1967-07-06

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development-Mr. Whelan.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to yesterday's order I wish to table copies in English and in French of resolutions which, on July 4, 1967, were voted on at the fifth emergency special session of the general assembly of the United Nations.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to make it an order of the house that these particular documents be added as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings'!


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand this was part of the order passed by the house yesterday.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister make a report to the house regarding the conference with the provincial premiers? He will recall that on May 10 last he stated this conference would take place in respect of constitutional matters. Will he also advise whether there is any prospect, on the basis of the consultations, that the provinces are now generally in support of the need for a bill of rights as part of a constitutional amendment rather than a statute only applicable to federal measures?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisier):: Mr. Speaker, during our discussions yesterday afternoon, which occupied between two and three hours, the question of a conference to consider the direction of confederation and confederation problems was referred to by the premier of the province of Ontario, who indicated some months ago that he intended calling a conference for this purpose. Mr. Robarts made it clear that he had in mind a conference of provincial leaders, and that in his invitation to the provincial leaders he would indicate that he would invite the federal government to send observers. It was the consensus of the provincial leaders that if an invitation of this kind were issued, and it is likely that it will be sent shortly for a meeting in the fall, it would be accepted. If we receive such an invitation asking that a federal government observer be sent, we will be glad to send one.
The other matter mentioned by my right hon. friend was also of a constitutional nature, regarding the desirability of enshrining in our constitution a bill of rights which would have both federal and provincial application. I indicated to the provincial leaders that I would be sending an invitation in respect of a special federal-provincial conference to discuss this matter, to be held, I hope, either late in 1967 or early in 1968. The consensus was that a conference of this kind would be useful, and that the provinces would be glad to send representatives. I think we will be able to make progress on this very important aspect of constitutional development before many months have passed.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister indicate that as a result of the discussions which took place there was any indication on the part of the two provinces which in 1959 and 1960 objected to constitutional amendments that they have changed their views? And in view of the fact that apparently the same objection to the convening of a conference on constitutional matters has been taken by these provinces, will he give further consideration to the suggestion that it would be generally desirable to attain unity, perhaps, by convening a constitutional conference in this centennial year? I suggest this because certainly the conference he has mentioned could not by any stretch of the imagination
July 6. 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry be successful so far as the whole spectrum of constitutional change or alteration is concerned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the premier of Ontario, who first made the proposal for a constitutional meeting, himself indicated to us that this should not be considered as a constitutional conference in the sense that constitutional changes would be raised and discussed, but a conference to consider problems of confederation and the direction of confederation in a general way. It was felt that such a meeting would be a very useful and perhaps an essential preliminary to a later constitutional conference.
While a meeting of this kind is being held, with the federal government represented by observers, we are ourselves federally examining the problem through a special section of the Department of Justice, as has been announced to the house, and are developing our own ideas. This matter will subsequently be dealt with also in parliament. It is felt, and I think the heads of provincial governments would agree with this in view of the talk we had yesterday, that this is as far as we should go in the immediate future; that the conference in 1967 would not go beyond a general survey by the provincial leaders of our constitutional problems and the direction in which we are going as a confederation.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I have your permission to make a statement while asking a question of the right hon. Prime Minister? I desire to do this because I have never felt so proud-and I have always been proud to be a Canadian -as I have in the past six days in Ottawa in our centennial year. Knowing the pressure on the Prime Minister and the work he did, may I ask this question in expressing my thanks-this is not put forward for the opposition-to the Prime Minister. I express the hope that with all the responsibilities now facing the Prime Minister, he can take a most well earned and relaxing holiday. He certainly deserves it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for what
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
he has been good enough to say. I assure him that the pressure in the last six days was of a most agreeable form. Perhaps I may take advantage of the hon. member's question to indicate my own view, which I am sure is shared by all members of the house, that if the visit was as successful as we know it to have been, and if the arrangements were as effective and as efficient as we know them to have been, the credit for this should go to the centennial committee, the officials of the centennial committee; also and in particular to the officials of the Department of Public Works, who I think did a most remarkable job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They worked round the clock to make sure that the arrangements for the next day were ready each morning. A great deal of credit should also be given to the police and security people. We may have different views as to whether there was too much or too little security, but I do not think any of us will have any difference of viewpoint as to the effective, quiet and courteous way in which all the security officers, R.C.M.P. and others, behaved during a very difficult time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is one occasion when we can all join in complete agreement. I want to pay a particular tribute to the Minister of Public Works for the manner in which he discharged his responsibilities throughout this period. His efforts were most praiseworthy, and were deeply appreciated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This, however, does not prevent me from saying one thing about a newspaper article in last evening's Ottawa Citizen. I was shocked by the cartoon in the Citizen showing Her Majesty the Queen and her husband. This is inexcusable and goes beyond the realm of what is fair and responsible when dealing with the Sovereign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Pafferson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
July 6, 1967

Yesterday my colleague the hon. member for Red Deer asked whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs had any information with respect to a report emanating from Moscow that a revolt was imminent in Cyprus, and also with regard to the position of our peace keeping forces in that country. Can the minister answer that question today?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the subject matter covered by the question of the hon. member for Red Deer, and I suspect he was referring to an article which appeared in Pravda echoing some concern about alleged events in Cyprus of three weeks ago, particularly remarks that were made in the house of representatives there by the leader of the party called the Patriotic Front. That person had indicated there was an intensification of activities and intimidation by certain circles on the island. However, I believe the situation has not worsened, and I do not think it warrants the conclusions referred to in the article in Pravda.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question relates to the business of parliament between now and the time we take the summer recess as forecast in a motion, notice of which has been given by the government house leader. Is it now clear the government does not intend to do anything, before we break for the summer recess, with respect to the pensions of retired civil servants?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to point out that no administration in our history has been more sympathetic to civil servants, including retired civil servants, than has this government. I should like to point to the fact that we have introduced collective bargaining for civil servants and we have made every civil servant, and indeed every Canadian who receives the old age pension, the recipient of a minimum income of $105 a month.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister who is answering my question whether he will deal with the point about which I asked, namely whether anything will be done for retired civil servants between now and tomorrow night.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I was on the point of answering this question. As my hon. friend knows, this is a very involved question. Indeed, consideration will be given to it by the government between now and tomorrow night but, as I have told the hon. member before, legislation will not be introduced to effect possible changes in the pensions of retired civil servants until after the recess.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carlefon):: May I ask the
President of the Treasury Board whether the government intends to make any increases to retired civil servants' pensions retroactive?


