1967-06-22

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on housing, urban development and public works-Mr. L. Gendron.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Paul Tardif, Esq., the member for the electoral district of Russell, be appointed as Assistant Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, normally I do not rise on occasions like this, but I am sure all of us are happy at this appointment. May 1 also say that in this afternoon's Ottawa Journal the hon. member is shown being sunned in appreciation. I am very glad to see the hon. member here.


Mr. Paul Tardif (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, actually the picture in the Ottawa Journal today-and I am rising on a question of privilege-does not mainly depict me as being sunned; it depicts me accustomed to being completely impartial.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-138, to amend the Supreme Court Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is not to compel justices of the supreme court to make two rulings one in French and one in English, but to enact that French shall be recognized as equal to English in all judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



CANADA DAY ACT


Mr. Auguste Choquetle (Lolbiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-139, an act respecting French speaking Canada day.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that Canadianism cannot be defined other than on the basis of the two great linguistic communities, one English speaking, the other French speaking. Since the French fact is not the perquisite of Quebec, it must be considered as part and parcel of the Canadian reality.
Our centennial year could be the most appropriate time to assure the statutory recognition of a day designed to celebrate the French fact in the whole Canadian territory.
If Victoria day, in the celebration of which French speaking Canadians like to participate, may be considered in some respects, as the English speaking Canada day, June 24 could be known as the French speaking Canada day. That is the purpose of this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXPO '67   REQUEST THAT PUBLIC HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN DURING VISIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister why it is that Her Majesty, in
1806	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry her visit to Expo, Montreal, is to be denied seeing her Canadian subjects. A check with the state visit section reveals that no one will be allowed in the areas in which the Queen is during her stay there. I think this is a serious reflection, on her good citizens of the province of Quebec. The arrangements should be altered so that these people, too, will have the opportunity of seeing their Queen.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the situation is exactly as described by my right hon. friend. Expo will open on July 3 at the normal time. However, lie Notre Dame will not be accessible to the general public while Her Majesty makes her initial motor tour of the island, completing that at about 10 a.m. Thereafter the whole island, with the exception of the area containing the U.K. and the various Canadian pavilions, will be opened to the public. The small remaining section will be progressively opened to the public as the Queen leaves the various pavilions she is visiting. By 12.45 p.m. the entire Expo site, with the exception of the Canada pavilion and the adjoining lake area, will be accessible to the public. This final pavilion will be open to the public following the Queen's departure at approximately 3.45 p.m. There will of course be substantial numbers of invited guests at each pavilion being visited by Her Majesty, while Her Majesty is visiting it. These arrangements were made after a good deal of consideration by all those concerned with the matter and it is felt they are the most appropriate in the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there no possibility of these arrangements being reconsidered? This morning and yesterday afternoon I received three calls in connection with the matter. These people object very much to Her Majesty being sent to Coventry.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the very strong statements that are being made at the United Nations by the representatives of various countries regarding the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territory which has been acquired during the recent conflict, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government's position will be that

DEBATES	June 22, 1967
any withdrawal of Israeli forces must be preceded by a political settlement which would contain ironclad guarantees as to Israel's right to exist, the security of its subjects, and the right of access to the Suez canal and the gulf of Aqaba?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position linking withdrawal with a political settlement and political guarantees has been made clear in this house, and it will be made clear tomorrow when the Secretary of State for External Affairs makes his statement to the assembly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There can be no doubt about the linking of the political settlement with any withdrawal. The importance, it seems to me, would be whether or not the political settlement is to precede the withdrawal in order to obtain the co-operation of Israel, which must have some justifiable doubts about the guarantees they were given in 1956 and 1957. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian position is that a political settlement must precede any withdrawal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a political settlement requires the co-operation of the Arab neighbouring states as well as Israel. I prefer at the moment not to go beyond what I have said.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which has to do with the aide memoire of August 5, 1957 prepared by the late Dag Hammarskjold regarding the terms upon which the emergency force would occupy the areas adjacent to or within Egypt. Because of the controversy which has now arisen as to whether the secretary general should not under all the circumstances have submitted this matter to the assembly of the United Nations, would the Prime Minister table that aide memoire so that Canadians will have full knowledge of the contents thereof?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot of course table the aide memoire as an official document either of the Canadian government or indeed as an official document of the United Nations or even one that is part of the UN records, because the secretary general has stated that it is not a UN document in any sense but a personal memorandum of the secretary general outlining his understanding of what had occurred. That document, whatever may be its official significance,
June 22, 1967

has been made public by a United States citizen who has possession of it. I have no objection of any kind, if it is appropriate, to tabling the document as it was produced by that particular gentleman.
{Translation]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I am not sure\nwhether the Secretary of State for External Affairs discussed that particular question, but I am sure all hon. members will agree that at this time the Soviet union would perhaps be better occupied in participating in the relief of Arab refugees than in sending arms to the United Arab Republic.']
Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question stems from a statement made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I direct it to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
With regard to the creation of a task force composed of three specialists to be entrusted with making a thorough survey of the agricultural problem in Canada, does the minister feel he will have to resign from his post to join the new group, in view of the shortage of competent people to deal with the tragic plight of the farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order. {English]



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister related to the meeting which was held yesterday between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Premier Kosygin. It has been reported that the Secretary of State for External Affairs urged Premier Kosygin to consider a meeting with President Johnson. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us whether or not the Secretary of State for External Affairs was successful in his representations to the premier?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1 cannot answer that question because, so far as I know, no meeting has yet been arranged. However, it is hoped there will be a meeting before Mr. Kosygin leaves for Moscow as he has put off his departure from today until Saturday. It is to be hoped that these leaders of the two greatest powers in the world will be able to meet while Mr. Kosygin is in New York.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister advise the house whether or not the Secretary of State for External Affairs raised the question of assistance, particularly to refugees in the area, by the Soviet union, along with the other countries in the world, and was there any response to this kind of representation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure that I got the purport of my hon. friend's question. Was he referring to a four-power meeting?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. All I wanted to ask the Prime Minister was whether or not the Secretary of State for External Affairs discussed with the leader of the Soviet union if that country was prepared to provide some assistance, particularly to refugees in that part of the world? The minister stated in this house that he thought all powers should do this.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure
whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs discussed that particular question, but I am sure all hon. members will agree that at this time the Soviet union would perhaps be better occupied in participating in the relief of Arab refugees than in sending arms to the United Arab Republic.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the absence of the right hon. gentleman I asked whether a communication had been received from the Louisbourg Board of Trade signed by the president of the board, who insisted that the S and L line from Broughton Junction be included in the Cape Breton development plan.
At the same time, as this is part and parcel of the question I asked yesterday, would the Prime Minister say whether he has received a telegram from local union No. 4527, United Mine Workers, of New Waterford, Nova Scotia, requesting reconsideration of the omission to include in the bill the McBean
June 22, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry colliery, particularly in view of the fact that various locals of the union allege that it was understood in conversations or discussions with the Prime Minister that this particular mine would be included? Would the Prime Minister look over the matter again, now that the bill has been held in suspension, as it were, for a few days and make a further effort to agree to the two suggestions that I have brought to his attention?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have received five telegrams on this matter. I sent them to the minister concerned as soon as I received them. The minister has been attending the Canadian-American ministerial meeting in Montreal and will be back this afternoon. He will be dealing with the telegrams this evening and will be in a position I hope to make a statement on the matter tomorrow.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is not now prepared to meet with the delegation, as requested by the UMWA?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has the matter in hand.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question. The matter is in hand, as the Prime Minister has said, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare is also aware of the situation. Can he provide the answer? Are they or are they not to be met?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall ask the minister, as soon as he gets back this afternoon, what arrangements he has made.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a related question. Has the cabinet reached any decision with respect to the request of the Nova Scotia delegation for advances to stockpile soft steel in order to enable the steel mill at Sydney to re-employ some of the 1,000 men who were laid off recently?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of stockpiling the production of an industry but the production of a particular company in an industry. The matter is under consideration. I hope I will be able to make a statement on the question at the beginning of next week, either Monday or Tuesday.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that stockpiling has taken place in the past, with the assistance of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, stockpiling has taken place within the last year or two in the uranium industry. This was stockpiling of all the production of the industry throughout the country, wherever the product was produced. This is not quite the same situation as stockpiling the production of a particular company in an industry.


Robert Muir: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid the right hon. gentleman misunderstood the intent of my question. I was thinking not of uranium but of steel. I am not quite clear about the situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not quite clear about that, but I shall look into that aspect of the matter.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence may I direct it to the Minister of Labour whose department is also involved in this matter. My question is this: Is the government giving immediate consideration to alteration of the regulations concerning seasonal farm labour in the tobacco and cash crop industries with respect to the regulations affecting payments to the unemployment insurance fund and the Canada Pension Plan? This matter is of great urgency, Your Honour, to this industry, and it is becoming increasingly urgent as farm labour must be acquired shortly.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under study for some weeks. It is not as simple as one might like it to be. Legislative changes
June 22, 1967

might be necessary to accomplish the objectives in mind. No final decision has been reached, but within the next week or two there will be a decision about whether we should do anything in the unemployment insurance field.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the repeated warnings this week by members of the Canadian Medical Association in Montreal that Canada, right now, is facing a serious shortage of medical manpower, can the Minister of National Health and Welfare say whether he is seriously considering announcing in the near future further government measures to deal with the situation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of medical manpower in Canada is complicated, as is evident from the discussions that are taking place in Montreal. It relates to actions and attitudes that are even beyond the scope of the federal government.
We have taken steps to increase the training facilities for medical personnel and we expect that within the next few years, as a result of this action, there will be a 20 per cent or 25 per cent increase in the output of medical graduates in Canada. That output, combined with the annual emigration to Canada of doctors, will have an important effect in meeting what will be an increased demand upon the profession as a result of medicare and expanded health services.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government not considering a system of scholarships for medical, dental and eye specialist training?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have not under consideration a special program of student aid for this group.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Inquiries of the Ministry Since the implementation of the $105 monthly pension for older people, that is, since the $30 increase has been granted, is there a federal-provincial agreement to the effect that the province of Quebec may withdraw the medical cards already issued to the aged in that province? In other words, is there a federal-provincial agreement providing that as soon as an aged person receives a $105 monthly pension from Ottawa, the province of Quebec can withdraw the medical assistance cards issued to that person? Is there an agreement to that effect?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that this is a very important and complicated question that should be put on the order paper.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport.
Since two ocean liners are stranded at present in the St. Lawrence in front of Trois-Rivieres, and since accidents of that kind, with occasional loss of life, seem to have increased for the last few weeks, could the hon. minister tell us whether he has received any representations to the effect that an inquiry into the causes of such accidents should be held and that the most effective steps should be taken to rectify this as soon as possible?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Though I have not made a check with regard to these two cases in particular, I believe it is the practice of the department to conduct an investigation urgently into every case of this kind. I certainly feel it is very important that this should be done.


Mr. Mongrain:: I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Since I just realized I was a victim of his magnetism a while ago, as he answered only the first part of my question, I should like to repeat the second part: Are steps being taken to reduce or eliminate such accidents, such running aground, which seem to be increasing in the Trois-Rivieres area?
1810	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker; a number of measures have been taken with a view to reducing the possibility of accidents. One or two very eloquent speeches on this subject have been made by my colleague the Registrar General, and I shall be glad to send them to the hon. member.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to address this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the many representations I have received from across Canada, would the right hon. gentleman consider, on July 1, naming the South Saskatchewan dam the John G. Diefenbaker dam?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand a decision has been taken in this matter. But I also understand there is a very large lake adjoining the dam, and much wider than the dam, which has yet to be named.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: would direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the house whether Air Canada, in the interests of overcoming the current acute shortage of passenger space on Canadian air lines, plans to accept an offer of five new, fully manned passenger jets which has reportedly been made to Air Canada by Trans-Air Limited?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no knowledge on that subject, but the hon. member for Mackenzie asked a question of my parliamentary secretary yesterday with the same purpose in mind, and, if I am permitted to answer now, I would say I have suggested to my department and, through my officials, to the main air lines, that they consider very carefully adopting a system whereby deposits would be required in connection with reservations. If this practice were followed there might be a lot more seats available.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Would the minister investigate the existence of this offer which is reported to have been made to Air Canada during the last three weeks?

DEBATES	June 22, 1967


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Would the Minister of Transport also have his officials look into the alternative to the suggestion he has made, that is, doing away completely with reservations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to look into any possible means of making better use of the existing facilities. I think there is more hope in that direction than there is in trying to find additional aircraft at a time when there is a world wide shortage of passenger aircraft.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Does not the minister think that there are already enough impediments to air travel, without requiring any more?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am seeking to remove impediments to travel, such as the practice which some people in this country follow of making four or five different reservations and then not turning up at the airport.


An hon. Member:: Names.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Has any consideration been given to the suggestion that Eastern Airlines be given the privilege on a temporary basis, during the Expo period, of carrying passengers between Montreal and Ottawa? At present there are several dozen seats going back and forth empty every day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member was good enough to make a similar suggestion to me privately, and the matter is under urgent consideration. I believe there is one serious difficulty under the law: If this were allowed, Eastern Airlines would probably have to pay customs duty or tax on the aircraft. But it might be possible to overcome this obstacle without the necessity for legislation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a question which I would have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs or one of his parliamentary secretaries, had they been in the house. Instead I will address it to the Prime Minister and he can take it as notice if he wishes. In the light of recent events in Greece-the takeover of government by a military dictatorship-and in the light of the failure of Turkey and Greece to get together to reach a political settlement in
June 22, 1987

Inquiries of the Ministry Cyprus, will the government reconsider a new discussed by me with the Minister of Finance item which appears in the estimates of the and others of my colleagues. We are not dis-Department of External Affairs setting aside posed to recommend any change at this time ? million in defence support assistance for however, though the matter is under constant Greece and Turkey?	study.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad, as invited by the hon. gentleman, to take that question as notice.


[Stage Direction]
CALUMET, P.Q.-CLOSING OF C.I.P. PLANT On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger E. Regimbal (Argenfeuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Industry and Defence Production but, in his absence, I shall address it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the C.I.P. company which employs 130 people at Calumet has announced it intention of closing its doors as of May 1968 and since it is the only industry in this locality, does the Minister of Industry intend to take steps to try to replace this only source of employment?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is referring to a situation which will not occur until May 1968 and, in the circumstances, I think this question could be put on the order paper.


Roger E. Régimbal: With your kind permission, even though the event may be ten or twelve months removed, the problem is immediate and, for that reason, I should like to bring it up at ten o'clock.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to address my question to the Minister of Labour although I realize it is related to the Department of Finance. In view of the critical housing situation which exists in Canada, and in view of the fact that the government has removed the building tax on university residences, would the minister not consider extending freedom from this tax to all public housing whether for senior citizens or for family occupation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As one might expect, this matter has been


Alfred Dryden Hales: In order to overcome the discriminatory feature involved, does the minister not think the concession should be broader in scope?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking an argumentative question.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to rephrase a question I asked the Prime Minister on Tuesday; I hope the right hon. gentleman will rephrase his answer. Will the new president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be appointed by June 30 and, if not, can the Prime Minister say by what date, approximately, this appointment will be made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: June 30 is I think only four or five days from now. This appointment will be made as soon as possible.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries. Two days ago, in the hon. gentleman's absence, I asked the Prime Minister whether we might expect an extension of the lobster fishing season in district 7B. Is the minister now in a position to make an announcement in this regard?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: The question as put by the hon. member was brought to my attention immediately on my return to Ottawa, and in keeping with the promise I made earlier I wish to inform the house that in districts 6B,7A,7B and 7C the lobster season will be extended for periods varying from five days to two weeks, depending on existing conditions in those districts. A detailed announcement to this effect was issued earlier today.
1812	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



NOVA SCOTIA-ASSISTANCE TO FISHERY ALONG SOUTHERN AND EASTERN SHORES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: May I ask
the Minister of Fisheries whether he has now received from the province of Nova Scotia any recommendation with regard to aid to the industry along our southern and eastern shores?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: The matter has been under discussion between the minister of fisheries for Nova Scotia and myself and, in addition, I discussed it last week with the premier of that province when he was here in Ottawa. It is now under consideration. I might add that in attempting to find a solution to this problem we are hoping to establish a more permanent solution which will be acceptable to the fishermen concerned.



SPRING TROLLING ON PACIFIC COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnelf (Comox-Alberni):: While the minister is talking about the closing of seasons can he inform the house whether he has reached any agreement with the United States on an earlier opening date for spring trolling on the Pacific coast?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minisler of Fisheries: No, Mr. Speaker; not yet.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the Department of Transport given any approval to the elimination, or reduction of any rail service on any line, despite the fact that the operations of such lines may have been guaranteed by a statement from the government-and incidentally by a deposit being paid-and are not subject to abandonment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker; no such instruction has been given by the Department of Transport. If it had been given it would have no legal validity whatsoever.

DEBATES	June 22, 1967



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but since he is not here perhaps I might address it to the Prime Minister. Having in mind the recent reports that the parliament buildings face one of the worst examples of water pollution in Canada, what steps does the government intend to take to ensure co-operation between the municipalities of Ottawa, Hull and other interested communities in an effort to eliminate this water pollution problem in the national capital area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question of very wide scope should be placed on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, the other day I had a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Is he ready to answer it now?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this was a question addressed to the Minister of Finance with regard to two banks. The suggestion was that these two banks were refusing farm improvement loans to farmers, unless they transact all their business with their particular banks. The information we have is that this is not the policy of the two banks referred to by the hon. member. I should point out, however, that the Farm Improvement Loans Act authorizes the government to guarantee loans made by banks to farmers for a wide range of farm improvement projects. These loans are made from the banks' own funds and the guarantee is an incentive for the banks to commit some of these funds to farm improvement loans on a term basis. There is nothing in the legislation which requires a bank to make such loans.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
June 22, 1967	COMMONS
the Minister of Transport. In view of the denial of access to the Port Abino lighthouse to which I referred on Monday may I ask the minister what steps he has taken to protect the rights of federal members to visit installations which are paid for out of the federal treasury.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence the parliamentary secretary might be able to answer it. Can we expect an announcement giving details of the application of the national dairy policy to the dairy industry of British Columbia.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I am not aware of any announcement being imminent, but I will bring this to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL CONSULAR SERVICE On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to one of the most scholarly minds in this house, the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. And I immediately give notice that I will raise the said question at ten o'clock.
In view of the fact that thousands of Canadians citizens visit Florida at every period of the year and in view of the fact that the closest consulate in the south of the United States is in Louisiana, can the parliamentary secretary tell me whether it is the intention of the government to open a new consulate nearer to the state of Florida? Ten o'clock, unless you accept the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
LEGISLATION TO INCREASE PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this ques-
DEBATES	1813
Inquiries of the Ministry tion either to the Prime Minister or to the President of the Treasury Board. Is the legislation to increase the pensions of retired civil servants, as recommended on May 8 by the special joint committee on the public service of Canada, now ready to be presented to parliament?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under active consideration by the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will it be presented this month or must we sit into July in order that we may attend to this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the precedent established by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre two days ago, have I the opportunity to use this period to thank the Minister of Transport for the expected improvements at the Castlegar airport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has an answer to the question I asked yesterday in connection with the right of Israel to retain the whole of the city of Jerusalem.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is one important aspect of the whole question of withdrawal, along with a political settlement. I would prefer not to single it out, except to repeat what has been said in the past by Canadian delegates to the United Nations; that is, it is desirable to bring into effect some international protection of the holy places in Jerusalem. I hope this can be worked out. My hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, may have a word or two to say about this tomorrow.
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Defence


John George Diefenbaker: Is it the Prime Minister's view that the internationalization would cover the Israeli side of Jerusalem, the whole of Jerusalem and Jordan? That would be very-hard on the Israelis, would it not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was referring to international supervision of holy places, and not of the area.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question along the same line. Would sovereignty of this actual area be retained within the United
Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The suggestion was made many years ago that Jerusalem become an international city under a regime, to be supervised by the United Nations. I doubt whether that would be feasible at the present time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, following the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his position as house leader whether he is now in a position to give an indication of the business of the house for the next six days?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the house business for the next six days to some extent depends upon consultations which are presently under way. I hope that later in the day I will be in a position to indicate what the business is for the house next week.
Perhaps I should take this occasion to advise the house that it is unlikely that we will be able to adjourn the house at the end of next week, as I had indicated earlier. We will likely be sitting during the following week.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,850,056,375 for the purposes of votes 1, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 45 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,221,323,000

will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year, subject to the direction of the treasury board, in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, any member of the British Commonwealth or any provincial or municipal government and in respect of charges made pursuant -to regulations under the National Defence Act for:
(a)	clothing and kit items sold to members of the Canadian forces:
(b)	living accommodation;
(c)	food supplied to members of the Canadian forces and to messes and institutes catering thereto; and
(d)	medical and dental care provided to dependants of members of the Canadian forces, $6,593,375.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Chairman, in presenting the departmental estimates for 1967-68 I would first like to pay tribute to my able associate minister who has, since he assumed his portfolio, worked in an untiring, conscientious and extremely capable manner in carrying a large share of the burden in this department. The success we have had in streamlining the organization of the armed forces unquestionably would not have been possible without his very strong contribution.
I would also like to express my thanks to the staffs of the chief of defence staff and the deputy minister. Their drive and enthusiasm in meeting the problems associated with the reorganization has been remarkable and the associate minister and I are extremely grateful for their imaginative and capable approach to their tasks. It is particularly significant that, during the period of the reorganization, there has been no falling off of our operational capability. On the contrary, in practically every field our operational capability has been enhanced.
I would also like to thank the men and women of the forces of all ranks for continuing to give unsurpassed professional service to Canada. I may be accused of bias but, unblushingly, I say that man for man, woman for woman, there are no better military people anywhere in the world and we as a nation should be proud of them.
No statement in support of defence estimates would be complete without a review of our foreign policy commitments, upon which defence planning and, therefore, expenditures must be based.
Because of its prominence at the present time, I would first like to discuss our participation in the United Nations. The policy of
June 22, 1967
[Stage Direction]
successive Canadian governments in support of UN peace keeping is, of course, well known. Canada has provided forces for every peace keeping action since the organization was formed. Since 1949 Canada has supplied a component to the UN military observer group in India and Pakistan. Since 1954 we have been providing observers to the UN truce supervisory organization in Palestine, which has been playing an important role in the current Middle East crisis. It is possible that the United Nations may have to build on this organization to supply a UN presence in the Middle East as a result of recent developments. We are also providing the second largest contingent in the UN force in Cyprus, which continues to make an invaluable contribution to the maintenance of peace and stability, not only on the island but in that particular area of the eastern Mediterranean.
Outside the United Nations, Canadian military personnel continue to participate in the international control commission in Indochina.
While the government regrets the withdrawal of the United Nations emergency force from the Middle East, and the tragic events which have followed that withdrawal, it would be a mistake to jump to the conclusion that peace keeping will never be required in the future.
Demands on the UN to undertake peace keeping operations will, the government believes, continue to be made despite the difficulties which have surrounded the withdrawal of UNEF. While the United Nations will not be able to deal with all the troubled situations which arise in the future, it will remain the only international organization which, in most instances, is acceptable as an impartial outside presence.
It is the government's position that Canada should continue to be prepared to help the UN to carry out its primary task under the charter, namely the maintenance of peace and security, provided we are satisfied that the terms and conditions of peace keeping operations are such as to make this task feasible and are compatible with our foreign policy interests. It is still the government's view that the United Nations still offers the best hope of peaceful intervention in certain situations.
Chapter VII of the UN charter provides that the security council may authorize an enforcement action to maintain or restore international peace as it did in Korea in 1950. It is important, therefore, that Canada be in a position to fulfil its commitments under the
Supply-National Defence charter by having a capability to participate in such an enforcement action, should the government decide to respond to a request for Canadian participation.
I am sure members of the committee would wish to join in paying tribute to the members of the Canadian armed forces who, for so long, as members of UNEF in Egypt, played such an important role in the service of the United Nations and of peace. It was typical of the efficiency of this force and our air transport command that, when word came to leave the area, the force was removed in a remarkably effective manner.
In this regard I would like to emphasize the success-not failure-of our Canadian soldiers and airmen of our force in Gaza. To keep the peace in such an area for more than 10 years was a remarkable achievement for the force which included more than 10,000 Canadian soldiers and airmen who served there since the inception of the operation. They should all be proud of their accomplishment.
The fault is not with the peace keeping force-not at all-it is with the failure to come to grips with the social, economic and political problems that made the peace keeping force necessary in the first place.
In the government's view, a military force is only an umbrella under which men of good will may work to correct the problems that beset mankind. Military force-from peace keeping to nuclear deterrence-is not an end in itself, only a means to an end. If we fail to take advantage of the time and opportunity provided by the military umbrella to build a permanent structure for peace, let us not blame the umbrella if after a decade it begins to spring a few leaks.
The lessons learned from our experience in UN peace keeping operations are many and varied. I would like to list a few of the most important.
First, there is no typical peace keeping operation; no two have been alike. Thus, the ad hoc method of establishing each operation will likely continue.
Second, peace keeping is only the beginning, albeit a vital beginning, to the solution to any international conflict. We must come to grips with the root causes of the hostility or the so-called peace will turn out to be a mirage.
Third, and very important from a practical standpoint, is that the rules governing the peace keeping force must be clearly established at the outset, or soon thereafter.
June 22, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence
This latter point was brought vividly to light by the Middle East crisis. It is of vital importance that agreed arrangements be worked out in advance of or soon after the establishment of future UN peace keeping operations.
The Canadian government believes in the need for a world body such as the United Nations. It believes that such an organization should participate in keeping the peace; it believes the UN should eventually have permanent peace keeping machinery. We Canadians of all political parties have consistently expressed these convictions and worked ceaselessly toward this goal before and since the UN charter was signed.
But, being practical people as well, we have not closed our eyes to the limitations of UN authority to act. We have not ignored the fact that the superpowers do not always share the same approach to economic and political matters. We have not been oblivious to the fact that injustice and a woeful imbalance in the sharing of the necessities of life breed strife. We are only too much aware that, as yet, most nations of the world are not prepared to allow a world superbody to decide what they feel are their interests.
It was considerations such as these that led the government, in the white paper on defence of 1964, to reject the then popular concept of devoting our forces to UN peace keeping only. Instead we set out to evolve a force with a wide range of capabilities to participate in military activity from contributing to the deterrence of all-out thermonuclear war down through the scale of hostilities to peace keeping.
The purpose of our defence policy is not and never was to create simply a giant peace keeping force. Certainly, some of the wide range of new equipment we are obtaining, such as jeeps, reconnaissance vehicles, helicopters, and communications gear will enhance our ability in peace keeping assignments. Of course, the huge increase in mobility provided by our acquisition of air trucks and support ships will mean that we can get peace keeping forces and their equipment to trouble spots faster. But this gear also increases the effectiveness of our alliance contributions and, clearly, the procurement of fighter-bombers, self-propelled howitzers, armoured personnel carriers, helicopter-destroyers and other such items are not those associated with peace keeping forces alone.

