both NATO and the Warsaw Pact are incapable of being used to liquidate the cold war and improve east-west relations they will have to be scrapped. They no longer correspond to political realities. The centre of gravity of the threats to world peace will be in Asia and Africa, not in central Europe. Our government's continued adherence to obsolete NATO strategy is a symbol of its lack of independence and initiative.
What I have said about our brigade applies with even greater force to our vulnerable air division which, because of its vulnerability to Russian rockets, would in moments of tension constitute a positive danger of provocation to hasty first strike action on one side or the other. Here again, my authority for this statement is General Foulkes. Perhaps I have not the time and should not get into an elaboration of that statement, but the fact remains that if you have a highly vulnerable, highly dangerous strike force, in a moment of danger the desire to hit first is so powerful that the weapons themselves constitute a provocation and a source of danger.
This role was described a long time ago by a military commentator, Mr. John Gellner, who I think supports and sometimes I believe advises this government, as a costly $500 million mistake. I think the only thing wrong with calling it a $500 million mistake is that is much too low a figure. A great deal more than that is involved at this time.
I ask this question: Why is it, after four years in office, this government has failed to liquidate or discontinue these expensive mistakes, these dangerous commitments or, apparently, to do a single thing about them? The minister himself spoke in criticism of these roles before he assumed the position he has today. Is the failure to act the result of timidity or fear of upsetting some of our allies? What is it that compels us to maintain at considerable expense, and quite inconsistently with the policy of unification now advanced by the minister, these particular roles?
These are negative arguments, Mr. Speaker. The principal argument for Canada's concentration on a highly mobile reserve is that it could make a positive contribution to future peace. With our limited resources we cannot do everything. Indeed we should not, as now, try to do a little of everything. The hon.
February 1, 19G7

National Defence Act Amendment member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) suggested that peace keeping through the United Nations is not exactly popular at the United Nations these days. It is well known that there are difficulties about financing and indeed difficulties in the operations themselves.
But I suggest that those operations in which Canada has taken part, in the Middle East, Cyprus and in the Congo, have played a vital role in preventing the spread of wars which could have been dangerous. In terms of effort, time and money they have been infinitely worth while. There were difficulties when these operations were launched and they were launched and improvised, if you will, because circumstances demanded that they be launched.
I see the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I know he worked hard to secure United Nations approval of our idea about how the peace keeping forces should be organized, but so far this has not been possible. I suggest that when emergencies arise again those emergencies will create solutions. It is vitally important to peace that we have available throughout the world, and Canada is in a very good position to contribute, forces that will be able to step in when emergencies arise.
If, Mr. Speaker, the rule of law is ever to prevail in an unstable world, and I think it will, then peace keeping forces will and must have increasing importance in the future. We are now discussing Viet Nam and the crisis in Rhodesia. If there is a settlement in Viet Nam, and let us hope to God there will be a settlement fairly soon, there will be need for a police force to see that the settlement is effectively carried out. The same situation might arise if sanctions are effective in Rhodesia. I am quite certain that during the course of history there will be a call again and again for the fire extinguisher, a call for the type of lightly armed force that this country is in a position to provide.
Of course the mobile force we propose, and upon which we think we should concentrate, would not be confined to operations under the aegis of the United Nations. I recall that when we were at NATO the military authorities told us about possible danger to NATO's flanks, so it may be vitally important to have a mobile reserve that could get there in good time. This sort of contribution might turn out
[Mr. Brewin.l
to be far more important than the massive, tactical nuclear confrontation in central Europe.
In this connection I recall to the house the words of Wayland Young. I believe that like many other British people he has become a peer with a new name, but that was his name. He issued a pamphlet entitled, "The Bomb and Politics", and this is what he said:
It was lightly armed common sense which saved the day in those places (East Africa, Malaysia, Cyprus); cheap, tough, portable weapons and above all mobility. The first rule in this sort of operation is, if you get there first, you do not have to shoot.
It is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that this concept of Canada's role fits in with Canada's special position and aptitudes. It happens to be a fact that we do not have to be absorbed, as some other nations are, with fears of direct attack on the soil of Canada. This is a traditional approach, but it happens that Canada does not have to be preoccupied with that. The facts of life are, whether or not necessarily by choice, that our neighbours are the most powerful military nation in the world. It is unthinkable that the United States would permit any hostile forces to establish themselves on Canadian territory without massive resistance. It is, therefore, unthinkable that any hostile nation, if such there be, would risk retaliation.