Edgar John Benson: This would be my hope.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should
like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. In view of recent announcements which have caused great concern in Churchill, Manitoba, relating to the possible removal of the Eskimo school and administration staff from Churchill to a spot in the territories, can the minister assure the house that every consideration will be given before this removal takes place; because all the facilities necessary for carrying on that school are now located in Churchill.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the reply I made to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition the other day dealt with that matter. There is no change in our policy from that which I announced in 1965, and it will be a matter of two or three years yet before there is any possibility of any change. I do not believe, therefore, there is a great deal of validity for deep concern in Churchill at the present time.

July 6. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



POSSIBLE LAY-OFFS RESULTING FROM TARIFF REDUCTIONS ON FOOTWEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that almost one third of the footwear worn by Canadians is now imported, and as a result of the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations Canada has agreed to reduce the tariff on imported footwear by 2.5 per cent, what steps does the government propose to take to provide jobs for the thousands of shoemakers whose employment is now in jeopardy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is aware that the house has agreed to call the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce tomorrow afternoon for the purpose of considering the very type of question now raised by the hon. member. I believe that might be the time to discuss this matter.
The hon. member for Portneuf.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerned the situation in the shoe industry, to which attention was drawn a moment ago.



CHEESE-INCREASES IN QUOTAS ESTABLISHED BY UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, which 1 should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it a fact that the United States import quota on Canadian Cheddar cheese has been raised, and if so by how much? I ask this question, in view of the fact the house is closing tomorrow and certain planning is necessary in the industry if in fact the quota has been raised.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the quota has been raised. The United States administration, through Secretary Freeman, has now for the first time established a separate annual quota for aged Cheddar cheese with effect from July 1 last. This quota amounts to 1,225,000 pounds annually on a first come, first served basis and no import licences are required. Shipments to the United States under this quota would, however, have to be certified as being made from unpasteurized milk
[Mr. Laing.l
and aged not less than nine months. If Canadian producers are able to take up the whole of the quota this would represent a doubling of the 614,000 pound cheddar cheese quota previously available to Canada in the United States market.
In addition to this specific quota for aged cheddar, the United States administration have also substantially increased their overall quota for regular cheddar to 8.8 million pounds, as compared with the previous level of 2.8 million pounds. This quota for regular cheddar is not limited as to type of cheddar supplied. We are working with the United States authorities to ensure an appropriate portion of this over-all quota for Canada.



HONOURS AND AWARDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, according to reports Her Majesty yesterday invested the Governor General as Principal Companion of the Order of Canada. This is very proper and appropriate. Now I ask the Prime Minister, what is the present position of this award in view of the fact it was generally felt, as I recall, that the award would be made on or before Dominion day? What is the position also in respect of the 28,000 centennial medals and the award thereof?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure the house will share the satisfaction of the right hon. gentleman-I certainly share it-that in accord with the regulations setting up this order the Governor General has been invested by the Queen as Principal Companion. These matters are decided by a committee and I know nothing about the deliberations of that committee, but through inquiries I made this morning I understand that the first list will be coming out tonight or tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the centennial medals?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe the centennial
awards will be following within a week or two. I am not sure of the exact date, but there is a committee at work on that now.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State is supplementary to the one asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is
July 6, 1967

about the centennial medallion. Can the Secretary of State inform the house exactly how many of these medals will be struck, what Canadians will be eligible for them and whether members of this house, as a memento of this great year in our history, will receive them?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I think the committee responsible for this matter issued a statement some time ago about the individuals or classes of individuals who would be getting the medals. It was quite clear that it was to apply to all members of both chambers of parliament.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Is my name also on the list of members of parliament to receive this centennial medal?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour but in his absence I will ask it of the minister who is taking his place. In view of the decision that has been made by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to move its North Bay office and district audit office to Sudbury in the near future, thereby causing hardship and the probable resignation of some 26 employees, would the Minister of Labour request the commission to reconsider this move and allow this office to remain in North Bay as a service to that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member realizes that this is not the type of question that can normally be asked on orders of the day. However, I appreciate that there will be an adjournment tomorrow, and in view of the special circumstances perhaps the question can be allowed.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works.
27053-146J
Inquiries of the Ministry Can the minister say whether there has been a decision to move the public works departmental staff from North Bay to Sudbury? If so, would he give favourable consideration to cancelling that move?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, there has been a decision in that regard, but I would prefer to give a full answer tomorrow and provide an explanation which I think will be more satisfactory.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works and/or the minister of mines and resources. Has any complaint been received by the respective departments concerning the flood levels of lake Timiskaming on or about June 12 of this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether this is a question that could be accepted even in the very special circumstances that I mentioned a moment ago.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the precedent that you established a moment ago but may I, coming from Vancouver, address a question to the Minister of Public Works in view of the recess beginning tomorrow. May I ask the Minister of Public Works what consideration has been given to the motion that was passed by the Vancouver city council prior to June 1 relative to the location of a new federal building in Vancouver.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, a very great deal of consideration has been given to that matter. The department expects to be in a position in a very short time to make an announcement about the location of the proposed new federal building.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary
2304	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry of. State. Is the Secretary of State aware that Grilles Bergeron, associate commissioner at the centennial commission, circulated a memo to staff this morning on a code of discipline; and as the memo is in French only does this mean that the code should not apply to those who speak English?


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


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that I did not, of course, know about it, but happily most of the members of the commission are fully bilingual.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister any progress to report with regard to the problem facing Canadian air lines, especially Air Canada, with regard to "no show" passengers? I understand that on some routes more than 20 per cent of the reservations that are made are not taken up.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I made a suggestion in the house and conveyed it to Air Canada and to Canadian Pacific Airlines. I judge from the public prints that this is under discussion, but I had not thought Air Canada had any special obligation to report on the matter to me. However, I would be glad to make inquiries, and I will see whether I can give the hon. gentleman an answer tomorrow.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour about the negotiations between shipping companies on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence and the Seafarers International Union which, as I understand from articles in the Montreal Star, have broken down. What steps does the government intend to take to alleviate any problems that may arise when parliament is not in session?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to take that question as notice and answer it tomorrow if possible.
CMr. Monteith.i
DEBATES	July 6. 1967



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Albert Bell: May I ask the
Minister of Manpower and Immigration to indicate when the government intends to proclaim the new immigration appeal board legislation and bring into effect the new principles therein contained?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: We intend to do it as soon as possible. I think it would be difficult to do it before September 1, but I hope it will not be later than October 1.