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The basis of our approach was then, and remains today, one of practical idealism. It was practical idealism in the face of communist expansion that prompted Canada to take a leading role in the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Canadian government continues to believe in the concept of a regional alliance of North Atlantic nations. NATO has succeeded in meeting its objectives of halting the loss of territory to the communist world and creating stability in the European theatre. These have been no mean achievements and the Canadian government believes the maintenance of European stability in an unstable world is as important today as it was when the alliance was formed. Consequently we are continuing to provide military support to the collective strength of the alliance, although we are gradually altering the nature of that support in recognition of the changing character of the threat, the advancing technology of military weaponry and an analysis of the total capability of the alliance.
This year the members of NATO will introduce a new system of planning and reviewing their national military contributions for the alliance. The review will take place in the autumn, when the members will submit plans for the next five years. The results of the autumn review will be submitted to the December ministerial meeting for approval. This new system, the establishment of which Canada has strongly supported, will mesh with our own revised method of planning in five year segments with an annual review.
Thus Canada this fall will be required to inform the alliance of the forces we propose to make available for collective defence. Careful consideration is being given now to this matter, but I can assure the committee that if any changes are made in the nature of our contributions they will be of a slowly evolving, rather than precipitous, nature. That is the responsible course for a member of a group. I should say, however, that there has been no discussion of any changes which would have a bearing on the estimates now before the committee.
Another area of NATO with which Canada is quite obviously concerned is the Canada-United States zone. Quite clearly Canada's security very much depends upon the continuing capability of the United States to deter attack on this continent. Although we may be sure that in her own self-interests the United States would have to repel any attack, however unlikely, upon Canada, it has been
June 22, 1967
[Stage Direction]
the conviction of successive governments in Canada that co-operation in the defence of this continent is warranted not only for reasons of pride and self-respect but also for practical considerations of sovereignty. For these reasons Canadian forces have worked closely with those of the United States in planning for the defence of North America. This co-operation is illustrated but by no means restricted to the NORAD agreement, which encompasses the responsibility for defence against a bomber attack and warning of one from missiles.
The semi-automatic ground environment, with its cobweb of communications systems covering this continent, together with its manual back-up and associated interceptors, remains of value as long as a potential aggressor is able to attack with bombers. Unquestionably, the main burden of the Soviet union's strategic capability now rests on intercontinental ballistic missiles. But the arbitrary dissolution of anti-bomber defences, already installed at considerable expense, would serve only to upgrade the strategic potential of the U.S.S.R.'s long-range bomber force, now generally accepted to be approximately 150 manned bombers capable of reaching the North American heartland on a two-way mission.
In regard to an anti-ballistic missile- known as A.B.M.-defence, I am sure members of the committee are aware of the current debate in the United States about the wisdom of deploying such a system. The costs involved are considerable: approximately $10 billion for a light defence and upward of twice that for a more extensive damage-limiting system. To these initial installation costs would be added sizeable annual maintenance and improvement costs, plus probable additional expenditures for improved manned interceptors, and a shelters program. It is clear that a decision by the United States to deploy an A.B.M. system would involve heavy additional defence expenditures. So far no such decision has been reached although development work continues.
The implications for Canada if the United States does proceed with an A.B.M. system are worthy of serious consideration in this country. As I indicated during the discussion of the Canadian Armed Forces Reorganization Act, I would welcome a debate on this subject in this house.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Hellyer:: Yes.
Supply-National Defence


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister welcome an opportunity being given to the house to go into the technical aspects of this very important problem by referring it to the standing committee on national defence, presumably after the recess?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think this would be a very good suggestion, at an appropriate time. I think the timing would depend to a considerable extent on the amount of information available, the timing of the decision-making process and when a decision is required. What I am really trying to say is that we might not have by early fall all the information the committee would want in order to provide background for an intelligent discussion.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the minister a sort of supplementary question? Does the minister not think it would be very valuable for Canada, in stimulating the debate about Canadian involvement in this system-as the minister said debate has taken place extensively in the United States-to proceed with this discussion in the defence committee, elaborating knowledge of the implications for Canada, as early as possible so that when a decision has to be made by Canada it can be made in an atmosphere of wide diffusion of public knowledge and knowledge in this house on the subject?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I agree with my hon. friend, and just as soon as the range of information that is necessary for a really thorough discussion is available I would be quite prepared to refer the subject matter to the committee for their consideration. I think this is a good idea.
In the discussion it should be clearly understood that membership in NORAD does not commit either partner to participating in aspects of the defensive system. For instance, Canada has never adopted the NIKE-Hercules system for close-in anti-bomber defence, and other than communications, Canada is not involved in the ballistic missile early warning system or B.M.E.W.S.
Similarly, re-signing of the NORAD agreement would not automatically commit Canada to participate in the A.B.M. program if the United States should decide to proceed. That is a question for each country to decide on the basis of its own national interest. Should the United States decide at a later date to deploy an A.B.M. system I have no doubt, in view of the close co-operation between our two countries, that the United States would
1818	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence make it possible for Canada to opt in if at any time we felt it was in the interest of our country to do so.
To augment the information made available to us by the United States, the Department of National Defence has undertaken an independent study of the A.B.M. question, including the possible effects on Canada of a decision by the United States to deploy a system exclusively in that country.
I would now like to discuss the general manpower situation in the forces and some of the changes being made in service conditions for the benefit of our servicemen and women. There has been an upswing in recruiting during the first five months of 1967. By the end of May, a total of 6,443 recruits had enrolled in the three services, an increase of 2,727 over the corresponding period in 1966. For those who prefer percentages, that is an increase of 73 per cent over the intake for the same five month period last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Churchill:: That figure is meaningless. [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The month of May, 1967, was the highest recruiting month since 1962. This improvement in recruiting, coupled with an upward trend in the number of re-engagements, has resulted in an increase in the strength of the forces since the beginning of the year. The total regular forces strength on May 31 was 105,972, an increase of 1,015 over the strength at the end of December, 1966. In addition, there are at all times a number of reserves on full-time duty with the regular force, and if the 271 men and women in this category are included the total number of personnel serving in the regular forces on May 31 this year was 106,243.
Steady progress is being made in our program to amend and revise the rules and regulations governing the employment of the men and women in the armed forces. This program has a twofold purpose. It is greatly improving service conditions by eliminating inequities in promotion and employment opportunities and inconsistencies in personnel policies generally, thereby improving morale and increasing efficiency. At the same time it is streamlining procedures which will gradually reduce the costs of personnel administration.
Let me give the committee a few examples of the steps that have already been taken or will be taken shortly:

DEBATES	June 22, 1967
1.	Administration of all men in the forces is now centralized. In the past there were three different systems with disadvantages in each, such as the decentralization of the selection process to command headquarters level, which limited career and employment opportunities.
2.	A common enrolment policy for officers has been established and a common enrolment policy for men will become effective this summer.
3.	A common policy on commissioning from the ranks has been drawn up which eliminates the inequities in the three existing service policies. The new policy will become effective this summer.
4.	The provision by the forces of matriculation level education to those who wish it, previously only available to navy men, has been expanded to all men in the forces.
5.	A common promotion policy for officers has been drawn up and will be introduced in July. A common promotion policy for men was announced on October 1, 1966, which will standardize promotion opportunities in the forces. However, because the previous single service policies were so vastly divergent, the new policy will be introduced in stages.
Steps are also being taken in the fields of welfare and pay and allowances, all of which make service life more attractive.
1.	A new system for the allocation of married quarters on forces' bases has been introduced which eliminates many of the inconsistencies in the former individual service systems.
2.	Moving allowances granted to personnel moving on transfer from one location to another have been substantially increased to a realistic amount.
3.	The Canadian forces social welfare services have been integrated and their services extended to all formations and units in the forces.
4.	A common leave policy has been introduced for all members of the forces.
I would like to discuss briefly what we are doing in the field of management engineering. From time to time we have been taken to task for what might appear to be an overriding interest in the techniques of good management and efficiency.
For some reason some people appear to feel that there seems to be something slightly inconsistent in the suggestion that military affairs can come under the influence of modern management practices. The fact is, and
June 22, 1967

this has been adequately demonstrated time and time again, the application of formalized management practices in the conduct of military operations is an absolute necessity at any time, but particularly so when operating under strict budgetary limitations.
The development of a small, well trained group of management engineers at Canadian forces headquarters has resulted in substantial savings in existing military organizations, particularly in the field of manpower, and has provided us with a scientific measure on which to base future organizations or new manpower needs. Specifically this group conducts organization analyses, systems and procedures analyses, method studies, and work measurement studies. It is impossible to accurately gauge all the benefits derived from this work but some idea will be gained from the estimate made by the group for the period from January to May of this year when 25 completed studies involving a direct cost to the forces of approximately $56,000 are forecast to return savings of over $900,000. Another example is found in the study of the maintenance manpower requirements for the Tutor and T-33 aircraft which resulted in a recommended reduction to manpower establishments of approximately 16 per cent. The average manpower savings as a result of our management engineering studies are 12 per cent and we will continue to employ these techniques of good management in the months and years ahead.
On April 1, 1965, the Canadian forces communications system was formed to manage the fixed strategic communications services formerly operated by the three separate services, using separate but parallel staffs.
Under C.F.C.S., the operation and management of the composite system has been completely unified, while the actual physical facilities have been integrated electronically and consolidated physically to the greatest extent possible. Coincident with the formation of the C.F.C.S., a program was undertaken to develop a master plan for the modernization and automation of all D.N.D. strategic communications systems. Because of the magnitude of the task, a team of consultants was hired to undertake the actual detailed studies and to develop a master plan for the new system. The study began in September, 1965, and is scheduled for completion this fall. New facilities to implement the plan will follow.
In the area of leased communications, C.F.C.S. has been able to reduce expenditures from $28 million in the fiscal year 1964-65 to an estimated $21 million for the fiscal year
Supply-National Defence 1967-68, saving of approximately $7 million. The reduction may be partially attributed to the closing of certain bases; however, the greatest portion of this reduction is the result of the elimination of unnecessary facilities and the closer control of contract arrangements which has become possible by vesting this activity in a single specialized staff.
While working toward the automated system, C.F.C.S. has been able to undertake a number of short term consolidations which have yielded improvements in operations together with many worth-while economies. For example, C.F.C.S. inherited personnel totalling 3,307 military and civilian. By organization adjustments, an outright personnel saving of close to 10 per cent has already been realized. The major savings in personnel which automation of the system will provide must await the implementation of the consultant study, but they promise to be sizeable indeed.
Perhaps more important than the economies to be realized is the fact the new automated communications system will give the men and women of our forces the modern communication they need and deserve to carry out their widespread duties.
Last August the chief of defence staff ordered a review of the organization and administration of the reserves, including their tasking, command and control, training and equipment. The recommendations stemming from this review were approved last January, after consultation with the conference of defence associations, and the new plan will become fully effective January 1, 1968. A major feature of the plan is the provision of realistic tasks for the reserves within the framework of their existing organization. Units of the reserves will be linked to those elements of the regular force which they must directly support.
To provide more efficient and centralized command of all reserves, the commanding officer naval divisions, the naval reserves headquarters at Hamilton, will be relocated in Ottawa in September and command and control of naval divisions will be exercised by the director general reserves. Changes will also be made in the command structure for militia and army cadets which is now vested in the deputy chief of reserves at Canadian forces headquarters and exercised through 12 district headquarters. The new structure will divide the country into five regions commanded by regular officers with seven small district headquarters commanded by a militia officer to be known as the district commander,
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Defence militia. This officer will command all militia personnel in his distrct.
It became apparent during the review conducted last fall that the role, organzation and re-equipment of the R.C.A.F. auxiliary required a complete re-examination and this re-examination is now being conducted on a priority basis. Members of the reserves are enthusiastic about the opportunities the new plan provides for realistic and meaningful training. For example, arrangements are being made to fly approximately 300 members of the reserves to Europe between late August and mid-October so that they can train alongside the members of the regular force on major field exercises.
While small groups of naval, land and air reserves have trained annually with the regular force in Canada, our increased air transport capability, coupled with the closer relationship being fostered between the reserves and regular force, now allows us to carry out this important training on a larger scale.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The cadet movement, comprising the sea, army and air cadet organizations, has increased in strength by 7 per cent during the year ended April 30 when we had a total of 93,135 cadets, made up of 10,190 sea cadets, 56,894 army cadets and 26,051 air cadets.
The continuing success and popularity of the cadet movement, reflected by this strength increase, is due in large part to the valuable assistance provided by our three civilian partners in this work-the Navy League of Canada, the Cadet Services of Canada Association, and the Air Cadet League of Canada.
An example of this co-operation is the recent agreement by these civilian partners to a common aim for the cadet movement which will permit increased regular force assistance to the cadets. Training will be broadened to give the cadets general familiarization with all environments: land, sea and air.
This summer approximately 17,000 cadets from all parts of Canada will attend various camps, courses and take part in exchange training with cadets of other countries. These will include the sea, army and air centennial camps at Kingston, Ontario and Farnham and St. Jean in Quebec, and a corps d'elite of some 200 sea, army and air cadets which will take part in activities at Expo and the national capital. We consider the department's contribution to the development of citizenship, leadership and physical fitness of
IMr. Hellyer.]

Canadian youth in the cadet movement to be one of our most rewarding commitments.
Development activities for the services, now operating under a single development vote, will continue to be an important item. The management of these activities, as mentioned last year, by the development and associated research policy group under the chairmanship of the chief of technical services is proving to be an effective system. Periodic review of progress and a thorough examination of all aspects of new projects before they are initiated is providing a more efficient and less time consuming means of controlling the development program. It is planned to support a continuing development activity at an annual level of approximately $20 million.
This will include improvements to existing service equipments, studies leading to new concepts and systems, and participation in development projects with our allies.
In my presentation of the 1965-66 estimates I mentioned specifically the development of the ocean-going hydrofoil vessel and noted that, like most development projects, the cost had increased substantially over the original estimates. This project has been plagued with its share of problems, the most noteworthy of Which was a fire on board the partially completed vessel in November of last year. A more recent problem was a failure in the power transmission system while under test at a subcontractor's plant. Despite these difficulties it is still intended to proceed with this development as the knowledge to be gained is important in a number of areas.
We are also continuing to study means of developing improved detection techniques in the field of anti-submarine warfare. The roles of Canada's forces stress a need for a variety of aircraft, particularly those with short takeoff and landing characteristics. Support for the tilt-wing CL84 aircraft, being developed by Canadair Limited, is being provided by the Department of Industry. A new concept of a thrust augmentor wing is being studied, under Department of National Defence support, by De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. This concept will allow high performance aircraft to achieve a short take-off and landing capability. Participation in this project by the United States has been agreed to and it is expected that other allied countries may also take part. The field of communications is an area of major interest for all elements of our armed forces. There has always been a considerable level of development activity in
June 22, 19S7

communication systems in Canada and we have now agreed to participate with our allies in two major projects in this field.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Has the minister unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to thank the committee for its courtesy in allowing me to continue with my remarks.
Project "Mallard" is the development of a highly advanced communications system for ground forces in the field. It is being undertaken jointly by the United States, Canada and Australia. Under NATO auspices, Canada will participate in the development of a tactical satellite communications system.
It has been our objective to channel as much as possible of the development program to Canadian industry. The examples I have used indicate that we are having considerable success in meeting this objective. Many of the projects are emanating from industrial proposals and most of the current development program will be assigned to Canadian industrial contracts.
To be effective, armed forces must not only have well trained and highly motivated men and women but they must be equipped with modern equipment. The men and women in our Canadian armed forces are well trained and highly motivated, and they are getting modern equipment.
For the naval forces we completed late last year the mid-life conversion of the St. Laurent class ships to the helicopter-destroyer configuration. Restigouche class destroyers will begin conversion later this year. Tenders have been called for DDH 280 class helicopter-destroyers. The second Oberon class submarine, Onondaga, is being commissioned this week in England and a third will be commissioned in 1968.
The Bonaventure, our aircraft carrier, is completing mid-life refit and modernization at Lauzon, Quebec. She is expected to sail for Halifax in August and following work-ups will rejoin the fleet. The two operational support ships, now being built in Saint John, New Brunswick, will be delivered in 1969.
For the ground forces we have completely equipped our two mechanized brigades with 27053-116
Supply-National Defence armoured personnel carriers and we are expecting the first deliveries of 175 Lynx armoured command and reconnaissance vehicles early next year. The Lynx will be issued to fighting units in our four brigade groups.
The self-propelled 155 mm. howitzers now on order for our mechanized brigades are expected to come into service next year. The first shipments of a new 81 mm. medium mortar are due shortly and this weapon will come into service this year. A surveillance drone system for the artillery is being developed. This system is a joint British, German and Canadian development in Canada by Canadair Limited.
There is also a requirement for less sophisticated equipment such as trucks and jeeps, and these are being provided. An order for 800 jeeps was placed with Kaiser of Canada earlier this month.
The program of modernization must continue and we are considering the acquisition of a new heavy anti-tank weapon, a low altitude air defence weapon for the ground forces, oversnow vehicles and a general purpose wheeled armoured vehicle.
The aircraft re-equipment program includes the delivery next year of the last four C130 Hercules transport aircraft for our heavy air transport fleet, bringing the total to 23. The CF-5 tactical ground support aircraft will begin coming off the production line at Canadair this fall and we took delivery of the first of 15 Buffalo short take-off and landing -STOL-transport aircraft from De Havilland Aircraft of Canada last week.
To provide our field commanders and their staffs with the capability of travelling quickly to all parts of their commands, we are getting seven Falcon light jet transports and the first of these aircraft is now at North West Industries in Edmonton for instrumentation and interior fitment. There is a requirement for a light utility helicopter which will be used for transporting personnel and as a light logistic vehicle. We expect the first aircraft of this type to be in service by the end of this year, o (4:00 p.m.)
To further increase our air transport capability we are also considering the future purchase of long-range jet transport aircraft to enhance further our mobility. In addition, we are continuing to monitor improvements in anti-submarine aircraft in case it becomes necessary to replace our current excellent aircraft in this role. In general, our forces are
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Defence obtaining a wide range of new modern equipment to enable them to carry out their assigned roles in as effective a manner as possible.
As forecast in the white paper there has been a consistent but modest increase in research funds. The Defence Research Board which is responsible for providing scientific advice to the minister and to the chief of defence staff also undertakes pure and applied research on behalf of the armed forces. The board has recently completed a comprehensive study of its organization structure and programs. As a result, changes are being made which will further strengthen its links with the armed forces in both defence research and development.
An example of this is a recent series of technical conferences between the Defence Research Board and the staff of mobile command which identified new problem areas where research and development are needed.
The launching of the highly successful Alouette I in September, 1962, marked Canada's entry into the field of space science and space technology. This remarkable achievement was followed in November, 1965, by the launching of the equally successful Alouette II. Both brought well deserved praise to the scientists of the Defence Research Board.
ISIS "A", the board's third satellite, is scheduled for launching next year.
In addition to this program of space research by means of these satellites, the board is engaged in joint studies with the United States on satellite communications for military purposes. Both the university grants program and the defence industrial research program continue as valuable adjuncts to the in-house research carried out in the establishments of the board.
There will be a modest increase in the funds for university grants. Co-operation with the research agencies of our NATO allies continues and it is proving an excellent medium for the exchange of defence scientific information in areas of mutual concern.
The defence estimates for 1967-68 are given In the traditional manner, by objectives and expenditures. In order to provide more meaningful information in the details, however, and to meet a long-standing request we are now grouping expenditures by function. For each of the major commands the expenses for personnel, operations and maintenance, as well as capital expenditures, are shown. This
[Mr. Hellyer.J
new breakdown of the estimates by commands is a significant step towards the goal of providing estimates information on a mission-oriented basis.
This system will permit a better assessment of expenditures in terms of the main roles or missions performed by the Canadian Armed Forces and it will at the same time facilitate the introduction of financial management procedures recommended in the Glassco commission report.
In accordance with the government's program based on the Glassco commission recommendations for improved financial management in the public service, we have been developing a modern system of financial management and responsibility accounting. A pilot study is beginning in transport command this year. We expect to introduce similar systems throughout the department over the next three or four years. One of the byproducts of this will be the capacity to present to this committee estimates, expenditure and performance data which will considerably assist this committee in effectively discharging its responsibilities for the examination of defence estimates.
I trust that members of the committee will find the analysis this year beneficial, although it is necessarily limited as the new financial systems are still in the course of development.
When the white paper was produced in 1964, I established as a financial objective estimates, commencing with the fiscal year 1965-66, of $1,550 million escalating at not more than 2 per cent a year. This was exclusive of credits that might be necessary from time to time to provide for actuarial adjustments to the pension account.
In actual performance, defence expenditures were 98.7 per cent in 1965-66 and 99.3 per cent in 1966-67 of these targets. The estimates for 1967-68 which you have before you are precisely on this target.
It has been possible in the first two years of the program to meet the over-all financial targets and in the third year, 1967-68, to present the estimates within this limitation.
I am also confident that the equipment programs that are now under way will result in expenditures in the full amount of the provision contained in the 1967-68 estimates for this purpose.
Capital expenditures, such as expenditures on construction of buildings and works, development and procurement of equipment, etc., were 17.3 per cent of actual expenditures in
June 22, 1967

1965-66, 15.9 per cent in 1966-67 and are estimated at 20.5 per cent in the 1967-68 estimates, excluding the statutory item for actuarial adjustments.
I do not propose to go over the detail at this time but I will, of course, be pleased later in this debate to provide detailed information in respect of any items in which hon. members are particularly interested.
This year, the net total estimates expenditure for the Department of National Defence is $1,688 billion. You will note, Mr. Chairman, that when these estimates are expressed in terms of percentage of gross national product, defence expenditure has dropped from 3.9 per cent in 1963-64 to an estimated 2.7 per cent this year.
To put these estimates into better financial perspective, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to table a chart show-
Supply-National Defence ing what it would have cost to maintain the 1963-64 organization and activities at today's prices. This chart also shows what it would have cost to maintain the defence department as it is today if we still enjoyed 1963-64 price levels. May I be permitted to table the chart?