I hasten to add that this does not mean, of course, that the mobile force which would be created would be of no value in the defence of Canada or that we do not have to carry out the surveillance of Canadian territory. Of course we do. It does not mean either that we should do as some people say we can do since we are protected by the United States, namely, that we can be either neutral or passive or do nothing about our responsibility for defence. What it does mean, I suggest, is that we are freer than some other nations by reason of this fact to contribute to what in today's nuclear world should be the supreme objective, the prevention of wars and the limitation of wars if they break out.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
No one wins a war in this world today. What we must direct our efforts to is to finding the most efficient instruments (a) to prevent and (b) to limit wars, if they occur. I suggest that a unified force of the type we have discussed would be a useful instrument in that regard.
It sometimes seems to me that we are deluded today by the efficacy of massive, unusable power. Our task is to see that usable
February 1. 1967	COMMONS
power is available where it is needed to create stability in an unstable world. In this field Canada can for the first time, if we have the imagination to do so, escape from a role in defence which is purely subsidiary either to the imperial strategy of Britain, though at a certain stage in history this was quite naturally what we depended upon, or to the great power strategy of the United States of America. In this proposal of a unified Canadian force lies the possibility of making for the first time a distinctively Canadian contribution.
I suggest that in our centennial year it would be quite fitting, Mr. Speaker, to see the emergence of a distinctively Canadian contribution to world security, one most fitted to the circumstances. This would be more valuable to our allies than what we are doing at the present time in the matter of defence, though that we do it efficiently I have no doubt at all. It is because we in this party-and I think I speak for the other members in this party-see in the unification of the armed services a contributing factor to this goal that we propose to support the bill.
I believe that if the minister and the government of the day would only put the problem in this light they would secure the loyalty, even the enthusiasm, of many men and women in Canada. I cannot say, as did the last speaker, that they would have the support of the majority of them, but I certainly think they would secure the support and enthusiasm of our armed services. Changes cannot be made without creating opposition. But when making changes, Mr. Speaker, we should quite frankly and openly declare why they are needed, that in this case what is being proposed is in accordance with a new concept fitted to the nuclear world of the sixties.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a particular contribution Canada can make to the world today. But so far the minister and the government have failed to make this declaration and in not doing so I think have damaged the cause of unification rather than helped it. Because this is what we believe, and subject to what we may be advised in the defence committee and during the future deliberations on this matter, I feel reluctantly obliged to say, for the reasons I have already given, that we will support this bill on second reading.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I approach this subject from a somewhat different angle than most members who have taken part so far, mainly because
National Defence Act Amendment of the interest I have had for some time in international affairs. It has always been a belief of mine that defence policy is nothing more nor less than a function of foreign affairs and is part of the foreign policy of the country involved.
It has been somewhat distressing in listening to and reading the debate to see the line which has been taken by Her Majesty's loyal opposition. In this instance the action of the Conservative party reminds me of King Canute, who called for his chair, sat it down at the tide line, put up his hand and ordered the tide to go back. Well, Mr. Speaker, the tide did not and neither will this bill. The Conservatives have still not changed from the time of the middle period of last century when in Great Britain the Conservative party there attempted to stop the Libera] government of Mr. Gladstone from preventing the purchase of commissions in the Queen's army. They failed at that time too.
Many arguments have been raised against unification, Mr. Speaker, and one of the silliest and least logical, it seems to me, is that which insists that people will fight only for the sake of a regiment. I should like to quote from Douglas MacArthur's "Reminiscences", the paperback edition. At page 470 he is describing why a man fights for his country and why he risks his life. He says:
These men will suffer hunger and thirst, broiling suns and frozen reaches, but they must go on and on and on when everything within them seems to stop and die. They will grow old in youth burned out in searing minutes, even though life owes them many tranquil years. In these troublesome times of confused and bewildered international sophistication, let no man misunderstand why they do that which they must do. These men will fight, and, perchance die, for one reason only-for their country-
They will fight for their country, Mr. Speaker, not for their regiment. I think it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to give our men, who may be called upon to risk their lives, the necessary tools to do the job. We cannot have armed forces in the twentieth century, fighting on the basis of what was suitable for war during the late nineteenth century, using weapons which were almost obsolete at the end of the first world war.
Other arguments have been raised against this bill, Mr. Speaker, and one of them is that a great many officers have left the services. And I am not surprised. Whenever a new defence policy is introduced and someone does not agree with it I believe he should leave the services and if he wishes to oppose
February 1, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment the policy he should do so from outside the service. I think that those members of the armed forces who have taken that tack are to be congratulated on their honesty. At the same time 1 do not regard their departure as that much of a loss. A great many younger men have been kept back because of these people who have served long and honourably but whose concepts of what the world is like are perhaps outmoded and it is time for them to be replaced. It is much better both for the government and for the minister that these people depart.