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASED QUOTAS IN NEW CROP YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does he contemplate any changes in the initial quotas for wheat, oats and barley by the Canadian Wheat Board for the new crop year?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, it is not normally a matter of whether the minister contemplates a change. That is usually a matter for the wheat board. I shall consult the board.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State in her capacity as reporting to the house for the C.B.C. I am sure she is aware of the Canadian centenary festival of music at Saint John, New Brunswick, that is to begin today and end on July 15. I am sure also that she is aware of the circumstances of the participants in this festival. The question I wish to direct to her is, would she use her good influence with the C.B.C. in order that the corporation may either broadcast live or film, so they may be presented at some suitable later date, the finals of July 15. I have been informed that officers of the association have had little luck with the C.B.C. The corporation rejected their representations, saying that they were not of sufficient national interest to broadcast.
July 6, 1967
230$


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a representation which we must assume has been noted by the minister.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: May I add one more word. I suggest to the Secretary of State that this matter is as important nationally as are the Oscar awards. Surely the C.B.C. could give the request consideration.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: To answer the only part of my hon. friend's statement which was a question, I might say that if ever I had any influence with the C.B.C. it has substantially waned in the last few months.



REPORTED OMISSION OF SASKATCHEWAN FROM CENTENNIAL TELECAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tshombe is not a Canadian citizen. He is in Algeria. Whether he is extradited will depend on the law of Algeria. Compassionate as I am, I doubt if my writ runs that far.']
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can the hon. lady explain to the people of Saskatchewan why the C.B.C., in its television coverage of the celebrations across Canada of July 1, completely ignored the province of Saskatchewan? The people of that province are gravely disappointed that their province was completely ignored and was not even honourably mentioned.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman's statement. By action of this government former prime ministers had their offices elevated so that present incumbents of the office of ex-prime minister would be fully in view at all times, unlike the situation during the last royal visit. Certainly a representative from Saskatchewan was large on all screens.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the answer.


Mr.   Walson@Assiniboia: I think the hon. lady has missed my point. I was speaking of the celebrations that were shown on television. They completely ignored Saskatchewan. I am sure the C.B.C. could have been told about this by the hon. lady.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard  Johnslon@Okanagan-Revel-stoke: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the government of Canada had' made any representations to the government of Algeria concerning the release of Moise Tshombe, the former premier of the Congo. Since parliament does not have much time before it recesses I should think this question has become increasingly urgent. If world opinion is not mobilized against that act of piracy to which attention has been drawn I doubt whether Mr. Tshombe will have much time, either.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tshombe is not a Canadian citizen. He is in Algeria. Whether he is extradited will depend on the law of Algeria. Compassionate as I am, I doubt if my writ runs that far.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that the court has decided that the Florida, which we have discussed a number of times, is no longer to be considered a ship, does the Department of Transport intend to appeal that decision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should say that the officers of my department have been discussing this question with the law officers of the government. Until these discussions are completed I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

The Chairman:: Order, please. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. Vote No. 1, which will be found on page 308 of the blue book, with the details listed on page 312.
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
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence
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 (details, page 312) $6,593,375.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, a few days ago when we first discussed vote No. 1 of the national defence estimates two members of the official opposition and I asked the minister some questions. As specific answers could not be given then, may I ask whether the minister intends to give us a brief resumd of some answers to those important questions? Would the minister also inform the house how much it cost the Canadian taxpayers to move our squadrons in France after they had been kicked out to another country, despite the fact that they had been placed where they were for the protection of France?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Hellyer:: Perhaps I can answer briefly some of the questions which were raised the other day and then try to deal with the question just asked by the hon. member.
The hon. member for Edmonton West wanted to know the total strength of each service. The figures I have, are Royal Canadian Navy, 18,367; army 42,580; air force, 45,025.
The hon. member also asked how many of our personnel were on retirement leave on the same date. The figure is 1,104, which I think is the lowest for many months, perhaps even for many years. He also asked about recruiting by services and I can give that information for the first five months of 1967. Royal Canadian Navy Officers Other ranks Total
Jan	
6	131	137Feb	
54	365	419Mar	
1	291	292Apr	
6	176	182May	
2	298	300
(The Chairman.]
The figures for June have not yet been compiled.
Canadian Army	Officers	Other ranks	TotalJan	... 12	327	339Feb	... 103	320	413Mar	.. . 71	486	557Apr	. . . 6	510	516May 	.. . 12	470	482Royal Canadian	Air Force	Officers	Other ranks	TotalJan	... 120	287	407Feb	... 42	439	481Mar	... 156	682	838Apr	.. . 48	360	408May 	... 110	562	672
The hon. member for Calgary North asked about the increase in the dollar budget. This is due entirely to increases in pay and allowances and consequent increases in government contributions to the superannuation fund. There is an increase of $49 million for military pay and allowances, $8 million for civilian salaries and wages and $59 million in government contributions to the pension fund.
The hon. member asked about the cost of the hydrofoil. I understand that this question was answered in some detail in the house yesterday by the Minister of Defence Production.
As far as the CF-104 and its roles are concerned, there is nothing to add to what has already been stated in the house. It is to continue in the roles which have been assigned to the Canadian air force in Europe-reconnaissance, nuclear strike and conventional attack. It is planned to continue these roles for some time in the future. It is still the policy of the government as stated in the white paper of 1964 to reduce the strike role as the number of airplanes is reduced by attrition, so there will be a continuing reduction over the years in line with present policy.
The hon. member for Vancouver East asked about minesweepers. As he probably knows, five of our minesweepers were recommissioned this year as training ships. They are presently in commission, though they have not been restored to their minesweeping capability. This particular capability is still considered to have a relatively low priority as compared with other tasks assigned to the Canadian armed forces. I would add that the techniques of mining and minesweeping are changing. Continuing study is being given to these developments in order to determine what capability would be the most effective in the years ahead should a decision be taken to acquire some limited minesweeping capacity.
July 6, 1967