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I understand it is not customary to table such data in committee. Would it not be a good idea to add the figures as an appendix to Hansard?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is a very short document. Perhaps I might read it into the record.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Read it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I might have the indulgence of the committee, the chart I have before me is as follows:
Chart Comparing Relative Costs of Maintaining Department of National Defence in Fiscal Years
Shown below in millions of dollars
1963/64 expenditures inflated to current prices in each year
Actual expenditures in each year Expenditures in each year at 1963/64 prices
To summarize briefly this chart, Mr. Chairman, if the department had continued as it was in 1963-64 without reorganization and without reducing marginal activities, the estimated requirement for 1967-68 would have been $328.8 million higher than is now being sought.
In terms of current purchasing power, the 1967-68 estimates, when compared with the actual expenditures in 1963-64, show a reduction of $279 million or 16.3 per cent. We expect to receive a dollar of value for every dollar we spend on defence.
Every request for expenditures is being carefully scrutinized to determine its validity and usefulness. In this regard, the associate minister and I are very grateful to the deputy minister, the chief of defence staff and their subordinates for the co-operation and understanding they have displayed in keeping defence estimates to a minimum.
I cannot conclude these remarks without making some mention of the contributions being made by the Canadian Armed Forces to the celebration of Canada's one hundredth anniversary. All components of the forces, both regular and reserve, are contributing to 27053-1161
1963/64	1964/65	1965/66	1966/67	1967/681683.5	1735.7	1809.8	1932.7	2016.81683.5	1535.6	1548.4	1645.4	1688.0 (Estimate)1683.5	1489.4	1440.4	1433.3	1409.0
the centennial celebrations. Our major activity is, of course, the Canadian Armed Forces tattoo now playing to the record crowds at Expo '67.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That deals with tradition. I thought you had wiped it out.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This exciting two-hour
panorama of Canadian military history has toured the country from coast to coast playing to packed houses virtually everywhere.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a lot in history and tradition, is there not?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, of course. I am glad that the show was as well received in Winnipeg as in the rest of the country.
Standing ovations have become the rule rather than the exception when the show's finale is completed. The significant thing here is that the tattoo was completely written, produced and directed by Canadian servicemen and the entire cast is made up of serving officers and men.
Among other major centennial activities conducted by the department is the Canadian Armed Forces motorcycle display team,
1824	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence which will give performances in 112 communities across Canada. Like the tattoo, this team demonstrates the professional discipline inherent in our forces.
Another major contributor is the Golden Centennaires aerobatic display team. This group of aviators are giving performances in 100 different Canadian locations. One measure of their success has been the numerous requests that have come from communities that for valid reasons regretfully could not be included in the tour schedule for the Centennaires.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
A fourth centennial activity conducted by the Department of National Defence is the naval assemblies at Halifax this month and at Victoria and Vancouver next month. Approximately 28 foreign ships from at least 15 countries will take part in these naval assemblies on both coasts.
In addition to the specific activities I have mentioned, Canadian servicemen at home and abroad are playing important parts in local centennial projects. Particular mention should be made of the part being played by reserve formations in supporting their district celebrations.
All these activities, of course, put an additional strain on the department's resources, but it is important to note that during this period the Canadian Armed Forces are still able to perform their primary tasks and at the same time make a remarkable contribution to the centennial activities which, incidentally, they seem to be thoroughly enjoying. In my opinion all credit should be given to the officers and men of the forces who are participating in these programs, as well as to those who have planned them.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, before I deal with the content, or lack of content, in the minister's statement I want to say I thoroughly agree with what he said in the latter portion of his remarks when he paid tribute to various armed forces activities in connection with the centennial celebrations-the Centennaires, the motorcycle display team, the military tattoo and other events which our armed forces are putting on. I have seen some of these displays and I agree with the minister that they are worthy of the highest commendation. With regard to the tattoo, my only comment is that I did not see one green uniform in it and that its excellence was therefore unimpaired.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Ha, ha, ha.

DEBATES	June 22, 1967


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for
Chicoutimi may not have seen it yet. I trust that at some time he will do so and see what it is like.
With regard to the content of the minister's statement, let me say that it was the type of statement which would in normal circumstances be made before the defence committee where one would have the opportunity of studying the great amount of detail it involves. There is no doubt the minister has covered extensively, if somewhat lightly, a great many aspects of defence, including both defence policy and some of the programming he has in mind this year. There are, of course, issues with which he has not dealt or with which he has dealt only superficially. This may be brought out in the course of questions later, although I must say the program of business we have before us does not give us much chance of going into these estimates as deeply as the committee would wish.
Notwithstanding the fact that we had an extended debate in February, March and April involving the affairs of the department, these estimates are very important inasmuch as they continue the program of the integration of command. Even though Bill No. C-243 has not yet been proclaimed, with the result that none of its provisions is operative at this time, there are some consequences which flow from the passage of that bill. It is not my intention this afternoon to revive the so-called unification debate but there are several questions which naturally flow from the de-sion made at that time.
In the early part of his presentation the minister, somewhat self-consciously, I thought, identified with a particular aspect of our defence role, namely, that of peace keeping. His attitude was, I believe, a defensive one. It was said during the unification debate-this is a view which is shared by many who are completely sincere in their belief

that there has been too much emphasis placed on the future peace keeping role of the Canadian Armed Forces. I will not repeat the remarks I made on December 7 following the minister's introduction of the bill. I thought at that time we were going too far for the good of our forces in committing ourselves to a peace keeping role. Peace keeping is not dependent on a decision by Canada alone. It involves a decision which is taken not even by the United Nations as such but by the members of the United Nations. I said in December, and I think I was right, that peace keeping did not have a high priority in the thinking of far too many members of the
June 22, 1967

United Nations. Today I would say they think even less of it in practical terms.
I doubt that the countries of the Middle East care a fig about peace keeping when it comes to practical matters. The Soviet union certainly does not, and it is one of the jokes of the century so far as France is concerned. They may pay some lip service to it, but that is all. We must regret the fact that the concept of a peace keeping role has suffered in reputation. I do not think India cares very much for it. As we know, India was warned in advance by Nasser that the U.A.R. would request a withdrawal of the United Nations peace keeping force, as was Yugoslavia. And they were very glad to get out. This is why Canada was placed in the invidious position in which she found herself. I realize this is not a United Nations debate, but I must say I think the decision to withdraw the force was highly precipitate and wrong in principle notwithstanding the fact that Israel's continued refusal to accept a peace keeping force on its side of the border had not contributed to improving the situation. But that is history now.
The question is: Is there a role for peace keeping forces? I hesitate to think there is in the foreseeable future. And I believe Canada holds the same opinion. I say this in the light of the reservations our spokesman made in the debate the other day with regard to the decision to continue the existence of the Cyprus force for another six months. Indeed, the Canadian representative finally said there must be an end to this situation because almost three years had gone by since we got ourselves into the Cyprus adventure. In that period there has been no fighting, it is true, but neither has there been any solution of the social and economic problems involved.
I agree with the minister when he says that the conflict in the Middle East did not come about as a result of the failure of the peace keeping force. That is true. It came about as a result of the failure of the countries concerned to solve the social and political problems which exist in the region.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I think one can say further that the presence of peace keeping forces in the Middle East and Cyprus is a soporific. It rather lets people forget the basic problem. There is sort of a feeling that if we keep quiet maybe the problem will go away. This seems to allow the nations concerned to dilly-dally or procrastinate and as a result fail to get down to the hard business of settling the problems. It
Supply-National Defence may be that the pressure of fighting will perhaps force people to get down to the matter of really settling the problems. This, however, is one of the negative aspects of a very successful peace keeping force in that it allows the principals in the quarrel to be lulled into a frame of mind that the settlement of the basic problems need not be undertaken now because of the attitude that no one is fighting. I would not agree with the suggestion which might be made by some that I am arguing that we should let them fight to exhaustion and that this would settle their problems. I do not think so. This, however, is one of the negative aspects we have seen in respect of peace keeping and it is something we should keep in mind in respect of peace keeping in the future. I believe some of my colleagues will be speaking on this matter.
With regard to NATO the minister did give the indication that there would be a five-year program disclosed to the member nations in the fall. We would be interested in knowing what the changes by Canada will be which were hinted at in the minister's remarks. Will these changes be in the field of ships? I rather think so. It is conceivable there may be some change in the manpower content of the brigade in Europe. I am speculating because the minister merely hinted. If it is to be in the field of the brigade as a cohesive unit, one finds difficulty in understanding how one could reduce it as an effective fighting team.
The change could have something to do with the ultimate withdrawal of the air division. I rather expect, however, that it has more to do with ships because we are in trouble with our ships. Nothing the minister said this afternoon can gloss over the problems which exist in respect of manpower in the navy and the fact that some ships are and more may be, undermanned. For instance, where is the crew for the Bonaventure to come from? If the other ships are undermanned, where are these men to come from? Obviously they have been allocated to other duties in the interval. They are not merely standing by. I do not believe it can be done by the simple matter of resorting to mere recruits. We have not been getting too many recruits in the past year. The figures may have gone up temporarily. The minister mentioned increases in recruitment but a recruit is not an experienced serviceman. He is a long way from it.
We should like to know far more about the figures in respect of retirements. We should like to know how many men have given notice that they intend to retire. I should like to
June 22. 1967

Supply-National Defence have an explanation oi what is happening in respect of subclauses 3 and 4 of clause 6 of Bill No. C-243. Although the act has not been proclaimed, I should like to know whether the provision for six months' notice is general throughout the services for every man who wishes to retire ahead of time. Is this being applied as a general rule? What will be the conditions of retirement when the act is proclaimed? What will be the conditions of retirement under clause 6(3)? Has this been settled?
I can assure the minister that there are many servicemen who are now anxious to find out what will happen under clause 6(3), because administratively means can be devised quite readily to stultify or negate the spirit of the statement made by the minister at the end of the unification debate when he modified his statement with regard to clause 6 and allowed the amendment to subclause 3.
We should like to have some figures with regard to the total present strength in the three branches inasmuch as they still exist since the act has not been proclaimed. What is the present strength as at June 1 in each of the three branches, the army, the navy and the air force, since they do exist? What is the rate of recruitment in each of those services? What is the rate of actual retirement in each of the services and how many notices of retirement are on file at the present time in each of the services?
In dealing with the details disclosed in the estimates I note aircraft acquisition. Has anything been decided with regard to replacement of the CF-104? How does this tie in with the forces' goal which the minister is going to announce to our NATO allies this autumn? What is to happen in respect of the CF-104? Is its role to be abandoned? If it is to be abandoned within the scope of the five-year period, now is the time to consider the replacement of this airplane because we know how long it took for the CF-5 to be decided upon, put into production, delivered and brought forward for squadron operation.
In view of the increase in cost of this aircraft, can the minister tell us how many aircraft we will have under the CF-5 program? We should also like to know how many tankers will have to be provided for refuelling purposes, because these aircraft have an extremely short range and are incapable of flying from this continent without some refuelling system. Will some of the Hercules aircraft have to be converted into tankers and, if so, how many? Otherwise the CF-5 force will be confined to Canada? Perhaps it
[ Mr. Lambert.]
is the intention to locate them all in Europe. We should have some indication at this time, not two or three years from now, in respect of the CF-5, when presumably it will be in squadron operation. The minister indicated to us that this year we are going to get four more 130-E's and that they are looking at follow-up aircraft of a long-range jet transport type. We should have more information in respect of that particular aspect.
o (4:30 p.m.)
Having regard to the transport squadron and the reconnaissance squadron, where are the personnel to be found? We are short of personnel, particularly pilots, and we were short of aircraft. We are now purchasing more aircraft and I should like the minister to indicate where he expects to find the necessary air crews. Are new people to be trained or is some conversion to take place?
I thought the minister's remarks about the reserves were rather touching. I was pleased to note that he did not use terms like "bone lean", "sharp" and "efficient" as he did in the past. We remember when the reserves were reorganized two years ago following the Sut-tyie report and the emasculation or disappearance of so many of our proud militia units. We were supposed to have 30,000 men in the militia ready to move into our secondary brigades and fulfil other commitments by filling out the flesh of our forces in case of an emergency. The truth of the matter is that there are not 30,000 effective men in the militia. Some of our militia units are run down and their morale is apathetic because of the uncertainty that exists in respect of the future of these wonderful units and of our armed forces. They are wondering now whether there is going to be another clean-out or cutback of militia units.
I trust that the director general of reserves will be successful with his latest plan. He is a fine soldier and merits something better than a task which might turn out to be hopeless. We have now observed a return to the former military districts which existed in the past. I suppose one might say that the more change we see on paper the more things remain the same.
The cadets were all enrolled prior to unification, but I have been talking to some naval cadets and Navy League cadets and I am wondering how many of them are going to remain under unification. These are all intangible things, but let me say to the minister that one of the best things we have in this country for our young people is the cadet
June 22, 1967

movement. These cadets are polite and they aTe a great source of recruitment for our forces. If as a result of actions to be taken, or actions that have been taken, the cadet movement falls to the ground, I think Canada as a whole will be the greatest loser.
In the few moments that remain at my disposal I should like to refer to another aspect of national defence policy which was discussed during the unification debate and during the debate on a supply motion. Hon. members will recall that I raised a question of privilege on the basis that the form of the estimates was not in accordance with the law. This is still the case because there are no specific estimates in respect of the army, the navy or the air force as such. The information given on a functional basis is interesting and informative but it is not in accordance with the law. While I do not intend to precipitate a lengthy row about the improper form of these estimates, I must say that they fail to disclose any specific information.
Let me point out that in the estimates there is no amount shown specifically for procurement of aircraft for the navy. There is an amount shown in respect of aircraft and engines for the whole force. That is all very well, but we have no specific information in this regard. These things are all lumped together. For example, the maritime command will cost us this year a total of $281,647,000, but lumped together are personnel, operations and maintenance. We do not know what the air component of the maritime command is going to cost. We have no idea how much it will cost for aircraft or other things for the mobile command. The way the estimates are before us there is no way of identifying specific costs such as the cost of training a sailor, an airman or a soldier. Sailors, airmen and soldiers are going to remain soldiers, airmen and sailors notwithstanding the fact they are going to be lumped together as servicemen. That is all I intend to say about the form of the estimates, although I admit the information provided is of interest and informative even though it does not meet the requirements of the law.
I trust that when the time comes the minister will provide us with a breakdown of vote number 15. This item includes $61 million for ships and I should like to know what ships are involved. It also provides $95 million for aircraft and engines and I should like to know what aircraft and what engines are involved. We also find an amount listed for electronic and communication equipment.
Supply-National Defence Surely we should have a breakdown in respect of all of these items. We want to know what company will build the $95 million worth of aircraft and what will be the contribution to the defence forces. This is the kind of information we would like to obtain.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Because of the shortness of time and the fact that a number of my colleagues wish to speak on these estimates, I shall limit my remarks on the first item to what I have said up to now. I will have further questions on other items. On the whole this will be a very imperfect study of these estimates because the study of the estimates last year left many questions unresolved. We should have the opportunity to question the minister and the officers of the department on the estimates. The spending of the Department of National Defence, amounting to $1,688 million, forms such a large proportion of the total expenditures of the government that at all times these estimates should be subject to examination by committee.
I do not agree that the estimates of all departments should be examined by committee every year but certainly those of the Department of National Defence should be. There is far too much detail in these estimates to deal with them hurriedly. We will merely skim the surface. In fact, we will not even skim the surface this afternoon and tonight. The government will ask the house to approve these estimates on the basis of today's study. I do not think this is at all good enough.
I should like to remind the minister of one other matter before resuming my seat. I refer to his undertaking at the committee hearings that any rules and regulations made in connection with Bill No. C-243 would be referred to the committee on defence for examination. The minister will recall that undertaking. I trust he will be able to tell us this afternoon that his undertaking will be carried out and when this matter will be referred to the committee. I hope he will act a little faster than his colleague the Minister of Finance, who notwithstanding a number of promises made to me has failed to introduce a resolution dealing with regulations passed in connection with certain acts under his jurisdiction. These regulations should have been placed before us before now so that there might be an appropriate public examination in respect of them and comment by hon. members.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, in the past week we have heard two very important announcements by the Minister of National Defence.
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Defence Only last Tuesday we heard the earth-shaking pronouncement on the treaty governing the exploration and use of celestial bodies, and today we had the introduction of the estimates of the Department of National Defence. I feel I must put the two pronouncements together. Last Tuesday, as reported at page 1709 of Hansard, the minister had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to Inform hon. members that it is the intention of Canada to ratify, as soon as possible, the treaty on principles governing activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies.
A little later the minister informed members of this house, and through the house he informed Canada, as follows:
This treaty, three copies of which I am now tabling in English and in French, is intended to ensure that outer space, the moon and other celestial bodies will be explored and used only for peaceful purposes and that there can be no national appropriation of such bodies. Of particular significance in this respect are those provisions which state that parties to the treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any body carrying nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction, instal such weapons in celestial bodies or station such weapons in outer space. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies are also forbidden.
The minister then concluded this great statement which he made with such profundity and pontification, particularly in respect of the concluding sentence, with these words:
It is because of this country's active role in the space field and in the international legal sphere, and because of the importance of the treaty for the development of the rule of law in outer space, that it would be particularly appropriate for Canada, by ratification, to be among the first countries that formally accept the principles which the treaty enshrines.
Is it not amazing, Mr. Chairman, that in this wonderful world in which we live man, the thinking creature, this week decided by agreement among most countries of the world that we will not allow the moon, Venus, Mars or any other planets or stars in outer space to be used for anything but peaceful purposes? There is to be no installation of armaments, nuclear weapons or even military bases on celestial bodies.
Today we heard the lengthy and interesting statement on military policy by the Minister of National Defence and a request that Canada increase its military expenditures. We have also had this profound pronouncement on peace in outer space. Why can we not have some indication from the minister, speaking

on behalf of the government, in the very month when we have protected outer space about what we are doing to secure peace in the world? What is the situation on this little planet of ours called earth so far as peace is concerned, so far as weapons, military establishments and atomic weapons in our own country are concerned? War alliances are being strengthened and not weakened. What is the position in this world of ours, having solved the problem of outer space?
I wrote down very quickly eight areas of tension and unrest which have developed this month. They are: 1. Continued tension on the India-Pakistan borders. 2. Six months further maintenance of a peace keeping force in Cyprus. 3. The verging on civil war in Nigeria. 4. The acceleration of the war in Viet Nam. 5. A diplomatic war in the United Nations following Israeli victories in the hot war in the Middle East. 6. Indications that the U.S.S.R. will re-equip Arab forces with armaments and Israel will be denied armaments or replacements, particularly by France which sold Israel its military planes in the first place. 7. Israel, having been established by the United Nations and having won a military war brought about by the threat to its right to live as a nation, faces a threat of future war because of indecision and major power politics at the United Nations. 8. The Republic of China this week exploded a hydrogen bomb and is anticipated to be capable of a major missile system by 1970.
I just could not help but point out the situation that exists in our wonderful, beautiful little world, this planet called earth, where the great thinkers of the world have agreed to a treaty on outer space. When are we going to start thinking about peace on our own planet? When are we going to have treaties for peace among the nations of this world? When are we going to have disarmament, not new armament? When is this country, as well as others, going to reach the conclusion that it would be far better to spend a few billion dollars for peace and for aid to underdeveloped countries than to spend money to land a spacecraft on the moon? It seems to me that something is wrong in our thinking when the two major powers of the world spend $120 billion a year for arms while two thirds of the people of the world go to bed hungry. This is the principle that Canada has also followed.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In introducing his estimates the minister has presented us with a chart-I do not
June 22, 1967

blame him for doing so-in which past expenditures are related to inflation. By relating them to the increase in the gross national product it would appear that we are doing fine and spending less and less. Admittedly our defence expenditures for the next 12 months are down a fifth of 1 per cent compared with the expenditures of last year. However, that does not get us away from the fact that the Canadian taxpayers are being asked to pay for the increased military expenditures which have risen from $1,572,-
690,000	last year to $1,688,000,000 this year. We in this group at least were, if not anticipating, at least hoping there might be a reduction in the money required for military purposes in the next 12 months.
Personally I feel that this could have been brought about, but it has not come into being because the minister has not yet answered the question which was uppermost in the minds of the members of the committee on defence and, I think, in the minds of many other members of the house, this is, what is to be the future role of the Canadian Armed Forces? For what purpose are they being integrated, unified and trained? I gather from what the minister said a little while ago that no change whatsoever is being contemplated because he continues to emphasize the peace keeping role of the forces, with which I completely agree, but he also gave an indication that Canada is going to stay within NATO and NORAD although perhaps with a change in role. However, I think there was a definite indication that we are going to maintain our peace keeping role and perhaps extend it and we are going to continue our participation in NATO and NORAD.
It seems to me we are not looking ahead or paying attention to the circumstances that exist today. It might have been understandable that Canada should enter NATO when it was first formed because of the situation and the climate which existed at that time as well as the danger of a cold war escalating into a hot war. But surely 22 years later the situation, the climate and the attitudes in Europe have changed to a great extent. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that Canada, now that it has the opportunity, should not be negotiating for a new role in NATO but should be pulling out of NATO. I cannot for the life of me see why 22 years after the end of the last world war our Canadian forces must continue to remain on European soil. I cannot see what useful purpose is served or can be served in maintaining in Europe, at
Supply-National Defence great cost to the Canadian taxpayers a brigade and four air divisions. Moreover, I keep in mind, if others do not, that in the two world wars during this century Canadian men and women have given of life and limb and the taxpayers of their money to play a part in opposing aggression and maintaining the principles of democracy.
But then we find that some 22 years later one of the main countries where our life's blood was shed to protect it from aggression and to restore and maintain democracy, tells Canada "Take your forces out of our country, we do not want them". That is what France told the Canadians who not only went to its assistance in two world wars but who stayed there for 22 years to protect it from possible aggression. Later I will want to know just what it cost Canada to be kicked out, what it cost to move our forces to another country. Taking into consideration the attitude of France with regard to NATO I wonder what we, some 22 years later and over 3,000 miles away, are doing maintaining our air force divisions and our brigade in NATO? I believe that negotiations should be started for a gradual withdrawal from European soil.
I want to say, as I have said before, that I believe Canada has a continuing and perhaps expanding role to play in anti-submarine warfare. The anti-submarine role is one phase of this operation with which I personally agree. However, when the minister answers questions put to him by the previous speaker I should like him to answer one or two questions for me. The minister is proud of the anti-submarine role of our navy whose highly equipped ships with their highly trained crews are stationed in Halifax. However, in the event of war I do not think the aggressor will give notice. I think he will simply move, if he dares to move, although I do not think any nuclear power would move today because its action might escalate eventually into a nuclear war and that would be the end of civilization in this world as we know it. Undoubtedly the aggressor would know the location of our installations and our ships. We carry out anti-submarine surveillance on a 24-hour basis, but if a submarine got through and planted mines in Halifax harbour, how many minesweepers would be there to protect us? I understand we do not have any. I cannot understand military thinking whereby plans are made for anti-submarine vessels to operate in the main away from home port without provision being made for minesweepers to ensure that our ships can get out. I
1830	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence hope the minister will be able to clarify this matter.
What I said about NATO I believe to be also true about NORAD. I do not understand Canada's position with regard to NORAD. I do not see any reason for the maintenance of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, nor do I see any reason for the heavy expenditure which we have to make year by year for the maintenance of two Bomarc stations for the defence of Canada. I think it is time that these Bomarcs were shipped back and our men put to more useful pursuits. It is my belief that in view of integration and the emphasis on a mobile command whereby men will be moved anywhere they are required wherever hell may break out, be it in Europe or in a peace keeping operation, it is time we pulled out of NATO and NORAD.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If this is not to be, then I certainly hope we will not have to be satisfied with the statement of the minister this afternoon. He said that a lot of thinking is now being done about the new role that Canada should play in NATO, that there is going to be a meeting of NATO members this autumn to discuss a changing role or new approach, and that as a result of this meeting some decisions will be reached in December. The way the minister put it, Mr. Chairman, it would appear that once again the Canadian people in general and members of the House of Commons in particular are going to be confronted with a fait accompli in relation to the decision reached by the government on our role in NATO and also in respect of NORAD inasmuch as I understand that agreement is coming up for possible renewal next year.
In view of this situation I have no hesitation in saying that the defence committee should be called together and taken into the confidence of the minister. The advice of the members of the committee should be sought and the committee should discuss, having been given the fullest possible information by the minister, our future role in Europe for the next five years if we are going to remain a member of NATO. I think that any fait accompli in the matter of decisions on NATO, NORAD or the purchase of equipment is undemocratic and places not only the members of the committee but all members of parliament in a false position. I hope that a great deal of thought will be given to this matter by the Minister of National Defence The purpose of the defence committee is not just to receive a report from the minister or from General Allard or the deputy chief of staff.