I recall the time when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister and used to complain bitterly that his government was ineffective not because his ministers were ineffective but because there were too many Liberal senior civil servants. If the leader of the government at that time really thought that was so he should have fired them because they were old government employees and some of them were Privy Council appointees. I have no objection to seeing these senior officers depart for greener fields, as they see it; similarly, I have no objection to their fighting for what they believe.
Having read all the speeches and listened to a great many of them, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the basis and justification for unification in our particular circumstances lie in what we are able to do in foreign affairs. As I said, defence policy is a function of foreign policy and our armed forces can only be considered in relationship to it. It is not a matter of isolating the services and looking upon them as something to play around with, putting men in pretty uniforms and marching them up and down the House of Commons lawns. I have always regarded the navy, the army and the air force as a waste, a drain, an expenditure of money we could use in other areas much more profitably.
Therefore, it seems to me that there are certain legitimate conclusions that flow from that attitude. Our foreign policy has been oriented toward joint action with other countries, and for obvious reasons. We have concentrated on the United Nations, with NATO becoming less and less an effective force in the world, its usefulness declining steadily. One of the reasons for this is that the tensions between the United States and Russia have declined. That is also why the present Prime Minister insists in implementing article II of the NATO treaty.

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Since our attention is directed to the United Nations, it is necessary to define what role we can play in its operations. To date we have participated in several exercises with the United Nations which have served a useful purpose. In operations of this sort the United Nations has been able to exercise influence, sometimes decisive, in preventing brush fires from growing into greater fires. This is a very useful and very necessary service in our world. In addition, as the United Nations moves away from dominance by the two great powers, the United States and Russia, and begins to acquire a life of its own, effective opportunities for United Nations intervention in brush-fire areas will become more important. If Canada is to play a useful role we must provide ourselves with the tools to be effective in these activities.
I have always believed that we shall have many of these brush-fire wars because the world is not politically sophisticated. Politicians have not worked out effective means of avoiding direct confrontations. They search desperately for face-saving measures to dig themselves out of the holes in which they inadvertently find themselves. We are always trying to save face. A peace keeping force in this area can also be very effective. As we become more sophisticated, as the developing countries become more sophisticated, I hope it will become less and less necessary for the United Nations to intervene. In the meantime Canada can make a most useful contribution in this area, especially if we are prepared to lead. Under the present government I believe we have given notable leadership.
Other implications must be drawn from the fact that no matter how much we want to we shall never be able to defend ourselves from our neighbouring nations, Russia and the United States. We border these countries and sometimes it is difficult to say which is the more dangerous, the United States with its economic invasion or Russia with the threat of physical invasion. At present we are at peace with both these nations and we hope that this continues. If either one decided to attack us we could not defend ourselves. We have too much land and too few defence resources.
The former government entered into an agreement with the United States whereby we gave up responsibility for defending ourselves to the United States in return for a small participation in the defence structure. The impact of this has been to extend the United States border to our northern border.
February 1. 1967	COMMONS
We are allowed to play a small role. We were allowed to buy certain weapons which had to have nuclear warheads. Unfortunately the government of the day bought the bombs but neglected to buy the warheads and we were saddled with much expense without any effective way of making these weapons efficient. I am not sure of this but I understand that the weapons had no explosive power and that in some instances sand was used as ballast. Had we been attacked we would have fired these bombs hoping the invaders would be smothered in sand.
As Canada is a peace-loving country, and I hope it is, we do not need an army for aggression. As we have common borders with the two super powers we are very likely to be the battleground in any conflict between them. We need a defensive army to look after ourselves, if we need anything. As I understand it, we are on the way to giving up our nuclear capacity. As our weapons would not be much of a deterrent to these two super powers, there will be small loss.
It seems that this leads us back to unification or integration of our forces as a reasonable method of ensuring that we have the power to play the role we want to play in external affairs. Unification or integration -call it what you will-is a reasonable, logical concept if one accepts the assumptions on which it is based.
I would not wish to repeat the opinions of former generals read into the record the other day by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson). All these generals wrote memoirs after the second world war and they unanimously agreed that the old method of carry-
Business of the House ing on war with divided commands was inefficient, ineffective, and cost a great many of their soldiers' lives. One of my hobbies happens to be reading the memoirs of generals, not necessarily for edification but for enjoyment. I enjoy the way war is depicted in books, the way Eisenhower criticizes Montgomery, Montgomery criticizes Bradley and on and on. All these comments of the generals show one thing, that the old system has to go, that it is no longer efficient and something needs to be evolved. May I call it six o'clock.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate do agree that the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Public Service of Canada be empowered to inquire into and report upon the matter of the pensions paid to retired civil servants or their dependants under the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I hope we will conclude the current debate and proceed to item No. 121, second reading of Bill C-216, to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 2, 1967