I was asked how many airplanes we expected to get from the CF-5 program. At the moment the number is still 115, at a cost of $215 million. There is some possibility that we might alter the number of airplanes to a small extent, but if we did this we would expect a reduction in the cost of the program. In other words, under a $215 million program we should expect to get a total of 115 planes.
A question was raised with respect to the tankers to be provided for these airplanes. It has been decided it would not be advisable to use the Hercules. Studies have been under way and are now under consideration by the government with respect to the acquisition of a jet refueller for the CF-5 and any subsequent follow-on aircraft.
A question was also raised as to whether there will be sufficient pilots to man the CF-5's. I assure the committee that there is in fact no pilot shortage. There will be an adequate number of pilots to man these planes in the years ahead. They will come from the training stream, which is being augmented. In addition there will be some pilots available from the air division in Europe as the total contribution there diminishes. So we anticipate there will be enough pilots to meet the demands consequent upon the formation of these three new squadrons.
I was also asked a question with regard to the manning of the Bonaventure. I wish to assure the house that on the basis of the most recent information given me by the commander of maritime command the manpower to run this vessel when it comes out of repair has been earmarked for many months. He has assured me that the men are available, that he knows where they are and that they will be assigned to this ship as soon as it is ready to come back into service.


Mr. Churchill:: Is that in addition to the manning of the other ships?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is in addition to the manning of the post-war destroyers. As to the cost of the repairs to the Bonaventure, the present estimate is of the order of $12,570,000. This, of course, is greater than was anticipated at the time the refit commenced. The increase in costs is attributable to a number of factors. These include sales tax, wage escalations, increased material costs and an increase in the amount of work to be done which was discovered only after the ship was stripped down, at which time it was possible to see the state of repair of some of the original machinery
Supply-National Defence which could not be adequately determined until it was actually in refit. I am advised, and I believe this to be the case, that there was no fault in the tendering which caused this escalation. The entire increased cost was due to the factors I have just indicated to the committee.
A question was also raised concerning the situation in respect of the DDH-280's, known as destroyer helicopters. Tenders have been called and the lead yard will be determined after the tenders have been received. It is anticipated that the starting date will be November 15, 1967, or approximately that date. The savings associated with the cost of constructing two ships in each of two yards as opposed to the cost of constructing one ship in each of four yards is appreciable. What the difference actually is is difficult to determine because it would be necessary to call tenders side by side in the two different manners in order to know precisely what it is. It is estimated, however, that this technique will result in savings in the order of $5 million on the project.
The figure of $61,196,000 which appears at page 318 is not related specifically to these two lead ships; it is the total of the 1967-68 cash requirement for all ship construction, including this program. I think this covers the question which was asked by the hon. member for Halifax. I believe it also covers the majority of the questions that were asked.
In respect of the question just asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East I should like to say that it is not yet possible to determine the actual cost of moving the squadrons to Germany from France. We are still in the process of negotiating a settlement in a number of areas. Until the negotiations are complete we will not be able to give precise figures. I would hope that during the course of the summer months it might be possible to have all of this work completed. Perhaps by the time the house resumes its sittings we will be in a position to indicate the total.


Harold Edward Winch: Is my understanding correct that France is not prepared to pay any part of the cost and that it is up to Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think I should comment at the moment on the specific details, because there are a number of negotiations under way. This is really only partly under my jurisdiction. I believe it would be preferable to wait until we know what the results of the negotiations are before reporting in respect of them.

July 6, 1967
Supply-National Defence


Harold Edward Winch: I assume that the cost of moving the families will be completely the responsibility of Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is quite correct. These costs are our responsibility. As soon as the bills come in we will be able to compute this and give my hon. friend an answer.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not answered a number of other questions which were asked of him. I should particularly like him to comment on some of them in addition to the answers he has given at this time. I asked the minister several questions in connection with the proposed communications satellite and whether it was to be purely a military satellite or a combined military and civilian satellite. I am also interested in knowing how it will fit into the available slots, as it were, which are available in space for communications satellites and whether this program, if it goes ahead, would mean that Canada would have one less civilian communications satellite which it could use or could orbit. I wish the minister would elucidate on that matter.
I also asked the minister for a breakdown of the amount of money being spent on equipment for each of the services, the navy, the army and the air force, which he now prefers to call equipment for the sea environment, the land environment and the air environment, so that we may have some means of comparing what will be spent in the present fiscal year for these purposes compared with other years. This is not disclosed in the estimates at the present time.
In addition I asked the minister when the first keel will be laid for the four new destroyer escorts. He said something about the destroyer escorts and they have been talked about now for a considerable length of time. As I believe he mentioned when these estimates were under discussion on June 22, the only actual orders which have been placed in connection with them are for some propulsion machinery. We would now like to know when the keel of the first of these destroyer escorts is to be laid. We would also like to have some estimate of when they may be ready for service. After the minister answers these questions I should like to make a few comments on some other matters, including the hydrofoil.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the aim of the tactical satellite communications program is to develop satellite communications terminals and technology in tactical environments, that

is, aboard ship, in aircraft, and mobile terminals for the land forces. This is to be a joint NATO program, the governments participating being Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the sponsor, the United States. A draft memorandum of understanding has been prepared. It likely will be agreed to at a NATO meeting some time in the latter part of this summer and will then be presented to the participating countries for ratification shortly thereafter.
The United States has already launched the first experimental satellite. The participating countries have agreed to provide their own terminals and share the results of the test program. Canada has initiated procurement of two mobile terminals and will commence technical trials about December, 1967. The information thus acquired, and shared by all countries, will be used to develop tactical hardware in a later phase of the program. Canadian test terminals will be manned by Canadian military personnel already on establishment.
In so far as the relationship between this project and the possibility of Canada putting into orbit its own communications satellite is concerned, I am told there is no interference between the two projects.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, when these estimates were under discussion before I believe the minister mentioned there would be a second communications satellite to be shared by the United States, Australia and Canada. The only one to which the minister has referred now is the NATO project which was agreed to earlier by the various NATO countries. I wonder what the effect of this second one will be so far as other civil communications satellites are concerned. It is my understanding that there is room for only a very limited number in space if they are to be effective.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I forgot the context in which this matter was being discussed. If I recall correctly from memory, there will be the possibility, under the program I have just discussed, of a second satellite being put in orbit at a later time in addition to the one the United States has already put into orbit. The question my hon. friend is asking has to do with the project known as project Mallard which is a trilateral project between the United States, Australia and Canada. This does not involve putting a satellite into orbit. It is a battlefield communications system which does not involve
July 6, 1967