DEBATES	June 22, 1967
Its purpose is also to consult and advise, and consultation cannot take place and advice cannot be given if the committee is confronted with a fait accompli as has been the experience in the past.
I am very sorry that these estimates were not referred to the committee for detailed study because it is only in committee that staff and experts can be called to give evidence, to be questioned, to argue back and forth and reason things out. This certainly cannot be done in the space of one day's discussion of the estimates in committee of supply.
Canada is a nation large in area but small in population. Yet it is a country of great influence. I had hoped that the Minister of National Defence would take the opportunity this year to give an indication that it is felt there is a need for the breaking up of alliances, for if one side does not do it the other never will. I had hoped the minister would indicate that it is felt there is a need for Canada to show that it believes in disarmament, that Canada is one country that believes it should not have atomic warheads on its soil, that Canada is one country that believes it should be reducing military expenditure, not increasing it, that Canada wants to give some leadership, small as it may be, in world affairs, that Canada believes in peace on earth as well as in celestial bodies and outer space, that Canada is one country which believes that it is wrong to supply military weapons and nuclear warheads.
I believe that the minister would have received world acclaim, or at least world attention, had be taken a different approach and made such a statement during the presentation of his estimates this afternoon.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I repeat: Let the minister take this committee and the standing committee on defence into his and the government's confidence. I should like to tell the minister that we on this side of the house are just as good Canadians, just as loyal and interested in matters of defence and foreign policy as are those who sit to the right of Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister, cease to be an autocrat and become a democrat. If he does I can assure him that we will give him every consideration and co-operation.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, in the last
few weeks since the book of estimates was presented there have been a number of references to the very large increase in the estimates for this year. I have received letters on this subject from my constituents, as I think have other members of the house. In the last day or two 20 members of the Vancouver
June 22, 1967

board of trade visited Ottawa. In talking to them I found that one of the questions foremost in their minds was just why the federal government is spending about $750 million more this year than last year.
I turned to the estimates to find out where the main increase in the estimates was, and one of the departments which has a very major increase in its estimates is the Department of National Defence. When you examine the estimates of this department to find out where the increases have taken place, you find they are in the pay and allowances of the members of the armed forces in the amount of approximately $71 million, that civil salaries have increased by approximately $11 million, and that the pension and superannuation fund is up by about $61 million. If you add these amounts together, Mr. Chairman, assuming my arithmetic is correct you get a figure of $143 million. This figure exceeds by $28 million the actual increase in the spending of the Department of National Defence. This is an indication that had it not been for increases in civil and military pay and in pensions and superannuation-though these items have not held firm in other areas in Canada either-the expenditure of the Department of National Defence this year would indeed be down slightly from the amount of the estimates presented to us last year.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This fact should be taken into account when we look at what the defence department is spending because I think that one immediately leaps to the conclusion, when one sees an increase of $115 million in one item, that this represents a vast increase in Canada's military effort, in the purchase of equipment and in the extension of our armed forces. In fact, it largely represents adjustments in pay, civil allowances and superannuation.
I want to comment briefly on the rearrangement of the defence estimates which precipitated a storm a little while ago, particularly in the presentation under vote 15 which I will not discuss in detail. I shall merely refer hon. members to the form in which we now find the figures set out under maritime command, mobile command, the Canadian infantry brigade and so on. Hon. members will get some idea of the amounts of money which are being spent in these operational areas. I believe that to be able to look at the estimates in this way is a considerable improvement in their presentation. I think we should have more information before us in
Supply*-National Defence these estimates than we now have. I should like to see the form of breakdown that we have in these estimates extended until we have a good idea of the amounts involved, item by item, in the various operational components of national defence or of other branches of government.
For too long have we been presented with what is known as a list of standard objects in which we are told how much the whole department has spent on postage. While these curious figures may interest archaeologists at some future date when they are digging into our past they are of no relevance to us when we are examining the departments before us. Here we see a favourable trend. There is a movement toward the examination of functional components and the cost of those functional components. I recommend to the minister and to government that in future they give us more details so we may take a more comprehensible look at the estimates. If that were done perhaps not so many questions would be asked on the floor of the house. We should not have to extract from the minister information on the small items in which we have an interest. The hon. member for Edmonton West spoke of this in his remarks. He asked for specific details on various items which appear as lump sums in the estimates.
I join with him in hoping that the book of estimates will in the future give in more detail information which would be of value to backbenchers so that they might obtain a broader comprehension of the operations of departments.
Any backbencher who sits and listens to discussion of estimates of a department finds himself removed, so to speak, from knowing about what is really going on. That feeling of being removed had in part been added to by the increase in the effective capacity of the committees to examine the estimates of departments. After having had one year of that we see that it is very exhausting for members of the House of Commons to examine in great detail the estimates of all departments. In fact, it is too exhausting for us to accomplish much very effectively. As a result we must constantly search in parliament for other ways in which backbenchers can exercise some oversight in regard to what government services do. Perhaps this is the most important function of any member of parliament. Members who sit on the back benches ought to have a good idea of what the departments of government are doing. They should understand what is being done and tell the
1832	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence people they represent about it. We must constantly search for ways to improve the presentation of estimates. As back bench members, we must improve our capability to examine those estimates and to examine departmental officers and ministers when estimates are brought before us.
One of the most interesting matters that has arisen during this afternoon's debate has been the disclosure of figures in regard to recruiting in the armed forces. The figures show that all the apprehensions that hon. members had during the debate on unification about the concept of unification, that unification would entirely destroy the morale of the armed forces, were based or a wholly wrong or completely fallacious assumption. Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the figures on recruiting which have been presented to the house. The figures tend to demonstrate that the debate on unification and the fact of unification tended, if anything, to increase the national interest in our armed forces and what they are doing. The public's attention was focused on our armed forces and our young men were induced to join them. We can really find no other explanation for the increase. It seems that the very opposite has happened to what hon. gentlemen on the opposition side said in the house and in the defence committee would happen with regard to recruiting and morale in the armed forces.
One way of looking at the matter somewhat differently is found in a column in the Chronicle-Herald of June 14, 1967, written by Mr. Ron MacDonald and headed, "Inside Province House." The column deals with certain figures in the recent provincial election of Nova Scotia. He says:
Previous to the election there were many Tories who would take you aside and offer advice such as, "unification has all the navy wild. They're not going to support the Grits this time"; or "running Stanfield is a far different matter than having the federal fellas. The servicemen aren't mad at him."
Then he goes on to say:
"Why," ask Conservatives, "should Stanfield be unpopular with servicemen coming here from Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia? And, those from the rest of the maritimes are bound to be with him."
Then he says:
Tallying up returns for seven constituencies where there was a concentration of service personnel- Kings West, Dartmouth North, Halifax Chebucto, Annapolis West; Halifax Eastern Shore, Dartmouth South and Shelburne-there was hardly a poll which did not give a substantial majority to the Liberal candidate, regardless of whether that Liberal was supporting a cabinet minister or not.

DEBATES	June 22, 1967
Actually, the polls which produced the biggest proportionate Liberal majority was in Dartmouth North, where Gordon Hart won over Conservative Charles Clarke. Dartmouth North is a navy stronghold and, supposedly, the hotbed of reaction against a unified force idea.
Mr. Hart took the predominantly navy polls at Shannon Park and along Princess Margaret by a whopping 634 votes to 252. And in along Princess Margaret live a group of senior naval NCOS, who must be regarded as the effective leaders of the ordinary seamen.
In neighboring Dartmouth South, in polls with the majority of voters in the Lakefront apartments, many of whose tenants are junior naval officers, the vote for Liberal Eileen Stubbs was a healthy 114 votes, compared to Agriculture Minister Akerley's 56.
In Halifax Chebucto's Windsor Park, army barracks in the city's north end, Conservative James Vaughan, a winner in most polls, lost heavily to Liberal Peter Richards, who won 155 to 75 there. Mr. Vaughan said ruefully afterwards, though holding out some hope, "at least it was only two to one."
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Dr. Duncan MacMillan took a 804 to 608 advantage in the Shearwater and Eastern Passage polls in Halifax Eastern Shore over Conservative Nelson Gaetz.
And in Welfare Minister James Harding's Shelburne seat, the Baccaro and Barrington polls voted for Liberal Harold Huskilson, 389 to 225. These polls are largely naval and votes which Mr. Harding wooed over the years.
Peter Nicholson won handily in Annapolis West and his increased majority was due, at least in part, to the fine showing he made in the polls where CFB Cornwallis personnel and the civilian base employees voted, despite Ottawa's sword of Damocles hanging over the base. Mr. Nicholson won the Cornwallis and Deep Brook polls 330 to 194.
In Kings West, with the sprawling vote of CFB Greenwood always the major concern of any candidate running there, Conservative Gordon Tidman won the seat by a scant 98 votes over Liberal Frank Bezanson.
How did Mr. Tidman fare in and around Greenwood?
Actually, the poll which produced the biggest proportionate Liberal majority was in Dartmouth North, where Gordon Hart won over Conservative Charles Clarke. Dartmouth North is a navy stronghold and, supposedly, the hotbed of reaction against a unified force idea.
The article goes on:
All in all, the services-or at least that part of them easily pigeonholed-voted 3,870 to 2,322- Liberal.
The writer concludes:
Whether or not the forces favoured integration, or if they voted according to party affiliation regardless of establishing who was running and for what, are questions for other analysis experts to figure out. I can't.
This is another indicator, and a strong one, that what hon. gentlemen opposite feared with regard to unification was wholly wrong even
June 22, 1967

with regard to the navy itself. Indeed, the navy went out at the first opportunity following the debate on unification and voted against the Conservative party and in favour of the Liberal party in sizeable proportions in the recent election in Nova Scotia.
There can be no other way to explain this than by saying that hon. gentlemen opposite were as wrong in relation to the navy specifically as they were about the total effect of unification upon military personnel in all the services. We can only judge, from what we have seen, that in cheering off Admiral Landymore naval personnel were cheering off the old system and cheering in unification. However astonishing this may seem, the facts and figures are clear. One can only suspect from what we have seen and from the correspondence we received during the unification debate that this, indeed, is the fact and that young Canadians were very proud of what was being done to update the Canadian armed services and make it one of the most modern and forward looking services in the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: Young men were happy to join that service at the very peak of the debate on unification and young people in the navy on the Atlantic coast, which hon. members opposite said was the trouble centre, were ready to support the imminent act of unification. The figures demonstrate that unification has been as successful as Expo, even if that success was unexpected.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, while considering the estimates of the Department of National Defence, I should like to make a few observations, meanwhile giving the minister the assurance that I have no intention of subjecting him again to the third degree he had to suffer when we were considering the unification of the armed forces.
I even think that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) is doing his job well, explaining fully his position, ensuring the department for which he is responsible, particularly the army, the most modern methods and demonstrating this in the unification which is already in process of being carried out.
I believe the savings he has announced, even though they may represent an increase in the over-all budget of national defence, nevertheless constitute a saving on what all
Supply-National Defence this would have cost without the modern reforms he has brought about in his department.
I think that his army general staff is competent. I realized this myself when I was given the opportunity to visit a rather large number of military installations.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, in a spirit of co-operation and without the least intention of criticizing the minister's position, I should like to make a few remarks which force themselves on the conscience of all human beings who consider current world events and which must also at times have disturbed even the sleep of the minister. As a matter of fact, I am sure that even if he is the Minister of National Defence who must deal with war matters, peace matters must also concern him from time to time, especially when he is able to examine at leisure the arms race situation and what is called in certain circles, that escalation, and prompt him to ask himself whether those concerned with the future of humanity should not reconsider a little our policy regarding those expenditures.
This strikes me very much, however-and this strikes many more-in view of the comments we hear in all sorts of environments. In fact, we hear leaders of important segments of humanity tell us that at least just as much thought should be given to disarmament as to armaments, at least just as much to peace as to war.
So I am impressed by this budget of $1,688 million earmarked for war-which, of course, we call defence because it sounds better -whereas for health and welfare, we earmark -I know I said $1,688 million but I made a mistake, it was a slip of the tongue-$1,273,906,400 which represents an increase of $88,-
417,000	in round figures, whereas for defence, the increase is $115 million.
Mr. Chairman, there are many Canadians who wonder-and once again I say it in the most constructive frame of mind, without necessarily blaming the minister whose role it is to secure whatever is most up to date for the Department of National Defence, as long as the government of the country shall decide that we must have the best organization with the most modern equipment and techniques-whether it would not perhaps be appropriate to reconsider our policy somewhat and whether we would not be well advised to earmark for works of peace larger sums of money than we are earmarking for works of war.
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Defence
I understand that Canada has sacred commitments through agreements with its allies, and I also understand that in troubled times such as we are living through, we can always claim that it is urgent to show our national solidarity to our allies. I understand that all these amounts we earmark tor defence are a stimulus that may appear valuable for our economy, and I also understand that, to a certain extent, it is useful to our foreign trade, to the balance of our purchases from foreign countries. I understand that all kinds of good reasons can be brought forward to show that these amounts are not necessarily bad investments.
But, once again, there are so many Canadians who are wondering why we spend more billions of dollars to help kill, slaughter, destroy, spread hate in the world, because finally what is the meaning of all that, even if we claim that it is to bring about peace.
I wonder if there is not some urgency to sit down and revise our judgment.
And that would not surprise me at all, because the cabinet understands that point of view. In fact, I had the opportunity, as well as some of my colleagues here, to see the qualms of conscience of some of our ministers when the death penalty was maintained. As Christians their conscience was troubled to see that offenders were executed, in fact murdered. But not much is heard about their being troubled to hear that there are millions of people being killed, slaughtered, who will remain crippled all their lives, whose villages and houses are burned down, destroyed. And, once again, I repeat that there are all kinds of good reasons to excuse that. But nevertheless, I think it is a good thing to ask ourselves whether we could not play a better role in the world, by keeping this function of arbitrator which we had earned, by helping these people to have a better life, to be better fed, better educated, and to love one another instead of killing one another.
However, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding our good will and our eagerness to live up to our commitments to our allies, we are compromising the image of Canada in the world. For instance, we are now held in suspicion in Viet Nam for all sorts of reasons. Why? Because these people noticed that while we purport to be working for peace, we are selling arms to those who wage war in Viet Nam. Thus we neutralize the influence we could have on those people who are at war at the present time and who would like nothing better than to have an arbitrator who might help them find a solution to that conflict.
IMr. Mongrain.]

We have noticed recently also that during the troubles in the Middle East, Canada at one time incurred the ill-will of the Egyptians and perhaps, but indirectly, of Israel. It may be that those interventions we are making here and there, even if we go about it quietly, are destroying the role that Canada could play in the world, a peaceful role, that of an arbitrator, a negotiator, to bring about peace. I do not think that we can wage war vigorously while claiming that we want to act as an arbitrator.
One might object that we must prepare to defend ourselves, that our territory could be attacked. I quite agree that a minimum should probably be kept here in case, naturally, we should some day have similar problems. But I wonder, as many other Canadians do, if any country in the world will or would attack us here if we concentrate on playing a peaceful role rather than an aggressive role in the world.
Mr. Chairman, we still have so many unemployed in Canada, so many poor, so many old people, disabled, who receive unrealistic pensions in view of the cost of living, and the cost of education is still so high that too many Canadians cannot afford it, that I wonder if we could not considerably reduce the amounts provided for the defence of Canada or that of distant countries and spend them instead on works of peace which would enrich Canada. Why could they not, for instance, be spent even more to feed the two thirds of humanity which are now dying from hunger and have no ears for words of peace.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if Canadians, aware that our deficit this year will range between $740 and $750 million, do not think that we should try to slow down somewhat this upward trend in defence expenditures and reduce the burden which Canadians must bear at a time when the cost of living is higher than ever before.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat that many people who want peace are surprised to see that our defence budget amounts to $1,688 million, while our peace effort, that is the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare represents only $1,273 million.
I wonder whether that is in accordance with the appeals made by the great leaders of the world today, His Holiness the Pope, U Thant and others, who warn us that we are on the brink of a nuclear war which threatens to destroy the human race. I wonder also whether Canada is not the very country that should take the lead in disarmament because
June 22, 1967

it is the one least threatened by war and, in view of its history, orientation and national philosophy, the one best suited to act as arbitrator, negotiator and agent of peace rather than of war.
Again, I ask the question in a constructive spirit. The minister should not take it as criticism of his administration, which I think is excellent so long as he wants to have a modern army and prepare us for defence or war as intensively as he is doing now.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, and I repeat this intentionally, whether it would be preferable for us to direct our international policy towards a specialization in arbitration, and in order to obtain or to deserve this role, it would be much better for us to reduce our efforts of our expenditures and mind our business a little more closely. Some may say: Am I my brother's keeper? Well, our business would certainly be served more adequately if we had deserved to be acknowledged, by all belligerent countries, as an absolutely free arbitrator, able to propose peace formulas acceptable to all.
I think that this would probably start among other nations a kind of emulation for peace, at a time when we are threatened by a dreadful war of escalation. I believe that this could help to bar this militarist complex which is so hard to eliminate in the world because the old axiom has been credited too often: If you want peace, prepare for war. And, we are getting ready for war so well that it may burst out at any moment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to repeat to the minister in the most constructive fashion that the purpose of my comments is not to criticize his administration. I believe that he is doing a good job, so long as he is convinced that the general policy of Canada must follow this pattern, but I submit that he should point out to his colleagues that it might be advisable to answer the call of the great leaders I mentioned before, and to prove to all countries in the world, in a very concrete and radical manner, that Canada wants to play a role of peace, and not war, in the world.
I also believe, Mr. Chairman, that when we are faced by the threat of nuclear war, which brings confirmed Apocalyptic visions to our minds, because television shows us once in a while pictures of crowds being burned by napalm bombs or villages being destroyed by high accuracy weapons, with power of destruction unimagined until now, I say that we must cry out in pressing warning and heed it,
Supply-National Defence but not with the mentality of the partisan, set on defending his own administration or condemning his neighbour's. I say that we have to consider this, Mr. Chairman, in the light of our duty towards mankind, as dictated to us by our conscience as men and as Christians.
It is true that we are our brothers' keepers, but not in the sense that we must help to kill them. We know that if two thirds of mankind are now in the throes of such upheavals and conflicts, it is mainly because they are underfed and under-gifted countries, which are denied that reasonable minimum of affluence that we, ourselves, enjoy. We would probably be much more welcome if we helped them still more generously to acquire that reasonable minimum of affluence. At least, they would learn to like us, to trust us, to place their confidence in us, when they have troubles with their neighbours.
I see few countries, Mr. Chairman, in a better position than Canada to assume that role for peace in the world.
I make those remarks to the hon. minister in the spirit in which I presented them to him. I would not be surprised if the minister-it must happen to him at times-were sometime to examine his conscience, calmly, at home, the Holy Ghost might prompt him to discuss the matter with his colleagues. In a few years, the cabinet might lead us toward the role of pacifier, mediator, negotiator, rather than that of the aggressor which we play indirectly at the cost of losing the trust of one third of the peoples of the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, just a few days ago during private members' hour the hon. member for St. John's East praised executive assistants and said how important they were to the operations of the House of Commons. He said they could be and are helpful not only to the ministers to whose offices they are attached but also to members of parliament. The idea of executive assistants being helpful to members of parliament generally took me by surprise. As a result I got in touch with an executive assistant attached to the Department of National Defence. His name is well known in some circles. I asked him to give me some ideas for the debate today on these estimates. He very promptly replied and provided me with a one-page speech which would not take two minutes to deliver. I did not think that by using that speech I would really be doing justice to the Minister of National Defence
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Defence who I am sure expects members of the opposition to pay more attention to the estimates of his department. I tried reading it out loud to see how it would sound, but the effusive complimentary adjectives choked in my throat. So I had to lay it aside and it is with regret that I cannot make use of the help of that executive assistant who is perhaps of greater help to the minister, or perhaps the minister may think he is, but I sometimes wonder.
On this occasion I will have to rely on my own thoughts and phraseology, which are of course at a lower level, in an attempt to deal with the subject matter before us. I always welcome the opportunity of dealing with the estimates of the Department of National Defence. The minister has told me many times that my knowledge of military matters is primitive, but I am trying to learn as the years go by. Consequently I pay very close attention to what the minister says and to the policies he enunciates.
Today the minister proved a point we have been making over the last two or three years. We have been saying that the policy of national defence has been altered and changed to a very considerable degree and that the main emphasis in the reorganization the minister has undertaken has been on the provision of a force for peace keeping operations. The minister made a statement outside the house denying this and said it is not Canada's policy to produce a giant peace keeping force. The minister asks why we are buying heavy equipment if our whole purpose is to build a peace keeping force. We have never said that is the sole purpose but that the main intent of the government has been to provide a peace keeping force.
The minister proved our point today by starting off immediately to deal with our peace keeping role in the United Nations rather than with our military forces in antisubmarine activities or our activities under NATO or NORAD. That is exactly what we have been suggesting, that what is uppermost in the minister's mind is peace keeping for the United Nations. The construction of his new force is designed for that purpose.
The minister told us that things have changed. Sometimes I like to look back and read some of his speeches, although I am getting a little tired of them. His major document is the white paper and he mentioned it two or three times today somewhat casually during his speech. I knew he would, but that white paper was produced in 1964 and it is


high time it was brought up to date and modernized. Nevertheless, it is his basic document. The second document to which he most often refers is the speech he made on December 7 which was widely circulated at the expense of the taxpayer.
In that speech of December 7 the minister said, as reported in Hansard at page 10831:
The pattern of warfare in which armies fought armies, navies fought navies, and air forces fought air forces is not likely to be repeated.
Only within the last few days we have been reading and listening to accounts of armies fighting armies in Egypt, in Jordan and on the border between Syria and Israel. It is only within the last few days that we read and heard about air forces fighting. It was in April of this year that the Israeli air force claimed to have downed five Syrian planes in combat. It is only recently that we heard about the destruction of Egyptian aircraft in the air and on the ground by the Israeli air force. So the pattern of warfare does not seem to have changed to fit the minister's idea of what modern warfare should be.
The conflict in Viet Nam has been going on now for several years and there has been some activity in the air. The ground forces seem to me to be fighting as ground forces have always fought since the beginning of time. There have been no recent naval engagements. Only two days ago there was a conflict in Aden with infantrymen fighting infantrymen, and rather heavy casualties were suffered.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The minister tells us that the pattern of warfare has changed and therefore he has carried out this great reorganization. I have wondered for a number of years what was behind all this, why it was undertaken. I refer to our foreign policy and to the Prime Minister's idea of what should be done with Canada's defence forces. As the minister in his opening remarks dealt with foreign policy it is quite competent for me to discuss foreign policy in a debate on defence matters. The white paper on defence clearly states on page 5.
The objectives of Canadian defence policy, which cannot be dissociated from foreign policy, are to preserve the peace by supporting collective defence measures to deter military aggression; to support Canadian foreign policy including that arising out of our participation in international organizations, and to provide for the protection and surveillance of our territory, our air space and our coastal waters.
June 22. 1967

One sees there where the minister places the defence of Canada. It is at the bottom of the list. On page 6 of the white paper the minister says:
-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-
Method (b) has to do with NATO, (c) has to do with NORAD, and (d) with the security and protection of Canada. So it is not unusual that we on this side of the house and the public generally have reached the conclusion that Canada's foreign policy and her defence policy are designed jointly to provide peace keeping forces for the United Nations and the reorganization of our forces has been carried out with that purpose in mind.
It so happens that the collapse of the United Nations emergency force in Egypt has brought down this policy just like a house of cards. It now has to be re-examined. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be here shortly to examine this matter co-operatively with us in the House of Commons. Perhaps the Prime Minister will revise his opinion with regard to the activities of peace keeping forces. Then the Minister of National Defence will carry out the orders that will be given to him by his superiors.
In my opinion the whole trouble stems from a misconception of what should be Canada's defence policy. I believe Canada's defence policy should be primarily the defence of Canadian territory and Canadian waters. Second, it should be linked to the alliances that we have with the major powers such as we have in NATO, and with the alliance we have with the United States to protect the North American continent. I believe these activities take precedence over our far-flung efforts under the United Nations.
I am not decrying the value of United Nations efforts to promote peace, to maintain peace, to restrict the operations of nations which are about to engage in war and to restrain them when they have engaged in conflict. I am not objecting to that at all. But to my mind this is a subsidiary effort in so far as Canada is concerned. We should not make this the prime objective of our defence efforts.
I propose to indicate the evidence that has been produced and is being developed to show that it is now generally accepted that the
Supply-National Defence major reorganization and alteration of Canada's defence forces was designed for the purpose of promoting United Nations peace keeping efforts. The disaster that has overfallen that peace keeping effort on the borders between Egypt and Israel should now bring about a reappraisal of Canada's defence policy and foreign policy.
The minister cannot effectively deny that public opinion generally considers that this has been the purpose of the efforts of the present government. It goes beyond that. It reaches into the field of establishing neutrality for Canada. I will give the evidence of that shortly. Foreign observers in Canada have reached the conclusion that Canada's foreign and defence policy is now aimed at (1) emphasizing peace keeping operations, and (2) a position of neutrality for Canada. It is high time parliament had a second look at this policy and passed an opinion on what the government is doing. It is high time the Canadian people were fully informed as to what this government is aiming at. It is high time that in our relations with our closest neighbour and strongest ally, the United States, we made it abundantly clear that we are not adopting a policy of neutrality, that there will be no danger to the United States from an aggressor coming in by the back door through an unprotected Canada.
With those opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, I now call it six o'clock. I will present to the committee at eight o'clock some further thoughts on this matter.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock, and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be considered at the time of adjournment this evening are the following:

The hon. member for Lotbiniere-Canadian National Railways-Elimination of stops at certain points in Quebec.