putting a separate communications satellite into orbit.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: In that event I think the minister probably misled us on June 22 when he interrupted me in respect of this matter and said there were two systems, one being developed by Australia, the United States and Canada for ground forces, and the other being a NATO system. From what the minister has now said there really is only one system, not two as he said at that time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are two separate systems. One involves putting satellites into orbit and the other does not. If that system requires satellite communication, presumably it will use satellites already in orbit and available for that purpose.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I also asked the minister to give a breakdown in respect of the amount to be spent on equipment this year for the navy, army and air force respectively.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat reluctant to give that information. As I indicated to the committee previously, this information ceases to be relevant because the tasks which are assigned to the armed forces and the amount of money which is apportioned to each task are changing. For example, there might have been a transfer of an assigned responsibility in a certain area from one force to another. One would have to examine the relevant responsibilities as well as the amounts available to get a side by side comparison. In view of the fact we are moving in the direction of functional budgeting, and because of the reason I just stated, this information ceases to be relevant, particularly on a comparative basis so far as the navy, army and air force are concerned.
While I have the floor, perhaps I could elaborate briefly on an answer I gave regarding the destroyer escorts. The date I gave, November 15, is the best projection available at this time as to the commencement of work. Presumably the keels will be laid about that time or very shortly thereafter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What was the date?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: November 15 of this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can understand the reluctance of the minister to give us a breakdown. I think it is related to the fact that he does not want us to compare what is to be spent for each of the forces this year with what was 27053-147
Supply-National Defence spent in the past five or six years. This is the basis of the complaint we raised when these estimates were before us before and on points of order and questions of privilege. The present form of the estimates is not in accordance with the law which is still in effect until the act in respect of the amalgamation of the three forces is proclaimed. If the estimates were in the prescribed form we would be able to compare what is being spent this year with what has been spent in previous years. I believe that the committee is entitled to this information and the minister should give it to us before the estimates are passed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the minister not going to give us this information? He said he was reluctant to give it but I think the committee is entitled to it and I am now asking that he give a breakdown in respect of forces expenditures.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I hesitated to rise because I thought the minister might give an answer. Approximately a minute has passed since the question was asked. I should like to ask the minister to take a few minutes to explain the situation in respect of the 970 forces personnel who have now been brought back to Canada from the Gaza Strip. I should also like to ask the minister to clarify the position of our personnel assigned to the truce commission. Will he explain their function?
Will the minister also indicate whether we are keeping some kind of force on hand for the Middle East in the event that Canada is requested to perform some role there? I hope the minister will take us into his confidence and indicate the size and type of force we would be able to provide in the event of that necessity arising. Let me follow that up by asking the minister to bring us up to date in respect of the mobile command. When does he expect this command to be trained and fully equipped and able to fulfil its purpose as mentioned by the minister, namely, availability at quick notice?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: First of all, let me say that the troops who served in the Middle East were drawn from units of the regular forces. In many cases their jobs were not filled. Therefore the men no longer required in the Gaza Strip will go back to their regular positions following their leaves.
So far as our capability to provide troops if they are needed in future is concerned, let me
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence say that we can meet any reasonable request. As my hon. friend knows, we have one battalion on stand-by which is instantly available for United Nations duties provided the government of Canada decides it is in the interest of this country to participate in some United Nations role. Whether or not the need would be for an infantry battalion, we do not know. Fundamental to the whole philosophy of United Nations peace keeping, it has been our experience, as related in the white paper, that no two requirements are alike. For that reason, rather than building up a special force we have found that we have been able to meet each requirement as it occurred. This is true because we have well trained and well equipped forces and are able to extract from them those men with the particular capability required at a particular time. I am sure this would again be true regardless of whether it was support personnel, an infantry battalion or something of that nature. It would be quite impossible to speculate as to the specific individuals, units or sub-units that would go until the actual requirement was known. I think my hon. friend will appreciate this.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
So far as mobile command is concerned, its reorganization is coming along very successfully. This is a major reorganization, as my hon. friend knows, and it will take a number of years to implement it in full. In other words, it will take a number of years to acquire all the machinery and equipment that is required for the total force and to have the troops trained in the use of that equipment and bring them to the maximum of operational capability. Throughout this period they are maintaining their operational capability and enhancing it all the time, but I think it will reach a new peak of effectiveness in perhaps three or four years time, around 1970 or in the early 1970's.
It will take that long, because of the lead times involved, to acquire the equipment, make it available to the various formations, set up the training requirements for each of the equipments and train the troops to be proficient in their use. So I would think the present high capability would continue to rise throughout, say, this entire five year period but that it would reach a new peak of military effectiveness in four or five years time.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a supplementary question? I appreciate the answer given by the minister. Developments happen very fast these days. The situation in
the Middle East developed very fast, a war started and it was over in six days. The United Nations is now having to consider at the diplomatic level all of the occurrences in the Middle East. This leads me to the question I wish to ask.
I understand that the house may adjourn until September 25, approximately two and a half months from now. I am very pleased to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the chamber while I put this question to the Minister of National Defence. When things happen so fast, when we hardly know from day to day, let alone from week to week, what may happen in the Middle East or what decisions may be made by the United Nations general assembly, which has adjourned for a week, or by the security council of the United Nations, if a decision is made there which may involve a request to Canada for military aid, will a decision in this respect be taken by the government without the matter being considered by parliament or will parliament be asked to come back if such a request is made? I am certain the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence know what I am talking about. If we adjourn until September 25, having in mind the speed with which developments occur today-God knows they develop very quickly-and a decision is made by the United Nations general assembly to request military aid from Canada, will this requirement be met by the government during the recess or will it ask for the authority of parliament?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a hypothetical question, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Edward Winch: But it is an important one.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I agree with my hon. friend that it is important. If the requirement was to send an augmentation for UNTSO, the United Nations truce supervisory organization, I am sure this is a matter that could be dealt with expeditiously without the necessity of calling parliament. If, on the other hand, the requirement was of a substantial nature it would of course be necessary to call parliament at once to ratify any action the executive had taken.
I believe this policy was well set out by Mr. St. Laurent and has been reiterated since then by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and perhaps by myself in the house. I can assure my hon. friend that if any action was taken by the executive which involved a substantial contribution beyond the present

July 6, 1967	COMMONS
terms of reference, we would feel obliged to call parliament at once.


Harold Edward Winch: I believe 970 troops were withdrawn from this area. Does the minister's answer mean that this commitment is now finished and that our having had troops there previously does not mean we would automatically send them back? There would have to be a new agreement, would there?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think that is correct, Mr. Chairman. Unless the force was a reactivation of UNEF, the order in council would not give authority.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the very point I wanted cleared up.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think anyone would try to hide under that subterfuge. If it was a new force, new authority would be required.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to cut in on the argument put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Calgary North but I want to reinforce the argument he has made with regard to the breakdown of the procurement of equipment as between the forces as they exist today. I wish to draw to the minister's attention the remarks I made on June 22 last which appear at page 1827 of Hansard. As reported in the middle of the first column, I said:
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.
If we look at the item "Maritime Command" on page 319 of the estimates book, we see there is an item of capital expenditure proposed amounting to $115,957,000. This does not give us any detail with regard to the procurement of ships, aircraft, or any information with regard to ground or mobile installations, and so on. We certainly cannot obtain this information from the details which appear on page 318, where there is an item for major equipment, ships, of $61,196,000. Then there is an item for aircraft and engines amounting to $95,221,000. What the minister is actually asking the committee to do by his refusal or reluctance to give us a breakdown is to give carte blanche approval to very large items of expenditure for which we are given no details.
With respect to aircraft, for instance, we do not know how many are going to maritime command, how many are going to mobile 27053-147J
DEBATES	2311
Supply-National Defence command, how many are going to the air division, air defence command or transport command. We are told that the answer will be found in the total. This is not good enough. This is precisely the point raised by my colleague the hon. member for Calgary North. I am concerned about this matter. I should like to know just what part of this capital expenditure is for maritime command.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid there is a misunderstanding in this respect. I have no reluctance whatsoever to give the breakdown and the details in respect of ships and airplanes and to indicate where they will be used. I am quite prepared to do this. To break these figures down into army, navy and air force specifically would be difficult now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: By law the estimates had to be printed that way because the act still insists that there is an army, navy and air force.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The estimates were prepared in precisely the same form as that used in previous years. In so far as the votes are concerned, there is no difference now in the way they appear compared with last year or the year before. My hon. friend is aware of this.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, there is a difference.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is a big difference, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that in all previous years the amount of the equipment procured for each of the navy, army and air force was specifically set out in the estimates.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was in the details, but not so far as the votes were concerned.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Perhaps I could give the breakdown of the
three major items: Ships: Maritime Command Miscellaneous construction in 1967-68	$1,000,000
Design support	4,255,000
Mechanical and electro mechanical equip-	
ment	1,269,000
Small boats and motors	168,000
D.D.H. class	16,494,000
Oberon submarines-equipment, material and construction costs	8,540,000
St. Laurent class conversion (program completed)	
Restigouche class conversion	15,000,000
Operational support ships	11,500,000
Bonaventure improvement	2,970,000
Total:	$61,196,000
2312	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence This is an increase of $24,462,000 over the estimate for the same class of objects last year.
Aircraft:
Cariboo aircraft (no expenditure contemplated)
Yukon aircraft, CC-106 Starfighter aircraft, CF-104 Hercules aircraft, C-130-E Re-engining the Cosmopolitans, CC-109 Silver Star, T-33
Tracker midlife modernization, CS-2F (maritime command)
Buffalo aircraft, CC-115 (mobile command)
See King helicopter, CHSS-2 (maritime command)
Light attack aircraft, CF-5 (primarily mobile command)
Voyageur helicopter, Labrador helicopter (no expenditures this year)
Tudor Aircraft, CT-114	660,000
Utility jet, CC-117	7,700,000
Miscellaneous	215,000
Total:	$95,221,000

This is a decrease of $23,339,000 over the previous year's estimates.
Electronic and communications equipment: Communications equipment: fixed
mobile (air) mobile (sea) mobile (land)
Radar, nav. aids, infrared and I.F.F.

3.056.000 equipment:
	fixed	1,168,000
	mobile (air)	1,289,000
	mobile (sea)	1,775,000
	mobile (land)	530,000
Operational	data processing equipment:	
	fixed	550,000
Electronic	warfare equipment: E.C.M.	
	fixed	3,021,000
	mobile (air)	198,000
	mobile (sea)	2,030,000
	mobile (land)	267,000
Sonar and	anti-submarine warfare equipment:	
	air	8,463,000
	sea	1,126,000
Cash abatement imposed to meet exigencies re		
	programming	(5,000,000)
	Total:	$33,138,000


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister a brief supplementary question? As the minister may know, I and other members of the defence committee who were previously members of the reserve and the militia had a major complaint, namely, that there was a lack of proper equipment for the reserves, the militia and the cadets. In the breakdown which the minister gave us no sum was allocated for the 
DEBATES	July 6, 1967
equipment and re-equipment of these men. It seems to me it is most important that this be done so as to build up morale and facilitate their training. Why did the minister not mention the allocation of one cent for new equipment to provide proper training and to build up the morale of the thousands upon thousands of civilians who are in the militia? Is nothing being allowed for this purpose? I cannot understand how it is possible that this year there is not one cent in the estimates for new equipment for the reserves and the militia.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not cover all the details but just the major items because these were the ones which involved the largest dollar expenditures. We have here some minor equipment for the reserves as follows: ships, $46,000; armament equipment, $701,000; miscellaneous technical equipment, $190,000. The total is $937,000. I may say that this expenditure is programmed to increase slightly in the years ahead. We will be providing more new equipment than has been provided in the immediate past. It does not mean we are going to provide new equipment for the total reserves as this is not feasible within our budgetary limitations, but it does mean we are going to provide sufficient up to date equipment to enable the men to see what the equipment looks like and when they exercise with the regular forces they will be in a position to make the maximum use of their training.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In the list that the minister gave us I noticed that no equipment was being provided for the army except for some communications equipment, and thus the minister's reluctance to give the type of breakdown that was asked for becomes more and more understandable. In addition to the point made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, that no equipment for the reserve forces was mentioned by the minister, no equipment was mentioned with reference to the army except for some communications equipment for what the minister now calls the land environment.
However, I should like to say something about the hydrofoil. I asked a number of questions with regard to the hydrofoil when the estimates were last discussed on June 22, and in reply a short time ago the minister merely said that the cost of this craft had been given in answer to written questions. Actually they were questions put on the order paper by the hon. member for Melville and they showed that the cost of
July 6. 1967