The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack), Television-Napanee, Ont.;
June 22, 1967

Taxi Service at Ottawa Railway Station the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Agriculture-consideration by dominion-provincial conference of expropriation principles.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.



TRANSPORTATION


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber) moved:: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any contract entered into concerning taxi service to and from the Ottawa railway station, since January 1, 1966.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak on the motion for the production of a copy of the contract entered into between the Ottawa railway station and the monopoly taxi concession which has been granted from that point to the city of Ottawa. I moved this motion in the House of Commons in the ordinary way some time ago and on June 7, as reported in Hansard, page 1253, secured this answer from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
There is no such contract in the possession of the government. Therefore I would hope the hon. member would be willing to drop the motion.
Such an answer begs the question. I simply ask for a copy of any contract entered into concerning taxi service to and from the Ottawa railway station, since January 1, 1966. I did not expect that the government would have the contract in its possession, but a copy of the contract could surely be secured from the Canadian National Railways, which is a crown corporation, if they do not want to call themselves a branch of the government. We were told the following, as recorded on page 532 of the 1964 report of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, by Mr. MacDougall, the solicitor general of the C.N.R., when he was speaking about the Ottawa terminal railway bill:
The Canadian National Railway will be half owner of the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company, and it will be open to parliament to inquire through the Canadian National Railway about anything respecting the terminal.
I inquired about the possibility of securing a copy of the contract and I directed my inquiry to the Minister of Transport.

I have already spoken on the question of the monopoly contracts which are granted from time to time either by the government or by some department of the government or crown corporation, and this is done by a political party which makes a great show of being in favour of free competition and of letting the best man secure the best possible price in open competition. We say we are against monopolies, we are against restraint of trade and against combines. We make the finest speeches along that line of any political party in Canada. Unfortunately I cannot hear the speeches because of the noise made by the actions that are carried out by various departments of the government or by crown corporations.
As I mentioned before, on March 27 the Minister of Transport issued a press release in which it was stated that the Department of Transport was giving Canadian Pacific Airlines authority to fly more aircraft in Canada during Expo. In that press release, issued under the authority of the Minister of Transport, there is a reference I should like to quote. It reads as follows:
A well known British aviation consultant, Mr. Stephen Wheatcroft, who had been employed by the previous government to report on this matter, was asked to make a further report. His report received last year, indicated that the service by C.P.A. on the domestic-transoonltinental route Vancouver-Winnipeg-Montreal-Toronto, limited to a once daily round trip, while it had not shown any indication of producing either major improvements in efficiency or new traffic, had led to a wider public satisfaction as a result of the availability of choice between two carriers.
If we are going to praise the fact that there was wide public satisfaction as a result of the availability of choice between two air carriers, why do we allow any branch of the government or crown corporation to grant a monopoly which automatically stops any choice between two or more services? In the Ottawa Journal of March 28, the day after the press release of the Department of Transport was issued, there appeared an editorial headed "Freer Enterprise Flight". I will quote the final paragraph of this editorial:
Mr. Pickersgill put it well when he said the main advantage of two air lines was that competition made them both more responsive to a public which felt that a monopoly always was unresponsive. There's nothing so helpful to good service as a choice in air lines, railways or bootblacks and nothing so depressing to free enterprise as a government attitude that monopolies are simplest and best.
I draw this to the attention of the house for the simple reason that I do not believe these
June 22, 1967

monopolies should be allowed to exist. When speaking on the estimates of the Department of Transport on May 26 I referred to this situation and described the conditions as I found them at the Ottawa station.
I believe sincerely that the Minister of Transport is inclined to agree with my contention because I was present in this house on May 29 when he was speaking on his estimates. As reported on pages 708 and 709 of Hansard, he listed the great problems which face the Department of Transport, and there are great problems facing that department. I think it must be the heaviest portfolio in the entire cabinet. I cannot think of any other department that ranks with it for the magnitude and number of problems which the minister must be considering 24 hours a day.


Mr, Pickersgill:: I do not work 24 hours a day. I am no Donald Fleming.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I would not be supporting the hon. gentleman if he were a second Donald Fleming, and he knows it. In listing the problems before him the minister stated:
... as well as the question of better ground transportation arrangements to and from major metropolitan airports-*
It is quite evident that this problem is on his mind. I do believe it should be solved immediately. We should not have to wait for some report from the Economic Council of Canada to tell us what is self-evident to anyone.
I ask this question about the Ottawa railway station in particular because in 1964 and 1965 the Ottawa railway terminal bill was referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. In that bill there was a clause which was going to give the new owners of the Ottawa terminal the right to create taxi companies of their own and to have a monopoly. I protested against that and so did several members of the New Democratic Party, among them, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and Mr. Fisher, the former member for Port Arthur.
On December 3, 1964, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin), who was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport at that time, came to the meeting of the committee and what he said was reported in the Ottawa Journal of December 3 as follows:
Quebec South Liberal Jean-Charles Cantin earlier proposed striking out a clause that would have permitted the railways to operate bus and cab passenger service from the terminal.
DEBATES	1839
Taxi Service at Ottawa Railway Station
I should like to read from pages 561 and 562 of the proceedings of the committee.


Mr. Cantin:: ...I move that all this paragraph be deleted and that the following be substituted therefor:
Establish and operate for hire In and about the city of Ottawa a service for the conveyance and transfer of goods by means of trucks, or other highway vehicles, or other means of conveyance and acquire, hold, guarantee, pledge and dispose of shares in any company having for one of its objects the establishment or operation of such a service.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I will second it.


Mr. Rock:: You are taking the passengers out; is that it?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Yes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Cantin, seconded by Mr. Cowan, moves, that subsection "G" be replaced by the following:-
Exactly what I have read to the house. I wish to point out that the cabinet admitted its fault in introducing a bill which provided an opportunity for the establishment of an exclusive taxi service from the Ottawa terminal railway station. It may be interesting for those who were not in the house in 1964 to learn that this bill was never brought to a vote. The cabinet dropped it and it died in the mists of time largely because of the activities of the hon. member for Hull, the late Alexis Caron who was a friend of mine, a man whose death last August I greatly regretted. I am happy that his son is a member of the house now as I believe he will contribute as much as his father did, and his father contributed a great deal for the good of the country as a whole and for the riding of Hull in particular.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: When the hon. member for Quebec South introduced his amendment the following question was put to him:


William Arnold Peters: Could I ask why the governmment is recommending this?


Jean-Charles Cantin: We have had representations from the city of Ottawa.


William Arnold Peters: Can you explain what it means? e (6:10 p.m.)
Then there is a reply from Mr. Macdougall, who was representing Canadian National Railways on the Ottawa Terminal Company bill. Mr. Macdougall said:
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could say a word on Mr. Cantin's amendment. The bill as drafted before you is in the same general form that has been used in bills of this kind before, notably the Toronto Terminal Company bill, to provide the power, but the Ottawa Transportation Commission made representations to the companies and to the government, because they have an exclusive franchise for handling passengers in and about the city of
June 22, 1967

Taxi Service at Ottawa Railway Station
Ottawa which was given to them by parliament. These powers would transgress upon the exclusive franchise of the Ottawa Transportation Commission. We have no desire to do that, or to get in any conflict of that kind. We quite gladly agree that the reference to passengers should be removed so that there could not be any idea that there was a conflict. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Mr. Macdougall referred to the exclusive right of the Ottawa Transportation Commission to carry passengers to and from the Ottawa station. The bill died in the mists of time in the halls of this building, and certainly did not come back to the floor of the House of Commons.
What do we find today, Mr. Speaker? The new Ottawa station is evidently being administered jointly by the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. We have an exclusive taxi franchise granted to one company in the city of Ottawa. We have had numerous reports from members of the house about having to wait for taxi service from the station whenever there is a big holiday crowd or week end crowd returning to the city.
The Ottawa Journal for March 16 of this year referred to the situation in an editorial entitled "Taxis At The Station". The editorial went on to say:
The Ottawa Police Commission.. .Is aware of a taxi shortage, particularly at the new Union Station.
But 50-or even 100-extra cabs spread over the taxi companies of the city will not be the answer to the problem at the station where the taxi franchise is held by one company...
There have been good reasons for complaints...
But some new arrangements are called for to end the frustrating experience so many have had of waiting 30 minutes before a taxi was available.
I can quote to you, Mr. Speaker, fine-sounding statements made by members of the Liberal party to the effect that they believe in free competition, that they are against restraint of trade, that they are against monopolies. I have in my hand Hansard for December 27, 1951. As reported at page 2400 hon. Mr. Croll, the then hon. member for Spadina, now a distinguished member of the other house, speaking about the legislation regarding resale price maintenance, said:
I welcome this legislation because it is in the best Liberal tradition. Historically and traditionally we have been opposed to trusts, cartels and combines.
You could not make a better speech, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal party declaring how it supports free enterprise than that made by Hon. David Croll. As I said before, I can hardly hear the words for the actions of departments of government or crown corporations.

The other day I had occasion to refer to the comments of Hon. Lionel Chevrier as they are reported at page 2441 of Hansard for December 28, 1951, when he was a member of the cabinet and was fulsome in praise of competition and the benefits that it would bring to the people of Canada as a whole. Hon. Lionel Chevrier had this to say in pointing out how the Liberal government was going to smash the maintenance of prices:
Hon. members will recall first of all that the royal commission on prices under the chairmanship of Professor Clifford Curtis of Queen's University was -and I quote his remarks-"impressed by the degree to which individual manufacturers fix the sale prices of their products, and so narrow the area in which price competition amongst wholesalers and retailers is operative."
I can only make the comment, Mr. Speaker, that there can be very little competition among taxi companies when only one company is granted the right to run a taxi service to and from a station or airport. Then Mr. Chevrier went on to point out that there had been some criticism of the report on the ground that the committee did not obtain sufficient factual evidence. He was referring to the report of the committee which conducted the resale price maintenance investigation. However, Mr. Chevrier said that he did not pay much attention to that because he felt that the committee had secured all the factual evidence that it required.
Last Friday in this house the Registrar General Mr. Turner also made quite a few statements about the benefits of competition and how his new department was going to smash monopolies. One of his more interesting comments is to be found at page 1608 of Hansard and reads as follows:
If I were to suggest something which perhaps Is un-Canadian, I might say I think we should have facts before we have policy.
This, of course, is in contradiction of Mr. Chevrier's statement in 1951 that they did not need to have any more facts at that time; they decided they had all the information they required. I congratulate the Registrar General on being un-Canadian, as he says he might be in getting facts before policy is set down by his department.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the Registrar General last Friday because he speaks well. I only wish that the cabinet meant what he says as much as the Registrar General says it does. I should like to put on record some
June 22, 1967	COMMONS
extracts from his speech of last Friday. He went on to say:
On the supply side the whole field ot competition must be looked Into...It relates also, on the supply side, to the methods which would enhance the validity of the consumer's choice.
What choice is there, Mr. Speaker, when you have a monopoly situation? He went on:
-so that there are competitive forces at play-
That is a good phrase too.
Prices depend on competitive forces. We hope to ensure that the forces are truly competitive.
What competition is there in view of these airport franchises at Dorval, Malton, Halifax, Vancouver and Winnipeg?
Then, really getting down to the facts of the matter, the Registrar General had this to say, and in this respect I do not believe he was speaking for the cabinet because their actions contradict this statement:
We do not intend to tell the worker where to work-
Yet we passed the railway operations act last September which told the strikers where they had to work.
-and we do not intend to tell the consumer what to buy. We believe in a free market economy. I feel that we should release the competitive forces. This means we must attack monopolies.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that anybody has ever heard finer and louder words, certainly more fulsome words, than those uttered by speakers for the Liberal party on this subject. Yet what goes on? We grant monopolies here and we grant monopolies there. I only ask that the taxi companies of Ottawa, who would like to get in on the lucrative trade out of the Ottawa station, be allowed to see a copy of the contract which exists between the company-I do not know how to refer to it now because the company was not incorporated as a separate company as the bill died. This station must now be run cooperatively by the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. In any event, I contend they should be allowed to see the contract that exists in connection with exclusive taxi service from the Ottawa railway station to the city of Ottawa.
I believe that if this contract were produced it would open up the entire field of monopolistic practise in all airports in Canada. As a Liberal I am very sorry to see the cabinet indulging in monopolistic practice and, what is worse, being prepared to defend their action while placing value on competition to keep down prices and on the free play of the market to make it possible for people to get 100 cents on the dollar.
DEBATES	1841
Taxi Service at Ottawa Railway Station
Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask that we be given a copy of the contract with the single taxi service company that is now operating into and out of the Ottawa station to the city of Ottawa.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) has been riding what I think might be called one of his two or three favourite hobbyhorses. Once or twice he dealt with the motion incidentally during his remarks. It would be unwise for me to emulate him. I should stick to the point at issue in the motion, though perhaps I have been a little infected by the spirit of his speech and by that enthusiasm with which no one in the house can compete, no matter how hard he tries.
I have only two words to say about the service itself. I do not think I have ever taken a taxi from the new Ottawa station so I cannot speak from personal experience. Perhaps, though, I might quote my hon. and learned friend-he is not learned in the technical sense but in the proper sense-from Lincoln. The service, I am told by those who use it or try to use it, is lousy. If that is a parliamentary word, I apply it to the service.
The difficulty, as I understand it, is that so many people want to take taxis to and from other places in Ottawa that it is easier for the taxi companies to operate between those places rather than working out of the station. It has been argued-I do not know whether this is true-that if somebody were not paid to have a few taxis at the station there might be no taxis at the station at all. That is the only possible defence, and I'm not making it.
It is not my business to tell the railway companies how to run the railways. This is not a responsibility of the government. If the hon. gentleman were asking for a contract between the Department of Transport and any of these various companies that have contracts with a certain exclusivity to them -that is a better word; it will give the hon. member a chance to make another speech.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: It is still lousy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Had the hon. gentleman asked for any such contracts, I should have complied at once without any hesitation. From the days when Canadian National Railways was first established to the present, and in this context I refer to the late Mr. Meighen, we have taken the view that to enable the national railway to compete-and
June 22, 1967
1842	COMMONS DEBATES
Taxi Service at Ottawa Railway Station I emphasize the two words of the infinitive "to compete"-we have never-and this has never been breached as the hon. and learned member for Carleton who is now listening to me and who had to make this speech when he was on this side of the house on at least one occasion will bear out-attempted to assert that parliament had the right to compel the Canadian National to produce any document that we had not the right to compel the Canadian Pacific to produce. That is the simplest way of putting it.
It is in the public interest that any statutory provision or any other provision that requires the Canadian Pacific Railway to produce any details of its operation shall also require the Canadian National to produce such details. But we should not impair the capacity of the Canadian National Railways to compete with the Canadian Pacific by exposing their method of doing business beyond the degree to which we are prepared to expose the Canadian Pacific. I hope that is clear. I think this is a very sound principle. The hon. gentleman is right in thinking that we should have some kind of competition for the public interest to be better served.
I know it could be argued in this particular instance, since the two railways are jointly operating the station and since there is an agreement about that, that producing the agreement would not impair the competitive capacity of the Canadian National in this particular instance. To make my point a little more clear, perhaps I should say that in June, 1966, an agreement was reached between the two railways which jointly operate the terminal to operate the new passenger facilities on behalf of both railways, with costs to be shared on a user basis. Under this agreement the Canadian National was given the duty by the two railways of making these contracts. I know it could be argued that in this particular instance it probably would have no effect on competition were the matter disclosed. I am sure that if the hon. gentleman wrote a letter to the president of the Canadian National in his usually persuasive and seductive way-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: It is not seductive.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that the president, on his own action, might say: "It makes no difference; I shall be glad to let the hon. gentleman see the particular contract." But a principle is involved here. I do not think we should breach the principle just because this child, though it might be illegitimate, is a very small child indeed. I think hon. members will

realize, Mr. Speaker, that it was argued by a certain young woman on one occasion that it was a very small baby-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: May I protest about the minister's using the word "seductive" and his talking about a small child thereafter. There is no connection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assure the hon. gentleman that I was using the term in a purely figurative sense that had no reference whatsoever to potency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I said the other day, it is true that this contract and any other contract that the Canadian National may have made is not the property of the government. It is not in the possession of the government. It is a nice question-I do not intend to answer it but only to pose it-even if the house passed this order whether I, any other member of the house or of the administration could compel the Canadian National to turn the contract over to us. I have not explored the possibility of asking them, as an act of grace, to let the hon. gentleman see it. Quite frankly, I do not think that anything great in the public interest would be destroyed if he saw it.
I think it would be safe for me to go as far as to say that Canadian National are not satisfied with the service any more than anyone else is. They feel about the station as I feel about our airports. If there is to be really effective competition, and if we really desire to straighten out this business of two o'clock in the morning at the airports and twelve o'clock midnight at the Ottawa station, it would be stupid to get a service without insisting that a certain number of taxis be there.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
In fact-and this is not just a Canadian experience-some of these operations are not really very lucrative. Like a lot of other services which are being provided, they are being provided in this way because in reality there is no competition at all, and no chance of it. Of course, at the slack hours all the taxi companies would just love to go out and pick up business but it seems to me that when they can pick up business here, or from the Chateau Laurier, they would leave passengers stranded and would feel no compulsion upon them to be there.
I have a responsibility as far as the airports are concerned and I accept that responsibility.
June 22. 1967	COMMONS
I am willing to take the criticism of hon. members as agreeably as I can and try whenever I can to make improvements. I think the Canadian National is trying to do what it can to make improvements, also. There is no one who likes to give lousy service or to have lousy service given. But the plain fact is that this does not appear to be a very attractive or lucrative way for taxi drivers or anyone else to make a living.
The purpose of making these contracts at all is to have some taxis there sometimes, instead of none at all. Contrary to my announced and sound resolution I keep being drawn into explaining, though not defending, the practice itself. I return to the ground upon which, with the greatest reluctance, I must resist the hon. member's motion. It would, I think, infringe a principle which ever since 1920 has been accepted by this house and which has enabled the C.N.R. to operate with what I believe to be increasing efficiency. It is that we have always respected their right, in order that they may have the fullest capacity to compete with private companies, to regard as their own property any information which we do not require to be supplied by a private company. I attach great importance to this principle and it is purely on this narrow, technical ground that, with great reluctance, I cannot support the motion moved by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan).


William Arnold Peters: Before the minister sits down, may I ask him whether a request of this type would have been acceptable if the operation were under the control of a terminal authority, a joint operation, as previously proposed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is a good question and I should like to answer it. If the Ottawa terminal were run by an agency of the government, there is no question that the contract would be producible. The bill which the hon. member had in mind was never passed, as my hon. friend from York-Humber pointed out. One amendment was made to it and others might have been made had it progressed, so I am not sure what the status would finally have been. My recollection is that the station was to have been owned by the two companies and not by the government. So it would not have been a government organization and this information would not therefore have been information which the government could produce. But if the station were owned and run by the government, there is no question that the contract would be produced.
DEBATES	1843
Taxi Service at Ottawa Railway Station


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not
often find myself in agreement with the hon. member for York-Humber, but on this occasion I support the motion he has made. I do so in part because I am naturally enthusiastic about the enthusiastic way in which he calls upon the government which he supports to live up to the true principles of Liberalism. I would urge that we should not tolerate monopoly except in very unusual and special circumstances, particularly when it is admitted by the minister that in this case it operates in a manner which I believed he described as lousy-and I am happy to adopt that word in this connection.
If a monopoly is operating in a lousy manner, I think it is up to the government to do everything in its power to open up the concession in question to free competition. I am happy to support the hon. member's motion because the situation in Ottawa is, as the house knows, not unique; similar monopolies operate directly under the control of the government at various airports. I know that at Malton airport a monopoly has been authorized there by the terminal authority, I forget the name of the organization. When taxi drivers bring fares to the airport they are not allowed to pick up return fares. As a result, the trip is expensive. And as always happens when there are monopolies, prices are excessive and service is lousy.
I was not impressed by the statement the minister made, though he made it with his usual charm.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. gentleman will not represent me as defending this arrangement. I was trying to explain it, but I was not defending it. Perhaps he would permit me to ask him a question. Does he not think it is better to have a lousy carriage in which to get somewhere than to have no carriage at all?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think that is a point well taken, but it is beside the point I am making. I am satisfied that the free competition of which he and his party speaks so often, would result in taxis being available. I do not think this monopoly system produces results which are satisfactory and I do not believe if it were removed taxi cab operators would not be delighted to pick up new business and provide an adequate competitive service.
I do not support this motion only because I have great sympathy for taxi cab operators, or because I have great sympathy for travellers who have to pay too much for a lousy and
June 22, 1967
1844	COMMONS DEBATES
Taxi Service at Ottawa Railway Station inadequate service, or because of my belief that there should be competition in the right place-


Grant Deachman: May I ask the hon. member a question? I wonder whether this desire for healthy competition is a new addition to the N.D.P platform?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I cannot blame the hon. member for not being fully acquainted with the platform of the party I represent but for many years it has been a strong believer in the value of competition, in the right place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: If he is interested in the program of my party, I will be delighted to give him a little private explanation and show him the exact text to justify my remarks.