this program is now estimated at $50 million. I think this is a matter of very considerable concern to all members of the house. A great deal of consideration was given to the authorization of this program in 1961 and 1962. At that time the total cost of the program was supposed to be under $10 million. Now the cost has escalated to five times that amount and I think the end is not yet in sight. [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This seems to be an example of very poor estimating. I know there was a fire which caused some increase in costs, but it seems to me there must be some other reason for the enormous escalation in the cost of this program.
Looking at the Auditor General's report for 1966, we find that he goes into this matter in some detail. He indicates that in April, 1963, the estimated cost of the hydrofoil project was $9,100,000. Then, in March, 1964 it went up to $16,300,000. By June, 1964, only three or four months later, it was up to $20,655,000. By November of that year the cost had risen to $26 million. I should like to ask the minister the reason for this big jump in the estimated cost from $20 million to $26 million in the course of about six months. Then, in June 1965, another eight months or so later, the cost went up to $36 million, a jump of $10 million. By April, 1966, the cost had risen to $43 million. Now there is another big jump in the space of one year to $50 million.
What are the reasons for these very large increases in costs? As I say, in a few months' time the cost rose from $16 million to $20 million, from $26 million to $30 million and then from $43 million to $50 million. This is the type of thing which I believe causes a large number of people to lose confidence in estimates. We have an estimate for a certain amount of money for a certain project and then we find the cost has increased fivefold. Another example of an estimate which has increased by four or five times over the original estimate is the arts centre, close to where we are sitting. In view of our primary function as members of parliament to keep an eye on expenditures, I feel we should have a full explanation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I agree with my hon. friend that the original estimate for this project was not as accurate as it might have been. Since my hon. friend was the minister at the time the original estimate was made, perhaps he could help me explain why the estimated cost was not more accurately forecast at that time. Since that time there have been a number of
Supply-National Defence contributing factors. There have been increases in taxes and wages. I presume, and I am saying this only from memory, that the weapons system has been included since I believe the anticipated cost of the weapons system is of the order of $10 million.
This figure was included in the amount the Minister of Defence Production gave the house yesterday. The total amount for the ship system, therefore, would be $40 million and about $10 million for the weapons system. In addition, there was the cost of the fire, as my hon. friend explained, the extended program period due to the fire and the extra overhead that is involved resulting from the extension of the program. My hon. friend is quite right, however, in pointing out one of the serious difficulties, particularly In development projects, of getting more accurate estimates. We are making an effort to improve the technique, and I feel with some success. I do not believe there will ever be perfection in this field because historically In this country, the United States, Great Britain and France, the estimated cost of these major development programs, airplane developments and ship developments, has escalated by a factor of two, three or four or even more over the original estimate.
Under our new system we are requiring much more extensive program definition than was the case previously. This in itself involves some expenditure. The aim of the project has to be more clearly outlined and the various steps involved recorded on paper. The cost of each of the steps involved has to be estimated with a greater degree of accuracy and detail than was previously undertaken. I fully expect this will reduce the margin of error in the future perhaps by 50 per cent, but I am not yet confident that any system has been devised which will predict accurately the cost of new development projects.
I should point out to my hon. friend, however, that as the cost increased the options available were to cancel it, which would have meant a total loss in so far as the determination of these new areas of knowledge is concerned which we were pursuing, or to continue to spend the extra money required and gain experience in a number of very important areas. This is a new method of propulsion. The fixed foil system for open ocean travel is a new concept. The method of transferring the power involved new techniques. The habitability of this kind of ship is unknown. For these and other reasons we felt that the knowledge which would be gained
23X4
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence for the armed forces through continuing the project and from taking the ship to sea for trials would justify the expense involved.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Dealing with the latter statement of the minister, I point out that when the project was first authorized it was, of course, on the basis of the high potential value it would have if it proved successful. It was authorized, to begin with, on the understanding that the cost was not going to run to anything like the figure it has. In other words, at that time the estimate was, as I understood it, practically guaranteed to be in the neighbourhood of $10 million. I should like to ask the minister if the contractors doing this work have been working on a fixed price contract or a cost plus contract, and to what extent has this contributed to the increase in the cost of this project?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not have the entire answer to this question, Mr. Chairman, since it relates to the responsibilities of the Minister of Defence Production. The original contract, which I think has been recently changed since the fire, involved a bonus incentive system whereby the units were priced out at agreed rates and there was an incentive to the contractor to try to complete the ship at less than the unit cost and in less than the prescribed time. If this were the case, his profit margin would have been enhanced. If it were not the case, he would suffer a loss.
It is very difficult with a development project of this kind to get a fixed price contract because there are so many unknown elements that no one would bid on it in those terms. However, I do not disagree with my hon. friend when he says that perhaps if the total cost had been anticipated at the time the project was authorized it might have been looked at differently. But when you get half way through a project and have spent $30 or $35 million, then the decision is really to spend another $15 million in order to gain knowledge in a number of areas that are of interest to you, and that is the decision you have to take and not the original one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has the supervision of this project been in the hands of the Defence Research Board, the naval construction branch of the department or who has been supervising the work being performed by the contractor?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have a project officer in the Department of National Defence in charge of the project, but of course the contract itself