An hon. Member:: Let us have the example in Saskatchewan when the C.C.F. were in power.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I can assure my hon. friend that there was a lot of good, healthy competition in Saskatchewan when the C.C.F. party was in power. My friend has been blinded by some partisan misrepresentation which may have come to his attention. I am sure he has been misinformed of the situation in Saskatchewan as it used to be under the C.C.F. government.
It was not my intention to talk on this matter, although it seems to deal with what appears to be the core of the argument. Mr. Speaker, I seem to be having a little competition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members appear to be enjoying themselves. I should not like to bring them back to reality too rudely, but I think I must mention to the hon. member, and I realize I should have intervened when the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) was speaking to remind all hon. members taking part in the debate that there is a very limited point before the house. It is, the advisability of the production of these documents. This is the only point which is now before us.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I assumed that the same rule of relevancy applied to all members of the house. I was dealing with something which was irrelevant, but because

it had been permitted I presumed it had become relevant in some manner.
I now propose to deal with the key issue in the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill); that is, that as much as he might like to do it this order could not be made because it would breach some ancient principle which he said always had been adopted here. He said that a nationally owned railway, and I presume any other nationally owned institution which manages its own affairs and was given some powers of management, could not and should not be asked to produce any documents whatsoever. I should like to say that I think the time has come for us to look very carefully at this sort of doctrine.
I had not anticipated participating in this debate so I have not brought with me the authorities which deal with this particular matter, but I understand that in the modern and efficient country of Sweden this sort of secrecy is totally unknown in respect of documents which affect either the government or corporations which are publicly owned. They have virtually removed all secrecy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. Does he think there should be one rule for private corporations and a different rule for publicly owned corporations which would require a greater degree of disclosure on the part of publicly owned corporations than on the part of privately owned corporations?


Francis Andrew Brewin: In answer to the minister's question, I should like to say that I believe one of the advantages in respect of publicly owned corporations is that in the right sort of cases the government quite properly can intervene for the very purpose of securing publicity. I do appreciate the point the Minister of Transport made in respect of a situation where it might reasonably be shown that this would give the privately owned companies some advantage over the publicly owned companies. If in fact it would result in unfair competition against the publicly owned companies if they should be asked to disclose something which would be detrimental to the operation of their business, then I think the minister would be perfectly right in coming to the house and asking us to not pass the particular order. However, I believe his argument lacks substance in this case, especially when he himself admits, as he did, that this particular contract is one in which both the
June 22, 1967

privately owned and publicly owned bodies have an interest.
I suggest that in modern days it is no good to say to parliament, whether or not competition is affected, that we will not ask the publicly owned corporation to produce a document for a perfectly legitimate purpose, especially if it involves a monopoly which is detrimental to the consuming public and others who are legitimately in the same business. When there is clearly no reason to believe that the publicly owned corporation would be put to any disadvantage, there is a sound general rule that the publicly owned corporation should be asked to make available to this house any document it has.
The minister threw in this very interesting question. He asked whether or not such a request could be made without legislative authority to do so. Obviously, we have the sovereign power to act as a legislature. I wonder how practical the minister's suggestion is. If this order were made, obviously the railway company, the terminal company, or whatever it is-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Canadian National Railways.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If the Canadian National Railways said that they would not make it available so that it could be produced in the house, the minister might have to come before the house and say that he could not obtain the document because they refused to give it to him. That is a most improbable situation. I suggest that the order should be passed, and if the minister finds himself in the position of not being able to carry out the order, then he could return to the house and in that case I believe the members would be sympathetic to him.
I suggest that the production of this document would not be detrimental to the corporation. I believe that the hon. member for York-Humber should be assisted in his battle for free enterprise, and I hope that the house will pass the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Competition altogether.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested to see the people who are not in favour of competition and who certainly are not even in favour of having a very simple document tabled. I think the points which have been made by my colleague have been excellent points in a
DEBATES	1845
Taxi Service at Ottawa Railway Station legal sense. I believe there probably is an even stronger case to be made in the practical sense. The free enterprisers I hear on the other side really are not free enterprisers at all. They are restrictive monopolists who do not believe there should be competition; they believe monopolies should be made in heaven for those who can make the greatest profit and pay the greatest amount for the concession. This reminds me of people-perhaps the type of people we have on the other side of the house-who go after a job, even though they do not expect they will make any money on the job, because they want the tips. This might be true in respect of the taxi company.
I might give you an interesting example. I was at the station on one occasion with a number of other people. There were no taxis and I said that we had better call a taxi. The person despatching the taxis said, "Call this number". I said, "Why should I call that number; that is the company which has the concession here. I will call any number but that one because if they had taxis available obviously they would be here."
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
He said they had a concession. Certainly, they had a concession, but they did not have any taxis. I did not see any point in making a telephone call to the company for which he was the despatcher because he had been frantically trying to get taxis, but none were available.
I think the request in this particular motion is reasonable. I have entered this discussion because I am one of those who did not believe we should build a railway station way out in the country where taxis are necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether the hon. member is not straying from the point now before the house. In my opinion he is digressing a little too much.


William Arnold Peters: I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker, but I think this whole matter will have to be resolved, and perhaps it could be resolved easier if the minister had paid attention to the original objections made about granting this type of concession. Possibly a solution could be found in another way, but perhaps I should adhere strictly to the request made by the hon. member in his motion.
I am sorry the hon. member did not also mention in his motion the other facilities at the station, including the catering services.
June 22. 1967

Taxi Service at Ottawa Railway Station


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would permit a question which I think is closely related to the matter before the house. Does the hon. member think there would be a better catering service if there were competition at the station?


William Arnold Peters: Frankly, I think there would be better service if there were any catering at all at the restaurant after ten o'clock at night, and if there were more than two people working in an operation which probably requires eight or ten employees. In any event, I do not think we could have competition in this field. A decision has to be made somewhere in this regard.
Surely, the general public has the right to find out why services are not available at this railway station. The minister may not be entirely right in suggesting that the Canadian National is solely responsible. I understand that the National Capital Commission has a great deal of money tied up in this operation. I have discussed this matter with the commission and was informed that no one knows exactly what the situation will be until the end of the year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I can clear up this matter for the hon. gentleman. Regardless of the ownership, there is no question about the contract to which the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) has referred. This is a contract between the Canadian National Railways and the Blue Line taxi.


William Arnold Peters: I accept that statement, but the point I was making was that had the contract been between the Canadian Pacific and the Blue Line taxi, on the basis of the evidence elicited by the hon. member from senior officials of the Canadian Pacific, the service would be better. Those officials were willing to disclose almost everything except the facts in respect of the competitive position.
It is my opinion that it would be wise, and to the benefit of the people operating the service, to disclose the facts because in this way they might obtain some public sympathy. Perhaps the company has not provided the minister with a copy of this contract but I am sure he could obtain one. I see no reason why it should not be made public because the contract does not involve inter-departmental relations which would not be in the interests of the company or the department to disclose, the fact that this contract has not been disclosed creates more difficulty for the Canadian National Railways, the minister and his department than if it were disclosed. I

believe that suggestions could be made, if the contract were disclosed, which would assist the department in finding a solution to this problem.
I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in that similar objections and difficulties have arisen in respect of other contracts of this type entered into between the Department of Transport and various companies. I recall the difficulties which occurred in respect of similar transportation between the airport and the city of Montreal. In that case, the minister became so annoyed he finally changed the situation. I also remember the situation in respect of transportation between Malton and Toronto. In this case the contract was not disclosed, but in the case of the Montreal situation the contract was disclosed and the situation was thoroughly discussed in this house. Hon. members made certain suggestions about the difficulties which had occurred as a result of the contract, and the contract originally negotiated by the Department of Transport was not renewed in the same terms as the original contract.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr.   Refers@: May I call it seven o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has called it seven o'clock. The hour appointed for the consideration of hon. members' business has now expired. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.

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


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Ryan):: Order, please. The house again in committee of supply on the estimates of the Department of National Defence, vote No. 1. It being seven o'clock the committee stands suspended until 8 p.m., pursuant to standing order.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department
June 22, 1967

[DOT]of National Defence for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
2. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations, as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,850,056,375 for the purposes of votes 1, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 45 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,221,323,000 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year, subject to the direction of the treasury board, in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, any member of the British Commonwealth or any provincial or municipal government and in respect of charges made pursuant to regulations under the National Defence Act for:
(a)	clothing and kit items sold to members of the Canadian forces;
(b)	living accommodation;
(c)	food supplied to members of the Canadian forces and to messes and institutes catering thereto; and
(d)	medical and dental care provided to dependants of members of the Canadian forces, $6,593,375.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, just before the supper interval I was indicating that the minister's and the government's policy has been to place increasing and greater emphasis on peace keeping activities for the Canadian forces and that the minister's reorganization of the forces was designed to that end. I said I would produce further evidence, and I will. The minister, despite his agonized protestations, will have to admit that the general opinion is that this has become the main function in the defence policy of Canada.
I refer now to the defence committee hearings of February 28, 1967, page 1760, when the chief of defence staff, General Allard, was giving evidence. He was speaking about Canada's role and I quote his words;
It Is its duty to participate to the best of its ability in peace keeping by supporting the organization which has made itself the champion of the smaller nations-the United Nations organization.
In short, that is the transformation proposed by the white paper.
If hon. members are not satisfied with that, at St. Catharines on April 1 General Allard spoke to a gathering. His speech is reported in the Globe and Mail of April 24. The heading is, "Mobile Peace Force Is Goal, Allard
Supply-National Defence Says." I quote these words from the news report:
The creation of a mobile world peace keeping force as well as elimination of waste are the goals of Canada's proposed reorganization of the armed forces, General Jean V. Allard, chief of defence staff, said Saturday.
I quote further from this news report:
Canada's forces were being made into a highly mobile force, in keeping with their role as peace keepers in the world, he said.
Some time in March there was a meeting, described in the Globe and Mail of March 6 as a meeting of experienced Canadian diplomats and military officers, to discuss peace keeping. This conference was held at Queen's university. The Globe and Mail sums it up by saying:
In the wake of the defence white paper, it is clear that Canada is committed-diplomatically and militarily-to an expanding peace keeping role.
In the Globe and Mail of April 5 there is a report of activities at the United Nations. According to the report Canada was apparently leading in proposing special training for UN troops. I quote briefly from this report:
Canada proposed yesterday that the United Nations set up uniform standards of special training for military units to be earmarked for United Nations peace keeping work, with special emphasis on police training.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This is an indication that at the United Nations, Canada is taking the lead in emphasizing a peace keeping role. Another person who has been convinced that Canada's role has been transformed, or that the main emphasis is on peace keeping, is the secretary general of the United Nations. The secretary general is not an unfamiliar figure in diplomatic and military circles so far as Canada is concerned. I expect that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been meeting him in New York recently, unless the press reports have failed to give us their customary detailed itinerary of the activities of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Apparently he has met the ministers of external affairs from other countries, or at least Mr. Kosygin. I do not know whether he has seen the President of the United States as yet but we are getting a detailed step by step description of his activities, and it all sounds very interesting indeed. It makes him appear to be very ineffectual. However, the secretary general of the United Nations must be very familiar with Canada's activities, and the
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Defence Montreal Gazette of Tuesday, June 6, reported as follows:
Canada's role in United Nations peace keeping operations has come in for much praise, ever since the large Canadian contingent was pulled out of the Gaza strip. All of it is deserved.
Secretary General U Thant was among those who praised the Canadian role in this field. But he inadvertently hit a tender point when he said in Montreal last week:
"Canada with its enlightened view of international relations, has even taken the revolutionary step of reorganizing its armed forces with the peace keeping function primarily in mind."
As recently as January 20 Mr. Arthur Blakely of the Montreal Gazette, who is a senior, experienced and competent news reporter, was in Washington obviously conferring with various influential people in the United States. I will quote one or two sentences from his article:
The United States, strange to relate, harbours a dark suspicion at the official level that Canada is wobbling towards a perilous neutralism.
Farther on, the article reads:
Even Canada's military and foreign policy preoccupation with peace keeping operations, under UN auspices, serves to feed the suspicion that all is not well north of the border. And the armed forces unification program is looked upon coldly as a military device which may render Canadian forces as virtually unemployable for anything but a United Nations peace keeping operation.
That is evidence which cannot be lightly brushed aside. How did it all come about? I have stated on other occasions that the origin of this transformation, to use the word of the chief of defence staff, rests with the Prime Minister of this country.
If, sir, you would refer to Maclean's magazine of May 2, 1964, you would find stated therein the policy as the Prime Minister envisaged it for the future. You would then understand how it has happened that, from the time when the white paper was published and throughout 1964 and the subsequent years, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have supported the Minister of National Defence in the reorganization of the armed forces which we have criticized. Obviously, the Prime Minister, having given the Minister of National Defence instructions, has had to support him throughout despite all the evidence which was produced last summer, last fall and in the spring, that it was an error of judgment. In the article in Maclean's magazine, which was written by the Prime Minister himself, you will find some important statements such as the following one:
I believe that arrangements to prevent the spread of "brushfire wars" can be and must be made; we


must have a force that can do this brushfire job, and do it well.
I believe, however, that the initiative for advance planning should come-as it has come in the past- from a country like Canada, not from a great power.
Then he goes on, in this very informative article, to state as follows:
What is needed, in fact, is an entirely new arrangement by which these nations-*
He is speaking of nations favourable to the idea.
-would establish an international peace force, its contingents trained and equipped for the purpose, and operating under principles agreed on in advance.
farther on, he states in this article:
With a group of middle powers working together this way, a respectable and effective stand-by peace force could soon be brought into being ready for instant use.
He also states:
In this way, if a crisis arose and there were no UN force to deal with it, the world organization would know that some members had available their own international force for preserving the peace; for carrying out and supervising UN recommendations when called on; for pacifying disturbed areas; and for putting international police force behind international decisions.
Finally, he states:
There must be leadership to bring this about. Interested governments must be prepared to give it. As a leading middle power, with a well known record of support for United Nations peace keeping operations in widely spread theatres, Canada is in a unique position to take the initiative. It is prepared to do so.
That, sir, is clear evidence that the policy of this government throughout 1964, and from then on, has been to put the main emphasis on a peace keeping force for the United Nations. I suggest to you, as I did earlier before the supper recess, that it should not take precedence over Canada's own defence, over Canada's commitments to NATO and to our allies in that area, nor over our commitments to NORAD. What I object to is the transformation which has occurred and the emphasis Which has been put on the United Nations peace keeping force while other factors have been relegated to an inferior position. I think we do not thoroughly understand the nature of peace keeping. I reject entirely the minister's statement about the use of our forces, and I quote from page 14431 of Hansard:
...to participate in any action anywhere in the world which might be in the interests of Canada in so far as putting out, containing or controlling incidents which under other circumstances might escalate into something more serious.
June 22, 1967

You engage in war when you try to prevent an armed conflict from escalating into something more serious. Had we had heavily armed forces on the Egyptian and Israeli border and had they remained there, they would have engaged in fighting. Why do we not go to the support of the British in Aden to prevent that conflict from escalating into a major war? What about the situation developing in Nigeria where, we are told by newspaper reports, civil war may break out? What about the situation in Mozambique which the Toronto Star of Thursday, June 22, calls "a forgotten war" where the Portuguese are fighting against rebel forces in that country supplied, as reported, with money and arms from Tanzania and Zambia. This morning we discovered in the external affairs committee that Canada is providing military guidance to Tanzania. Is this the way our foreign aid is used? This is an interesting question which we might ask officials in the external affairs department. Do we really understand the nature of peace keeping operations?
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I think everyone should read the book called, "Soldiering for Peace" by General Carl von Horn, published in England in 1966, and in the United States in 1967. This man spent six years as head of the truce or observer forces in Israel on the border between Israel, Jordan and Syria. He also spent some time in the Congo, then returned again to Israel and was posted to Yemen where there has been an abortive exercise by the United Nations. This book by an experienced military commander of United Nations forces will give people an idea of the difficulties involved in peace keeping, which it seems to me we rather lightly talk about. There is one sentence in the book in which he says that peace in our times is a bloody business, and it should be so recognized. We are being bemused and confused by talking about peace keeping and peace restoring; we are organizing our forces in an incorrect way, I think, and placing the emphasis in the wrong place.
Even in the observer corps that has been working for years on the border between Israel and Lebanon and Syria a valuable Canadian life was sacrificed, the life of Colonel Flint of the Princess Patricia's, who in 1958 was examining an incident which had oc-cured between the Israelis and the Syrians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.
Supply-National Defence


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee with a certain element of surprise, and I am very grateful. I was saying that one valuable Canadian life was lost. We must ask ourselves whether this is the type of work that Canadian soldiers should be asked to do under present circumstances. General von Horn points out the difficulties of the various missions on which he served in those countries in the Middle East. He tells an extraordinary story of courage and endurance and of coping with untold difficulties. He has praise for various Canadians who served with him in those areas, but he clearly shows how those observer corps forces and the other armed forces that he commanded in the Congo, in Yemen and so on, were handicapped by the ineptness of the administrative services of the United Nations.
I think that our government is thoroughly familiar with the need for a better type or organization in the United Nations in order to put these groups or armed forces in the field. Surely this is partly what the Prime Minister was writing about in Maclean's magazine on May 2, 1964, the necessity for some type of superior military and administrative organization in order to assist in these operations abroad.
However, Mr. Chairman, I very much question whether we in this house have sufficient information about some of these activities. We have been taking it a little for granted, and a book such as the one I have mentioned sets out very starkly and clearly that it is not a simple matter to post observer corps along the borders of countries who adopt a belligerent attitude to one another. It is not an easy matter to post these forces in extremely difficult terrain. It is a very difficult matter indeed to operate and command forces gathered together from various countries around the world, each with its own ideology. There is nothing easy about that at all.
Before we commit ourselves to any more adventures, Mr. Chairman, I think we should re-examine and reappraise the nature of our obligations. We want the United Nations of course to survive as a useful force in the world, but let us not bemuse ourselves by talking about peace keeping missions and pretending that these are going to be successful or will be the answer to the problem. Recent events have clearly shown that the United
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Defence Nations emergency force in the Gaza strip and elsewhere was ineffective in preventing the outbreak of war. I think it is a careless use of language to say that this force preserved the peace for ten years. Peace was preserved for ten years only because the antagonists were not ready to fight. Had they been ready earlier, that peace force would have been sent home, as it was.
The observer corps activities on the border of Jordan and Syria have been relatively ineffective over all these years. This book by General von Horn is replete with examples of incidents caused by both sides, and war was not prevented. Accusations were made, reports were sent to the United Nations. He states that in the United Nations, either in the security council or in the assembly, on 400 occasions there appeared on the agenda a resolution or a reference to the trouble between Israel and the Arab states. So, the political solution has escaped the nations of the world all these years, despite the observer corps on the border and despite the emergency force in the Gaza strip.
What I dislike is the unintentional pretence that these forces really are effective. I think we should reach the conclusion that they are not and that something better has to be devised. Even when war broke out just two weeks ago, sir, immediately the cry was that it was up to the four major powers, or certainly up to the United States and Russia, to prevent the war escalating.
This is w'hat happened in 1956 at the time of the Suez crisis. It was not the interposition of the hastily assembled emergency force that prevented that war from spreading or continuing: it was the pressure brought to bear upon the combatants by the major powers in the world.
Canada played an important part in setting up that original emergency force. The Prime Minister has never claimed that the idea originated with him. His sycophants have repeatedly written and told us that this was his idea, though he has never claimed it for himself. The idea was not new to the world. There was a peace force established under the League of Nations when the plebiscite was held in the Saar Valley. Many people suggested some sort of force be made available to the United Nations to restrict belligerence, and even at the time of the Suez crisis the hint or suggestion that there should be an international force established there was first made by Sir Anthony Eden in the British House of Commons. The message was relayed to Canada. It was considered by the cabinet in 
Canada several hours later, and subsequently Canada was able to propose, and have carried, at the United Nations a resolution to establish such a force. Canada was also very active in getting the force set up.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
This is a good record but it did not solve the problem. I suggest, therefore, that a reassessment of our defence policy is required. It is quite wrong, under present circumstances, to put our main emphasis on the so-called mobile force which is to be available for service anywhere in the world, and to pretend to our people that this force will be able to contain or prevent escalation when trouble has broken out. It can do no such thing. If this force becomes involved, it will have to fight; and if it fights Canadian officers and men will be killed, just as British officers and men are now being killed in Aden. We must be realistic about this. That is why I maintain that until the nations of the world in the United Nations can devise a more effective method of solving some of these problems on the political level, and until they can devise a more effective method to provide for the command and administration of forces that are used under United Nations' auspices, we should pause and consider where our interests really lie. That is why I said before the supper adjournment that the defence of Canada comes first, our NATO alliance second, our NORAD alliance third, and the United Nations' efforts fourth.
We alone cannot be the peacekeeper of the world; we are not equipped for that. We have not the population nor the forces, and we are fooling our people when we pretend that we are ready to take on these jobs when we are not ready to take them on. No government will commit Canadian servicemen to these difficult operations and dangerous missions unless there is some hope of achieving the objective in mind.
Our interests of course are for world peace; but we have no specific interest in some of the areas where trouble is occurring. In conjunction with our allies, we should be prepared to assist, naturally. But what are we doing? We are not assisting Britain in Aden; we are not interested in Portuguese East Africa, we are not much interested in what is going on in Nigeria, and if we were we should not take part in anything in that region. We were not able to take part in the trouble between Israel and the Arab states despite all the talk about our mobile forces being ready
June 22. 19S7

to go anywhere, at any time, on sudden notice. We are not participating in the war in South Viet Nam, yet we are talking about providing peacekeeping and peace restoring forces. This, sir, is wrong.
With the prevailing world situation we should be closely allied with the two countries beside which we fought and stood in two world wars. If there is a third world war those are the countries we ought to associate with-Britain and the United States. The organization of our defence forces should be so drawn that we can co-operate with those great countries. That is where our main interest lies.
Our obligation is to the people of Canada, to the protection of their lives and to the defence of this country. Those obligations can best be fulfilled through our close association with the United States and the United Kingdom. I deplore this transformation of Canada's defence policy, as the chief of the general staff has called it. I deplore this confusing and nebulous emphasis on peace keeping and peace restoring. Those are meaningless terms when one examines some of the difficulties which are involved. General von Horn, in his book which is based on practical experience, shows what is to be done. To commit Canadian servicemen to these expeditions under an ineffective administration and control system in the United Nations would be very foolish indeed.
For that reason, I conclude by saying that I am very dissatisfied with the shift of emphasis in Canada's defence policy. In the light of recent experience in the Middle East I say that that policy should be revised.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will forgive me if I do not continue the debate, which I have had with him before, about the value of peace keeping. I must say that I read the events of the last few weeks differently from the way he reads them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That shows the value of debate.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I believe that the fact that war broke out as soon as peace keeping forces were withdrawn does not show that those forces were useless. It shows, rather, that the force is needed permanently, and that it should not have been withdrawn hurriedly. It shows also the necessity of having a better organization to keep the peace. That is the lesson I would draw from the past weeks.

Supply-National Defence
I suspect that in the world of the future peace keeping forces and the sort of mobile conventional forces that we are now developing will still be needed. If the government's plan is what the hon. member says it is, it will have our support. The future security of Canada and of the world demands that we should continue to play this sort of role. We should play it, not simply in so-called peace keeping operations under the United Nations-of course, we should include those- but we should adopt that role as a major aim of our defence policy.
This evening I wish to deal with a subject which has already been mentioned by the hon. Minister of National Defence. The issue that is facing us in this country-indeed, it faces the whole western alliance in the realm of defence-is of the utmost importance. I refer to the deployment or proposed deployment of antiballistic missile systems commonly known as A.B.M. systems or sometimes as B.M.D. systems.
It is well known to those who have studied this question that crucial decisions face our allies in the United States about future plans in this connection. Before becoming involved, Canada must take the crucial decision whether it intends to follow what is being done in the United States. The decision about the employment of antiballistic missile systems is crucial for the future security of the world and for the maintenance of the type of society and life in which we believe.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In my view it is necessary that these matters be discussed publicly in parliament and elsewhere so that the decisions, when we come to make them, will be independent Canadian decisions, arrived at in full knowledge of the implications and uninfluenced by pressure. The minister has on a number of occasions given his word in the house and in the defence committee that Canada will not become involved in the deployment of A.B.M. systems until there has been discussion in parliament. I suggested in a question to him earlier in this debate that these matters should be referred to the committee on defence as soon as we reconvene after the recess in order that expert evidence may be called, and the arguments both for and against carefully reviewed before decisions are taken. We have seen in the committee that once a policy decision has been made and the government is committed to it, positions tend to crystallize and the discussion becomes not only partisan but often sterile. When information on these
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Defence questions is made available before rigid policy decisions are taken I believe we are far more likely to arrive at wise decisions. Moreover we would then have the ability to say to the people of Canada that we have arrived at those decisions in the full knowledge of the facts.
Though this is a technical subject, I will endeavour to describe the position of A.B.M. deployment as it is at the present time. As is well known, there are two great powers-the United States and the U.S.S.R. For some time they have been locked in what is called a nuclear stalemate, and this has given to some parts of the world at any rate, a fragile stability. This stalemate has been based on the fact that each of these super powers has so-called strategic or hydrogen bombs in its possession capable of almost unthinkable destruction. These bombs, as is known, can be delivered anywhere in the world by intercontinental ballistic missiles a few minutes after being launched. In addition, this tremendous destructive power has been rendered virtually invulnerable by a variety of means such as "hardening" the missile launching sites or by placing these weapons in submarines which can roam the oceans and pop up anywhere to launch bombs capable of destroying whole cities.
As a result of this invulnerability, even after a surprise attack has been launched the other side would still retain the power to inflict upon its attacker what is called unacceptable damage-a phrase used to describe the power to completely destroy the society in the country which launched the attack and to kill tens of millions of people who would lose their lives almost immediately after such a retaliatory blow.
Because of the invulnerability of this fantastic power, we have experienced what is known as the nuclear stalemate. It is in this context that the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems is being considered. They are designed, as we know, to destroy incoming rockets, and the proposal to make such installations is under active consideration by both the United States and the U.S.S.R. Three recent developments have forced the United States government, which has hitherto been extremely cool toward the proposal, to reconsider its position. I attended a conference last week at which I acquired a new expression which I should like to reveal to the committee. It is said the situation has now been reached in which the United States has to make a "go-no go" decision. I take it this

jargon means that in a short time they must either proceed or abandon this development.
First of the new factors involved is a technological development which has made it easier to detect decoys in the stratosphere and made it possible, or feasible, at a relatively small cost to detect a great many, if not all, of the incoming missiles and destroy them before they reach their targets. A second factor which has caused this matter to become one of crucial importance to decision makers in the United States is the detonation by the Chinese of various nuclear devices including the hydrogen bomb, as has become known in the last few days. The third is the fact that there has been at least some limited development of an A.B.M. system in the U.S.S.R. for the protection, I gather, of Leningrad and Moscow.
In these circumstances the United States has been forced to consider whether they in turn should deploy these weapons, and since they are reluctant to do so, for reasons I will mention in a few moments, they are now in the process of seeking to make an arrangement or agreement with the U.S.S.R. to forgo or to limit, in any event, these new A.B.M. deployments.
A decision in this respect may be made very shortly but I think the U.S.S.R. has said, quite naturally, to the United States government that if it is to discuss the limitation of A.B.M. deployment it also wishes to discuss the reduction of the immense superiority in strategic weapons now possessed by the United States in the ratio of approximately four to one. The Soviet union argues that it might be interested in restricting the deployment of anti-ballistic missiles systems if the United States would agree to limiting its means of delivery or take serious steps to cut down the immense over-kill capacity of its strategic weapons.
I wish to say something about the financial cost which would be incurred if a development of this type were approved. That of course depends on the type of development. In the language used by those who deal with these matters there could be either a hard point area or urban deployment, designed to defend strategic locations against ballistic missiles or defend cities and larger areas. There are, of course, differences as to the extent to which protection would be made available-posture A and posture B in the terms used by the more technically expert. Whatever system is proceeded with the cost is estimated as between $10 billion and $40 billion in the United States.
June 22, 1967

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I doubt that there are very many observers who do not believe that if this process is embarked on that the higher figure will prove to have been far too low. So, there is a colossal expense of wealth and of human resources and energy which necessarily would be poured into this. This is the first part of the cost which has to be considered. It is not just a dollar cost because it means the transfer of resources which might, for example, be used to deal with the poverty which threatens the world. It might be used to improve the societies in which we live and which certainly need improving.
I have not come to the matter of the Canadian involvement in this matter, but I shall do so in a few minutes. Suppose, however, that the Canadian involvement were to be proportionate. I suppose that would mean the expenditures we would have to envisage would be perhaps a tenth of the United States which would be $1 billion or $4 billion, although I think the higher figure is much more probable and, as the minister pointed out, this involves a continuing expense as well.
The real cost, however, is not just the cost in money or materials which might be involved in this. I should like to read from an article which was originally published in Foreign Affairs by Mr. J. I. Coffey who served in the state and defence departments and on the White House staff, an expert in these matters. He says:
Chief among the costs is likely to be an erosion of the already slim possibility of reaching agreement on further arms-control measures which could promote a more secure world.
I think of that as a very mild way of saying that once you have become involved in this new level of escalation what you are doing is saying goodbye to the very bright prospects of getting an effective non-proliferation agreement. There is an expectation that within a short period a draft non-proliferation agreement will be tabled by the great powers at the Geneva conference on disarmament. But what hope would remain that the great powers would be able to persuade the nonnuclear powers not to acquire nuclear weapons if the nuclear super powers themselves proceed to new heights of nuclear development and exhibit complete lack of control? The hopes of limiting this fantastic nuclear power to the five nations who now have it is likely to go up in smoke.
Those are some of the costs. But if billions and billions of dollars constitute a high cost, 27053-118
Supply-National Defence and if the loss of the prospect for arms control and relaxation of tension is a high cost, is it a cost which ought to be paid for our security or is it a cost which the United States should pay for the security of the United States? I believe the answer is vary clear. The answer is that you do not buy security in this way. All you do is provoke an equal response by the other side which means that the degree of security you have is certainly no greater than it was before.
I should like to quote the words of secretary of defence McNamara when speaking to the armed services committee on, the 1968 defence budget of the United States. This is what he said:
It is the virtual certainty that the Soviets will act to maintain their deterrent which casts such grave doubts on the advisability of our deploying the Nike-X system for the protection of our cities against the heavy, sophisticated missile attack they could launch in the 1970's, in all probability, all we would accomplish would be to increase greatly both their defence expenditures and ours without any gain in real security to either side.
Mr. Chairman, I ask, if you do not obtain security at this fantastic price which you are called on to pay, why pay the price? I suggest the answer is very obvious. We must not be deceived. The pressure to proceed with this will be extremely strong. Simple arguments are made that if you can knock down incoming bombs or avoid the threat of bombs you save lives. This is far too simple. You do not save lives if the other side at the same time increases its power so that the total ability for destruction remains precisely the same. But this is a good, simple sort of argument to make.
I have no doubt that the group which former president Eisenhower described as the industrial military complex in the United States would not be unhappy about the developments which would involve the expenditure of billions of dollars on new equipment of this sort. So, the pressures will be great. If the Russians should be unwise enough, and I think they would be unwise to proceed to an all-out deployment of a ballistic missile system, then the pressures on the United States to do the same thing no doubt would be very great.
The first point I should like to make is that I wish to urge the minister and this government to employ all the persuasive power they have in putting their weight in the scales against this fateful new development by the United States of America. It may be that they have already done that, but as an ally and neighbour of the United States which cannot
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Dejence help being involved in the developments which affect the people of the whole world, I would urge the government to make the strongest possible representation it has in its power to make on this matter before the decision is made. We certainly have no right to veto the decision if it is an unhappy one from our point of view. However, I believe we can claim the right to give advice, or to be heard at any rate on this issue, before the decision is made.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn for a few moments to the Canadian situation. Before I do that I should like to say that one of the proposals which now is being bandied about in the United States is that there should be some sort of a compromise measure which would be a light ballistic missile system costing about $10 billion. This light system would not be effective against any all-out strike from the U.S.S.R. with its sophisticated means of delivery. But the suggestion is made that this light system might be able to meet the supposed threat of a nuclear attack from the People's Republic of China. I want to suggest that if that is the type of system that is to be deployed, this country should have no part in it whatsoever. We do not believe that the Chinese deployment involved any threat to this country or to North America. If it should, then I think the answer was well given by the hon. member for Rosedale, who is the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in a speech he gave at Scarborough last Saturday. He said that so far as that was concerned, the time that would be taken to deploy an antiballistic missile system is far shorter than the time it would take the Chinese to develop an effective striking power and therefore to go ahead with a system before you know you even have to meet the threat would be a foolish thing to do.
As the hon. member for Rosedale put it, a "wait-and-see" approach would scarcely endanger western security. In talking to some of our friends in the United States, I sometimes think that when they see their security in some way related to a future confrontation with the People's Republic of China-as some of them seem to see it-they are making a very grave error in judgment.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think their security and the security of the world depends far more on their ability to seek and obtain some reconciliation with the People's Republic of China which is no real threat to the United States and unlikely at
[Mr. Brewin.i
any time to become one. In any event, I urge upon the government, when and if the deployment of anti-ballistic missiles is undertaken in the United States, which are competent only to meet a threat from China, that they say we are not concerned with meeting this particular threat and stay completely out of this.
However, it will be said, and quite rightly so, that this country is linked closely in the defence of the North American air space through NORAD and through other arrangements with the United States. This will lead to pressure upon us, if the United States decides to deploy this system, to acquire installations from them and to buy city defences. This will become evident, and if the city of Buffalo, for example, were to have what purported to be a protection then one could understand how those who come from the city of Toronto, like the minister and myself, might be under some pressure to obtain for Toronto the same sort of defence the United States had seen fit to provide for Buffalo.
There is no reason to believe that this particular form of defence will provide security. As Mr. McNamara and others have pointed out from time to time, once you move ahead to provide a defence against a threat that exists today then a new development of offensive power takes place almost immediately. There is no one that I know of who seriously suggests that this system of deployment would be really efficient. It might, if ever called into play, conceivably have the result of minimizing the loss of life. Again, let me ask what would be the expense and how effective would it be in minimizing the loss of life if the enemy increased his offensive power to correspond.
I suggest this creates a further involvement of Canada in an unnecessary nuclear role. I suggest we cannot possibly afford it, and attached to it is a very unpleasant rider. An A.B.M. system implies the installation of a system of shelters against fallout which in turn involves not only large sums of money out of the taxpayer's pocket or the individual property owner's purse, but a degree of regimentation if it were to be taken seriously at all and not merely as a bluff.
I think the time has come for this country, looking at this independently and from its own point of view, to say that if the people in the United States believe they can afford the billions of dollars that would necessarily be involved in a system of defence that certainly
June 22, 1967	COMMONS
would be provocative and would very likely be ineffective, we do not command that type of resources.
We should say that the resources we have will be directed toward something we think is more important and more useful. I do not know that this committee is the right place to quote from hymns, but a line of a hymn comes to my mind which I think is appropriate. It is "Turn back, O man, forsake thy foolish ways."
The adoption of anti-ballistic missile deployment is just another new turning or step on the ladder in the unending process toward a situation where the whole energies of man will be devoted to mutual terror, mutual threats of destruction and mutual futility. I believe that Canadian people will be in a position, quite apart from what the United States may decide to do, to say we must put a stop to this particular process. I do not mean to imply by that, however, that we cannot or should not discuss with the United States mutual defence arrangements, radar screens and other arrangements in respect to which we could be of assistance both to strengthen their security and strengthen the deterrent power of their own strategic forces. I do urge, however, that the government and the minister afford to this house, through the defence committee, at the first opportunity, such information as is available on this vital and urgent subject. There may not be complete information but there is undoubtedly information that will create an atmosphere of understanding of these very grave issues, so that when a decision must be made the government can make the decision, not based upon pressure but based upon Canadian understanding of the issues at stake. If they do that, I believe this will be one of the greatest contributions they could possibly make through defence measures to arms control and to a peaceful world in the future.


Paul Langlois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only want to take a few minutes to make some brief remarks. I for one do not believe in long speeches, because one finally realizes, after analysing them individually, that what took half an hour or three quarters of an hour to say could easily have been said in four or five minutes.
At the beginning of the study of his departmental estimates today, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) congratulated his associate minister (Mr. Cadieux) and I should like to join in his congratulations.
27053-118J
DEBATES	1855
Supply-National Defence
I also wish to congratulate the minister on his fine work, something that my good friend for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) failed to do, when I was expecting him to do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will do that in my second
speech.


Paul Langlois: I thought you were going to do it.

In his introductory remarks the minister revealed that Canadian forces now had 105,000 men, an increase of more than 1,000 soldiers, airmen or sailors in the past few months, that is since the unification bill is in force. I should like to bring this to the attention of some members of the opposition, particularly my good friend from Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal) who claimed, during consideration of this bill, that men could not be kept in the Canadian forces without conscription. My congratulations then to the minister for having achieved an increase without resorting to conscription.
The main purpose of my short address is to defend our officers and men of the Canadian armed forces based at Bagotville, further to a question raised at 10 o'clock on May 18, 1967, by the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).
I will not read the complete question of the member for Roberval, because it would be rather long and perhaps, when reading Hansard, people might think that I put the question.
Anyway, the question was about the purported problems caused by the airplanes leaving Bagotville and flying over the constituency of Roberval.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, as member for Chicoutimi where the Bagotville base is located, I know what noise a jet can make, especially on takeoff. I have not received any complaints about noises, thunder, etc., which can occur when those planes fly.
The member for Roberval brought up all kinds of things in his speech. I think it might be very interesting for the members to read it as reported on pages 408 and 409 of Hansard, for the second session of the 27th parliament.
I do not intend to review what he said point by point; instead, I shall leave it to the hon. members and the people of his riding to deal with our friend for Roberval.
June 22, 1967

Supply-National Defence
Furthermore, what prompts me to take the floor tonight, Mr. Chairman, is that following the statement of the hon. member and press reports, I received, here in Ottawa, several copies of resolutions passed by town councils in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, congratulating the department for the way the Bagotville base is conducted, congratulating the base personnel for its courtesy, etc., while I received not one letter that might suggest the hon. member for Roberval could have been right. I sincerely believe that the dealings of the officers and the people on the Bagotville base, especially with the population especially of Chicoutimi-for the base is located in Chicoutimi-as well as with the whole Saguenay-Lake St. John population, are excellent. In addition, the morale is at a very high level on the base.
And to prove that the people do not in any way stand aloof from the air base staff, 62,000 visitors attended the air force show at Bagotville in this centennial year.
Everyone enjoyed the show very much, and I congratulate the famous group which performs these acrobatic feats throughout Canada this year during the air force day.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the house, to those who are somewhat sceptical about bilingualism and Canadian unity that 38 per cent of the servicemen stationed at Bagotville, in the riding of Chicoutimi, are bilingual. I think that this is certainly a fine effort on the part of our two founding races to ensure a better co-operation, a better understanding and to further Canadian unity.
I would like to thank and congratulate the department, especially the minister, for agreeing to send helicopters to the Bagotville base-two have been there for a few months-which are used to search for military personnel as well as civilians. The fact that they are used to search for civilians is looked upon very kindly by the population. Our territory covers a wide area. In the Saguenay-Lake St. John area there are immense forests and numerous streams and often fishermen, hunters, trappers and people engaged in bush operations are in trouble, far from the large centres, and each time we have asked help from the officers stationed at the air force base, we were received very cordially and when possible-and I can tell you that it is 99 times out of 100-we got the help needed.
To conclude, I would like to say that I had the pleasure of seeing the famous show put on for the centennial by the Canadian forces. It is called the Military Tattoo, and it is
[Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi) .1

known in French as the "carrousel des forces armees du Canada".
I wish to congratulate the minister and the associate minister, who were certainly very closely connected with this show, as well as the whole production team and all the participants. It is remarkable that these members of the armed forces, trained not to put on shows but to serve their country, should be able to get together

and they number 1,000 or perhaps 2,000-and produce such entertainment. Some of them have varied and rather extraordinary talents.
I wish to congratulate them all. These are the remarks I wanted to make tonight, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it this will be the only day upon which we will be able to discuss the defence estimates this session. In view of the hour, which leaves only 40 minutes of the parliamentary day, I shall forgo any general remarks that I might otherwise have made and deal briefly with only a few specific matters. The first is the size of the defence budget. This afternoon the minister put on the record a chart or charts which were designed to show that, in terms of the defence dollar, when compared with 1963 to 1964 the cost of defence had gone down, or alternately that if the establishment of 1963 to 1964 had been maintained, the cost would have been very greatly in excess of what it is at the present time.
This was a perhaps ingenious, but I think very blatant, attempt by the minister to try to continue fooling the Canadian people with regard to the cost of defence. During the past three years the minister has consistently tried to persuade the people of this country and the members of the house that he was saving or was going to save enormous sums of money by the unification scheme he was putting into effect, and prior to that the integration scheme he was putting into effect. But the bald fact is, if you look at the estimates you will find that the cost of defence this year has increased by $115,309,000. That is the bald and actual fact. All the squirming, excusing and fiddling around that the minister does will not disguise that fact from the members of this house in particular and the people of Canada as a whole. In other words, all of the minister's much vaunted program for saving money for the Canadian taxpayer resulted in an increase in the cost of defence last year, and this year in a further increase of more than $115 million.
June 22. 1967	COMMONS
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the minister did not point out that in 1963, when he became Minister of National Defence, we had in this country an establishment of military personnel in the neighbourhood of 122,000 officers and men. We now have between 105,000 and
106,000	officers and men. This is a very serious decline in the number of personnel, and at a considerably increased cost. In other words, we are now getting less for our defence dollar than we were in the past. No ingenious attempt to explain away these figures will be accepted.
The next matter on which I should like to speak briefly is that to which the hon. member for Greenwood seemed to devote most of his attention. I refer to the anti-ballistic missile system which is at the moment being considered in the United States and which we may have to consider doing something about in Canada. I believe it is completely unrealistic at the present time to take a hard position against this system without knowing what the facts are and what the necessities of the situation may be. Similarly, I believe it would be very foolish to take a hard position in favour of it. At the present time we are not in a position to assess what risk is involved. An anti-ballistic missile system would be instituted as a survival measure; in other words, a measure to try and ensure the survival of as many people as possible in this country or the United States. Whether the United States goes ahead with an anti-ballistic missile system will depend, in my opinion, on the assessment they make of the risk involved and whether or not the risk involved makes it necessary to put in a system of that kind. Exactly the same considerations must be investigated by us. At the present time to take the position which was taken by the hon. member for Greenwood, that it is completely bad and wrong, is wishful thinking in my view. In other words, we cannot say that there is no risk and therefore we do not need to do anything about it.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The next point concerns the satellite communication system which is being developed in conjunction with the United States. Can the minister confirm that this is what he said in fact?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are two systems, one is a trilateral one being developed by Australia, the United States and Canada for the ground forces, and then there is the NATO system.
DEBATES	1857
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister should give us more information in connection with this matter because, as I understand the situation with regard to communication satellites, there is only room for a very limited number of communication satellites if they are to work effectively. If this is to be a purely military communication satellite, it means in effect that it will not be possible to put a civil communication satellite into effective operational use. Therefore, I hope the minister will tell us whether this is to be a combined military-civil communication satellite system or a purely military one, how it will fit in space and what is the number of civil communication satellites.
The minister told us that the Bonaventure our only carrier, would be back in operation this fall. The question that immediately occurred to me is how is it to be manned? I would like the minister to answer this question. Only a few months ago we were informed in the defence committee that of the 20 odd vessels which we still have in commission in Canada there were only 16 actually in operation. In fact, that is what the minister himself told us in giving evidence before the committee. The Bonaventure and some others were being refitted, but a considerable number were tied up at the docks because sufficient crews could not be found to man them. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the increase in the forces has been very small-I will speak about this subject later-how will the Bonaventure be manned? Does this mean that several other destroyers will be taken out of operation in order to provide the crew for her?
The next point which the minister mentioned was the change in the form of the estimates. He spoke with great pride in this connection, and assured the house it would put us in a much better position to deal with these estimates and to understand them. I agree that a breakdown of the expenditures so far as each of the commands is concerned would be of advantage, but the minister has not given us the actual cost of equipment and administration so far as the navy, the army and the air force are concerned. Thus we are unable to compare what the cost will be in this coming year, as shown in the estimates, with what the costs were in previous years. In other words, we are in a much worse position to understand what the actual situation is with regard to defence expenditures than we have been in the past.
This leads me to the next point. I think the minister owes it to the house to give us this
1858	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence breakdown. If we look in the estimates book we will find on page 318 the details with regard to construction or acquisition of buildings and works and major equipment. We are given no breakdown so far as the army, the navy and the air force are concerned. Thus, we are left in the dark concerning equipment matters. I hope that in this year the amount provided for equipment will be spent. In the past three to four years the amount which was provided in the estimates for equipment was never spent. The money which was voted for defence was spent, but a considerable amount which was actually voted for the acquisition of equipment, aircraft, ships, armoured fighting vehicles, guns, ammunition and so on, instead of being spent on these items was spent on general administration, personnel costs and things of that nature. This is what happened, in spite of the fact that the minister said he was going to make great savings in administration costs and was going to devote the money thus saved to the acquisition of new equipment. In actual fact, as I put on the record in the defence committee and I will not put it on the record here but will merely refer to it, the amount spent on equipment by this government in the past four years has been smaller than has been spent by the government of which I was defence minister in any of the years that we were in office. It was also a smaller percentage of the total amount than the money which we devoted to equipment.
In other words, the minister in effect has done the exact opposite of what he has been saying during the past four years he was going to do, namely to save money in administration in personnel and put it into equipment and forces. The amount of money spent on equipment, therefore the amount of new equipment supplied, has been reduced both quantitatively and as a percentage of the total defence budget, and the cost for administration and personnel has constantly gone up.
There are two or three specific matters on which I should like to get some answers. The minister mentioned with great pride that recruiting had improved. He said that we now have in the forces 105,792 people as of May 31. He did not tell us, and this has been the case every time that recruiting and the size of the services has been under discussion, how many people had left the services during that same period. In particular, he did not tell us how many of the 105,000-odd are actually people on terminal leave. The figure at that time was 104,000 to 105,000 people in the
[Mr. Harkness.l
DEBATES	June 22, 1867
armed forces, but 1,500 or more of those were actually out of the services on terminal leave. They were still drawing pay because one of the provisions is that when a man leaves he draws pay for up to six months, depending on how long he has been serving. However, these people were counted as part of the total figure. I have no doubt that around 1,500 or
2,000	would be included in the 105,000-odd. Until we are given the figures for the discharges during the same period for which the minister gave the recruiting figures, in other words the number of people on terminal leave, we will not know what the correct situation is.
I should like to ask next what the situation is with regard to the four new destroyer escorts which are supposed to be provided for the navy. The minister has spoken in the last year and a half to two years about the building program. Whenever he speaks about the equipment which will be supplied to the services he always mentions this subject to try and create the impression that a great deal of equipment is being secured. However, in spite of the length of time that he has been talking about these four new destroyer escorts, up to date nothing definite has been done about them so far as we have been able to determine. I think an order was placed for some of the propulsion equipment, but we would like to know when the first keel is to be laid. When will a start be made on these destroyer escorts? It would probably take in the neighbourhood of three years from the time the keel is laid before one of these vessels can become operational. The minister having scrapped the general purpose frigate program which I introduced in 1963, it means that we are already at least four years behind. From the look of things we will be at least five years late in even starting a ship replacement program, and it will be eight years before any of these naval vessels are delivered.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The minister mentioned the hydrofoil this afternoon and said that in spite of a fire that had taken place as well as other difficulties that had developed we would still proceed with the project. I should like the minister to give us the cost of this hydrofoil project over the past four years, and what the estimated total cost of the program will be. I also ask the minister when it is expected that the hydrofoil will be able to go into the water and actually undergo trials. I think it would be prophecy of the worst kind to try and prophesy when any of these craft will be in operation. However, I think we should at
June 22, 1967

least be given the details of what the cost has been and what the future of the hydrofoil project is expected to be.
One other matter I should like to ask the minister about, I do not know whether any of my colleagues have raised it or not, is this. There is a considerable amount of wonderment and disquiet in the services, I am led to believe, over the provision in the new defence act that for 60 days after that act is proclaimed members of the forces will be given the chance to retire from the armed services. I think the minister owes it to the members of the armed services, as well as to the members of this committee, to state in exact terms what the situation is in this connection.
I know that there are several other members who wish to say something, Mr. Chairman, and as it is now 25 minutes to ten 1 will conclude my remarks at this point. However, I hope that before the debate is completed the minister will answer some of the questions that have been asked.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, the remarks that I want to make tonight will also be brief. I ask the indulgence of the members of the committee if I touch on a number of matters rather than stay with one specific subject as others have done.
My first remarks are phrased in the form of a question to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I simply ask the hon. member, since what he said earlier this evening was so exciting to him and the members of the government, why it was that they sent the navy to sea a few days prior to the provincial election in the province from which I come.
I suggest that if he is guilty of the charge that I level against him, all he has done by what he has said during this discussion of the estimates has been to give further emphasis to the point that has been made, not only by myself and other members in the chamber but by people outside the House of Commons. I refer to the necessity for serious and drastic changes in the armed services voting regulations, changes which would bring about for the armed services of Canada some degree of secrecy for their franchise. What the hon. member is doing when he stands up and recites the voting habits of the members of the armed services is simply indicating to the people of Canada their political affiliations, and I submit this is immoral and is wrong.
Another question I want to raise was touched on by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, though they referred to it in different ways. It centres around the
Supply-National Defence question of Canada's neutrality in the eyes of the world today. I had hoped that by the time the defence estimates came before this committee the evidence given to the external affairs committee at their third meeting would have been available to us, because during that meeting there was a rather interesting exchange between the members of the committee and one Mr. Charles Taylor, a very distinguished correspondent of the Toronto Globe and Mail.
I should like to paraphrase what he said in part in response to specific questions about the attitude of countries like mainland China to Canada because he was quite positive in his reply. He indicated to the members of the committee that if the government of mainland China thinks about Canada at all it is either in the context of agriculture or in the context of our being merely spokesmen for and representatives of the western point of view as expressed by the United States.
I suggest that in this world today we are not neutral. I do not see how we can be. I do not think it is going too far to suggest that it is a little immoral to declare that we are. It is wrong to suggest that we can try and impose on the world the idea that we are neutral, because we are not. We adhere to the principles of democracy as espoused and practised by western countries. We believe in peace. In what way are we neutral, Mr. Chairman?
I think it has been suggested that Canada can adopt some quasineutral role which can be expressed to the world in the form of some energetic contribution to peace keeping. If I may paraphrase what the minister said earlier this afternoon in his opening remarks, he said that Canada believes in and works consistently toward permanent peace keeping machinery for the United Nations.
This may be a desirable role, but I think that the vehicle the minister has chosen-that is, the preparation in Canada of that peace keeping machinery which would be used as the lead instrument and for the primary disposal of the United Nations-is perhaps a little grandiose in conception at this particular stage of our history.
I should now like to pass to other matters of concern and develop a little further some of the questions asked of the minister about the Bonaventure.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I am curious to know where we are to get a crew for the ship. I am more seriously concerned at the moment about other aspects, particularly about some of the details of the

June 22, 1987

Supply-National Defence cost of the half-life overhaul. If there is any misunderstanding, the minister should clarify who made the basic error in the half-life refit. Was the error made as a result of a fault in the specifications? What brought about the doubling of the contract figure? There is an indication that the figure may yet be tripled. Was the department at fault in writing the specifications? Was the fault in the tendering? Are the companies that tendered not qualified to tender for the half-life overhaul of the ship?
The minister has been asked where the crew for the ship will come from. It is interesting to note that in January the Royal Canadian Navy lost 220 members and gained 137; in February it lost 161 and gained 419-that is significant; in March it lost 160 odd and gained 290, and in April it lost 200 and gained 180. The over-all picture, so far as the R.C.N. is concerned, is not an encouraging one for the task of manning the vessel I have mentioned.
I am curious to know what government decision has been reached with respect to the four new destroyer escorts. I have been told on orders of the day that no decision has been given about the lead yard. My information is contrary to that, but the government will make its announcement in due course. I am curious about the savings to be effected under the systems that are contemplated by the government for the construction of two of these ships. It has come to my attention that the second class of yard in this race-and there are only three or four in Canada-will be asked to tender on both ships and not just on one. This is a serious matter and perhaps the government could say whether what is proposed is government policy. The government must always keep in mind that it is necessary for a commercial yard to maintain a balance of trades and skills. No commercial yard must be put into the position of having to abandon lucrative commercial work in order to raise the necessary force to tackle the vessels that the government wants. The minister should also take a moment or two to answer questions along these lines.
We have been told that since the unification bill passed through the mechanics of both houses and their committees, the efficiency of the armed forces has been operationally enhanced. How does one arrive at that conclusion in view of the fact we have lost 4,500 men and gained only 4,900. How efficiency has been enhanced is a miracle, and the minister has some explaining to do there.


During his remarks he read into the record a chart that covered expenditures for the years 1963-64 up to the current estimates for the fiscal year 1967-68. He dealt with the expenditures that were made in the past, inflated those to current prices, and followed his concept through each of the years mentioned. He dealt with the actual expenses for each year and with the expenses for each year at the 1963-64 level.
This was an interesting academic exercise. But the hon. member for Calgary South dealt in committee with an earlier chart that had been prepared by the Department of National Defence. I do not think the people of Canada are particularly interested in academic exercises. Somebody, obviously, spent much time going down a long, straight road; unfortunately, he wound up in the water.
I will not prolong this point, but it is important for the people of Canada to understand what emphasis the department is placing on different expenditures for the current fiscal year 1967-68. As has been mentioned earlier by the co-chairman of the standing committee on national defence, we cannot do that at present. This matter, too, was referred to by the former minister of national defence. The truth of his remarks strikes me as obvious.
From looking at page 319 of the estimates and glancing down at the headings, mobile command, maritime command, and so on we cannot tell what the actual expenditures have been for naval operations, ground military operations or for tactical air operations. There is no way of sorting out the figures; nor can we determine what the Canadian taxpayer is contributing to our forces in Europe.
This morning, in the standing committee on external affairs, we found that items were dealt with that should properly have come under the estimates of the Department of National Defence. I refer to those items which come under section 1, subsection (d), under the heading "Miscellaneous Grants and Payments". During this morning's committeee hearing I found that two items of special interest were noted, namely, defence support assistance to non-NATO countries, $3.5 million, and defence support assistance to Greece and Turkey, $1 million. In section 2, subsection (a) of the same document under the heading "United Nations and its Agencies", we find that the UN emergency force is listed under an assessment of 3.17 per cent, plus a surcharge of 25 per cent; the actual dollar figure is $729,000, and the total is in the order of $5 million.
June 22. 1967

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We have no way of knowing how many similar sums are spread around in these estimates. It is almost impossible to tell on the basis of the present form. It may be convenient for the department, and it may be that in time hon. members will become familiar with the system and know which items deserve concentrated attention. On page 318 we find a simple item of $61,196,000 opposite the word "Ships". Does this represent an allocation for the two lead ships in the new destroyer escort program? There is no way of knowing unless the minister can find a few minutes in which to enlighten us. The matter is of great importance to the area from which I come. The reference to armoured fighting vehicles is identifiable. Here is an item, "Aircraft and Engines". How much of this money will be spent on Trackers? How are we to identify the amounts spent on routine maintenance, minor overhauls, major overhauls of engines and airframes? How much will be spent in the maritime command? How can we find out from these estimates whether or not the government intends to replace any of these aircraft? What will happen to maritime air command when the Neptune is phased out in two years. The Argus is already well through its life. What about the Tracker, half of whose life is spent?
We have the estimates for 1967-68 before us but there is no way of determining whether the government has decided on replacements for these aircraft. Maybe this is not important to the people of Canada as a whole. But it is very important to the city of Dartmouth which through the general policy of this government has lost something in excess of a million dollars worth of payroll in the last three months. The mayor and the people of Dartmouth would be interested in knowing whether there is a future for Shearwater. What about the base consolidation program? It is difficult in these estimates to detect savings from the base consolidation program, yet we continue to hear rumours that further consolidations and movements are to be made. The question of Cornwallis has not yet been settled. The question of Shearwater has yet to be settled.
If the government is certain of its position it should make unequivocal statements of its intentions in these matters. These passing remarks must be true of mobile command, infantry brigade, air division, air defence command, air transport command, training command, materiel command and Canadian 27053-119
Supply-National Defence forces headquarters. It is not possible to tell from these estimates exactly where one stands, and in the absence of some explanation it is easy to see why some of us are concerned. It would have been better if these estimates had gone before the committee where they could have been dealt with in detail. This may not be possible for some time. Failure to bring these estimates before the committee may, as the co-chairman of the standing committee on defence suggested, constitute a disservice to the house. Moreover, as the hon. member also suggested, the way in which the estimates are presently set out may not be in accordance with the legal method. Whether this is the case or not, I am not sure it is really relevant. What is relevant is that no one in the opposition can draw any conclusions from these estimates except that a certain amount of money is to be spent in certain general areas. No explanation is given of what appears under the various headings.
There is one final point I should like to deal with, again not in any great depth. I do so in order to place on record the fact that there is continuing concern about it. Again it relates to the remarks the minister made when presenting his estimates. He announced that several new arrangements were to be introduced. The one which primarily concerns me has to do with the allocation of housing. It is all very well to make a broad statement, as he did. Certainly, the time has now come for a reassessment of the system used. But the minister surely has a responsibility to spell out proposals of this kind so that members of the armed forces may not be left in doubt as to what is meant. If this has already been done, I commend the minister for having done so. I suspect, however, that nothing has been done along these lines because recent communications I have had from service personnel indicate a continuing concern about what the government might do.
I see it is ten o'clock and I will so call it, if I may.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow we shall call the estimates of the Department of Labour, and if we finish them we shall carry on with the committee stage of the Cape Breton Development Corporation bill. On Monday it is proposed to call a supply motion-at least that is the present plan.
June 22, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved in speaking before such a vast crowd as honours me tonight by listening to the particularly important words I intend to say.
This problem concerns mostly the rural areas and is becoming an even greater concern in the wake of certain decisions taken by the C.N.R., which I consider arbitrary.
Far from me the thought of minimizing the immense services this company has rendered to the people of Canada, but it may happen that in some instances administrative decisions are unfortunate. This is the kind of case I should like to bring to the attention of this house tonight and to the attention of the parliamentary secretary of the Minister of Transport, the distinguished member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) who, to my mind, often shows a marked superiority over his colleague for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).
Mr. Speaker, the C.N.R. has decided rather suddenly that passenger trains would no longer stop in the picturesque and lively municipality of Manseau, in the constituency of Lotbiniere. One characteristic of Manseau is a very hard-working population.
When speaking of Manseau, I feel I should stress the importance of the achievements of the Savoie family, one of the wonderful French-Canadian famliies, which is a real honour for the people of the Lotbiniere county and which has rendered this whole county, but particularly Manseau, services about which we will never hear enough.
I received recently a copy of a resolution passed by the municipal council of the village of Manseau, whose mayor is Mr. Telesphore Soucy. I also received a copy of a resolution passed by the municipal council of Saint-Joseph de Blandford and the parish of Manseau. The secretary-treasurer of these two municipalities, notary Normand Pro-vencher, wrote to me in somewhat alarming terms precisely to call my attention to this very deplorable situation created by the

elimination of the Canadian National stopover at Manseau.
After having consulted the stationmaster, Mr. Marquis-another prominent citizen who works devotedly for the good of his community-he told me this: "At Manseau, at least $500 worth of tickets are sold each month."
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is understandable in some respects that the C.N.R. would like to eliminate some stops for passenger trains in communities where it sells practically no tickets. But when, on the average, up to $500 worth of tickets are sold each month, I think that the C.N.R. has nothing to lose by stopping for a few moments to let passengers come aboard.
Whenever there are no passengers, the train could go right through. But, today, means of communications are sufficiently developed for the conductor of the train to be advised, some distance away, that a few passengers wish to board the train. Therefore, it would be quite fitting to reverse the decision, which I deplore this evening in this brief debate.
What burns me up most, Mr. Speaker, is the affront to rural areas. I quite understand that urban centres are numerically more important, but I feel that legitimate consideration would be shown our rural areas by keeping the stop system for passenger trains, in order to pick up passengers who live not necessarily in the town I am referring to, namely Manseau, but in neighboring villages. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the parishes of Sainte-Sophie-de-Levrard, Sainte-Cecile-de-Levrard, and Saint-Pierre-les-Becquets are beautiful municipalities which do us honour and which we are happy to have as components of the beautiful territory of the Lotbiniere county.
The people who live in those municipalities, located a few miles away from Manseau, come to Manseau to take the train and go to Drummondville or Montreal. Therefore, this is useful not only for the people of Manseau but also for the surrounding communities.
In view of the somewhat arbitrary and quite sudden decision of the C.N.R., I think that I must share the sad feelings expressed by the mayors of Manseau and Saint-Jean-de-Blandford, by notary Provencher, by the secretary-treasurer of both municipalities, and by the station master, Mr. Marquis, by the Savoie family, in short, by all the others who are interested in the economic development of their area.
June 22, 1967

That is why, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I request that steps be taken to rectify the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) that if I am superior to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), it is not by way of seniority.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Are you suggesting it is on account of brains?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Lotbiniere has brought a very important question before the house and the Minister of Transport, and it appears at least to me that a constituency with such a distinguished member deserves something more than whistle stop communities. Some hon. member said to me, why does the hon. member for Lotbiniere not go home. Another suggested that he did not think the hon. member had a home but lived in a bedroom on a Canadian National Railways train.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
This matter has been brought to the attention of Canadian National Railways by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). I am sure the hon. member will understand that it is a matter for determination by the railway company itself, which after all has the responsibility for administering the railway and for the efficient operation of that undertaking. I am sure, also that the words uttered here this evening will be brought to the attention of the Canadian National Railways officials, and undoubtedly some action will be considered.



TELEVISION-NAPANEE, ONT.-REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CABLE FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-
Lennox): Mr. Speaker, I bring a matter before the house this evening as a result of a question that I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), on Tuesday, June 20, regarding a request for approval of cable television facilites in the town of Napanee. My question appears at page 1713 of Hansard. It arises as a result of the application of Mr. Reginald C. Dawson of Napanee who made application to the Department of Transport on February 23 last for authority to establish and operate a commercial T.V. receiving service at Napanee, Ontario. According to a letter 27053-1191
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion dated May 2 written to Mr. Dawson, his application has been rejected. I quote a letter received by Mr. Dawson from Mr. W. A. Caton, controller, radio regulations division of the Department of Transport. This letter, Mr. Speaker, exemplifies nothing but a complete bureaucratic run-around that has been given to my constituent and townsman. The letter reads:
Your application dated February 23, 1967 lor authority to establish and operate a land station performing a commercial broadcasting receiving service at Napanee, Ontario, has been considered in accordance with the announcement made by the Minister of Transport in the House of Commons on July 22, 1964.
The Board of Broadcast Governors believes that the establishment and operation of a C.A.T.V. system at Napanee, Ontario, such as you propose, would inhibit the provision of alternative television service to the area.
Policy problems relating to C.A.T.V. are receiving the attention of the government and it is expected that parliament will have an opportunity to consider this matter in due course possibly on the basis °f amending legislation. In the circumstances, the minister does not propose to approve your application at the present time. This decision on youi application at this time is without prejudice to your right to re-apply once this matter has been dealt with by parliament.
Arrangements are being made to refund the deposit in the amount of $25 which was submitted in support of this application.
Yours truly,
W. A. Caton,
Controller,
Radio Regulations Division.
Mr. Speaker, it is readily apparent that this is an example of bureaucracy at its very worst. What inhibitions are they referring to in that letter? To what alternative television service are they referring? The town of Napanee has about 5,000 people and consists of approximately 2,000 homes. One C.A.T.V. system at Napanee could serve the municipality, and any enterprise that goes to the trouble of obtaining a franchise to instal cable along the streets would no doubt obtain most of the business from the householders who could be served.
Mr. Caton's letter also refers to an announcement made in the house by the Minister of Transport on July 22, 1964. Mr. Caton's rejection of this application simply hides behind the announcement made by the minister long ago, and uses it as a shallow and ill-founded excuse for not granting the application. I am sure the minister does not agree with this, but when we look back to what the minister said on July 22, 1964, we find that his announcement does not apply to this application at all. At that time the minister announced that they simply wanted to
June 22, 1967
1864	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion make sure that an effective degree of Canadian ownership and control of C.A.T.V. installations was ensured. In the case at Napanee the applicant and his whole enterprise is 100 per cent Canadian. In fact, the announcement of the Minister of Transport on that day almost three years ago proclaims the lifting of the so-called freeze on the granting of C.A.T.V. applications. I quote some of the minister's words which can be found at the bottom of page 5799 of Hansard for that day:
In announcing the lifting of the so-called freeze the government wishes to emphasize that it has no desire to regulate C.A.T.V. for the sake of regulation. but merely to the minimum extent deemed necessary to maintain the Canadian identity and character of broadcasting-
I contend, and I am sure the minister agrees, that a responsible applicaton, such as this one, from a resident of the municipality, especially an urban municipality, where cable facilities are economically and physically feasible, should be quite in order and that the federal Department of Transport has no right to withhold a franchise for these services providing the applicant and user of the services agrees to comply fully with the lighting and marking of his tower or mast so that it does not become a hazard to the rest of the nation by endangering the flight of aircraft.
The mayor of Napanee points out in this letter to the minister that other franchises have been granted in other towns in Ontario, and yet the Napanee franchise is refused for no good reason at all by one of our bureaucrats who uses a speech made by the minister three years ago as an irrelevant excuse for withholding this much needed service from the people of Napanee. I wish to quote the mayor's letter. It reads as follows:
It has come to my attention that one of my citizens Mr. Reginald Dawson has presented an application to your board by which he is seeking to secure a licence or franchise to instal cable T.V. in our town of Napanee.	,
During the last three years we have had several outside groups make contact with our council and public utilities with the idea of supplying us with this type of T.V. service, however nothing has been finalized, and we now have a local group headed by Mr. Dawson who are endeavouring to bring cable T.V. to Napanee. I might add that due to our town being located in a valley, regular T.V. reception is very, very poor and like all other growing municipalities we are anxious to have the best for our citizens.
I note with interest that Smiths Falls, also Belleville in eastern Ontario and Fergus and Elora in western Ontario have been granted a licence to instal cable T.V.
[Stage Direction]

Therefore I sincererly hope that you will give your support to the application that has been presented to your department from citizens of the town of Napanee.
Thank you, I remain.
Yours very truly,
Lome A. Smart,
Mayor of Napanee.
As has been pointed out by the mayor, much of Napanee lies in a hollow between the Roblin Hill escarpment on the east and south and Piety Hill which rises at the west end of the town. The highest land is south of the Napanee River and it precludes good television reception by way of the conventional household aerials.
Many of our townsmen would subscribe to C.A.T.V. when it is available and then many would probably abandon their unsightly aerials. This application should be granted with no further delay.
I am sure the minister agrees that now this franchise should be favourably considered and granted, and I respectfully request him to do so.
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, in representing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pick-ersgill) I must take issue with the hon. member in his condemnation of one of our very capable civil servants, Mr. Caton. I feel quite sure that he believes the decision he has made was in conformity with the regulations. I am in no way taking issue with the right to contest the decision itself, but I do feel that our civil servants are of a high calibre and that they make every effort to base their decisions on the regulations promulgated by parliament or by order in council.
However, I understand the hon. member has raised this question with the minister privately and the minister is looking into the matter. I understand there may be an amicable decision in respect of this application.



AGRICULTURE-CONSIDERATION BY DOMINION- PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OF EXPROPRIATION PRINCIPLES

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I trust I will behave rather differently from the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) and will stop at the right whistle.
The question of the expropriation by governments or their agencies, both federal and provincial, is of increasing concern to farmers across Canada. So far as 1 am concerned, I can speak for many farmers in my constituency who have suffered from the present law
June 22, 1967	COMMONS
and present procedures with regard to the expropriation of land for highways, for power lines, for gas pipe lines and for other purposes required by the government in question, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal. They have also suffered to a great extent during the last couple of years from expropriations necessary under the terms of the Columbia River treaty.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
This matter is of increasing concern to farmers across Canada, and on that account a special meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was held in May to consider all aspects and to study the question carefully. I might say that in no place in Canada, either under federal or under provincial authority, do procedures and principles which are followed in connection with the expropriation of lands and of rights to the use of land give farmers an entirely fair break. It all depends on the government or the agency that is expropriating the property. In some cases there has been little cause for dissatisfaction, but in the majority of cases, in my experience, injustice has been done to many people.
This meeting was called because the overall bargaining position of the farmer is weak compared to the bargaining power of the authority that wishes to take over his property. As a result of this meeting, the following memorandum regarding a solution to the problem was passed which reads as follows:
Experience of those at the meeting, it was noted, indicates that the expropriated property-owner in the city similarly receives less than justice, as often as not.
The solution to the problem, the meeting concluded, must be found in:
Effective united action by affected property-owners in cases of expropriation. Without the strength that comes by uniting together the small property-owner is in a well-nigh hopeless position of weakness.
Improved legislation that will spell out the rights of the property-owner in detail, and provide fair and economical means for ensuring that these rights are realized through adjudication and legal processes.
Improved service to property-owners by their farm organizations and, especially, stepped up programs of information to farmers about their rights under the law.
Then the meeting went on to recommend:
-that in the near future the Canadian Federation of Agriculture follow up its oft-repeated demand for improved federal legislation with detailed legislative proposals to government for consolidation and amendment of present federal legislation dealing with expropriation.
The meeting also discussed some other questions. It was on this account that I asked my question of the Minister of Agriculture on
DEBATES	1865
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
June 12 which Your Honour ruled out of order.
It is very interesting to note that the parliamentary secretary who is going to reply to my appeal is, I think, sympathetic to my proposals. He graduated from the Ontario Agricultural College some 30 years or more after I entered the institution, so I feel I should get a very sympathetic response to my appeal. I have been informed by a former graduate of the college that the parliamentary secretary has voiced very strong opinions on this question to local farmers organizations at a time when he was a county representative in the province of Ontario. I feel therefore I really have an ally this evening, and I trust that when he replies he will demonstrate this by his proposals and suggestions.
On June 12,1 asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the concern of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture with the procedures and principles followed in connection with the expropriation of land, would the minister inform the house if the views of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on the question of expropriation will be referred to the next dominion-provincial conference on agriculture?
I asked that question because I think that a dominion-provincial conference would be an excellent medium	in	which to	thrash	out
questions between federal and provincial governments and get, shall I say, some order in dealing with this situation which is of great concern to the farmers all across Canada.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to express my appreciation to my fellow alumnus for bringing this important matter	to	the attention of	thehouse. By way of introduction, I may say that the hon. member	for	Kootenay	West reallyhas no idea what	an	important	role he	has
played in shaping my career. He has made reference to the fact that we are graduates of the same institution. As a matter of fact, when I was thinking of attending a university or college I looked round to decide which one I should attend, and one of the measures by which we appraise a university is by the calibre of its graduates. So I thought of the Ontario Agricultural College, noted that Hon. John Bracken was a graduate of that college, a man who has performed very outstanding service to this country and in this parliament. I also noted that His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta was a graduate and that the noted writer and economist Mr. Galbraith had been a graduate as well as the hon. member for Kootenay West.
June 22, 1967
1866	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion So that it was very easy for me to decide to go to the Ontario Agricultural College and to follow in the footsteps of my learned and distinguished colleague from Kootenay West.
The hon. member asked a very important question, important not only to him and me but also to the farmers and other residents across this land. I may say that the short answer to his question is that I do not know whether this matter is going to be referred to the federal-provincial conference or not.
I am able to tell him, however, that this matter of expropriation is of very deep con-

cem to the government of Canada, as well as to hon. members of this house. The government and the Minister of Agriculture know of the great concern that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has in this matter.
I am also permitted to say that this subject is being given careful consideration in the hope that a reasonable approach and a logical conclusion may be brought about.
It being 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, June 23, 1967