is the responsibility of the Department of Defence Production and any increases in cost have to be approved by Treasury Board in the normal manner.
So far as recommendations to carry on with the project are concerned, this matter was considered at defence council where the advice of the chief of technical services and his officers, other senior staff officers and the defence research board was obtained. There was an opportunity for everyone who was interested to state their point of view before a decision was taken.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that the minister quite understood the question. When a naval vessel is built-and this vessel is a naval vessel-there has always been to my knowledge a supervisory staff present at the site to ensure that the proper standards are met in constructing the vessel, in regard to the equipment put into it, and so on. Who is in charge of this on the construction of the hydrofoil?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, we have a naval captain in charge of the project who has officers responsible to him, and they are responsible for the technical standards.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, as a result of the fire that occurred on the hydrofoil the government and therefore the taxpayers have to spend an additional $3 million on the project. It is my understanding that the Department of National Defence has a project manager-I believe that is the term-present at all times. This gives rise to the question I have in mind. My information-and I would not disclose it unless I considered it authentic-is that the fire occurred because of the complete neglect of all safety factors at the shipyard. As I say, I have this information on what I consider the highest authority. Apparently there was inflammable material in the engine room at the time and when the engines were tested an explosion occurred followed by the fire.
I should like to ask the minister what report he has received from the project manager as to the cause of the fire and whether the cause was, as I am informed on highest authority, neglect of safety factors. If that was the case, then the $3 million extra cost should be a charge on the shipyard, not a charge on a department of the government or the taxpayers. Can the minister give the house any factual information from the report he received as to the cause of the fire and state whether or not there was complete neglect of safety factors in construction?
July 6, 1987


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, there was a board of inquiry and I would not want to answer the question without getting a copy of its report and refreshing my memory. I do not think the situation was as my hon. friend states. Certainly that is not my recollection of it, but I would not want to comment without taking another look at the findings of the board.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I am also interested in the answer given by the minister in regard to the assumed total cost of the hydrofoil project. It was rather significant that in this morning's paper there appeared another item dealing with defence but in relation to another country altogether. It tells of the decision of France to pull out of a joint venture with the British to build an Anglo-French V-G aircraft, which was to be a very sophisticated strike and reconnaissance aircraft. It was hoped that it would be the pride of the Royal Air Force after delivery in 1975, but the scheme has been shot down.
The last two paragraphs of the article have some interesting things to say about the experimental work that goes on in the defence industry and I think it applies equally to Canada in relation to the hydrofoil project. The article has this to say:
Industrially, the V-G was considered vital because it gave Britain's substantial aircraft industry a chance to work on a technically advanced model. The theory was that such work would produce valuable expertise for British industry as a spin-off.
Without advanced military projects, British airframe makers may be unable to keep first-class designers on their payrolls. The industry would decline, it is feared, and dependence on U.S. planes would increase.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, looking at the estimates of the department and noting the enormous expenditure on defence by a country with the population of Canada, that we should seriously question whether in this day and age we should be prepared to launch into experimental work in defence unless it is almost guaranteed that there will be some valuable spin-off into private industry of some commercial worth as a result. I also feel we need to pause and reflect on the fact that our dependence on the United States for defence, as the dependence of Britain or any other country which associates itself with the western group of nations, will be increasingly greater. I noticed that the minister of external affairs was with us for a while this afternoon listening to this debate, and I regret that he has now left because external affairs and foreign policy are so keenly involved here.
Supply-National Defence
The real question for Canadians now is not what we spend on defence or what kind of projects we will launch or are launching but rather whose umbrella we are under. I asked a question during the question period today which related very indirectly to which side we were on in today's world. A related question dealing with a matter outside the minister's department was asked by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce on June 19. It concerned the training of pilots for Algeria under external aid. The Prime Minister promised at that time that an answer would be given the next day. I looked at the next day's Hansard but did not find an answer there, and I have not had time to make a diligent search to see whether an answer was given.
On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition asked: When did they become our allies? I know that the official opposition has been very preoccupied lately with its own labyrinth of leadership problems and in various ways has been marching along roads more tangled, I am sure, than the streets of the Casbah, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition when Algeria became an ally of ours. It was in March, 1966, a day or two prior to March 18; I cannot be exact on the date. We then signed an accord with that nation which involved providing a variety of forms of aid, and if the information presented by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is the case, something very close to military aid was to be provided and so is very important to us today.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It seems to me that we do not examine closely at the present time who our allies are, where our aid is going and for what purposes it is given. Though we spend $1,688 million on defence we seem to be engaged in several external affairs policies that could be detrimental to the very defence that we boast we are spending so much for.
The minister mentioned the hydrofoil program. I wonder what other experimental programs we are engaged in at the present time. Much could be learned from this program and the way that its costs have accelerated. I doubt that there will be much spin-off into private industry or into the shipbuilding industry of Canada from this project. It seems to me that at a much earlier time we might have shown the sort of realism that France has shown with some of its defence projects. We might have cut this project off. It was not a joint project but entirely our own.
July 6. 1967

Supply-National Defence
Incidentally, defence costs in future will be such that there could be increasing collaboration between Canada and other middle powers and small, industrialized countries on a variety of ventures. Here again, when becoming involved in joint defence projects with other countries of the world we shall need to be extremely concerned about who our allies are and when and why they have become our allies.
It behooves all members in the opposition to be aware of small matters which go unnoticed. Our cultural agreement with Algeria, our exchange agreement with that country, went unnoticed because it was alluded to only in the French language press of this country. The English language press did not mention it. The agreements aroused little interest when they were entered into.
We are involved in a complicated scheme which goes by the name of Francophonie. This scheme is motivated by the highest cultural motives, the aims of which are to increase exchanges between countries that use the French language. Several nations of North Africa, particularly because of their histories, are involved in the use of this language. We tend to enter into agreements with those countries despite their being governed by regimes that ordinarily we would not countenance. Through the highest of motives we enter into alliances that will come home to roost in ways we least expect. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce mentioned one such matter which came into prominence with the outbreak of war in the Middle East. That war caught us by surprise, and policies such as contributing to a United Nations peace keeping force, policies in which we had put our trust, were found to be incapable of fulfilling the purposes for which they had been designed.
As we reach the point where we end discussion of defence estimates we should think carefully of the total costs involved in expenditures for external affairs and defence matters. We should be prepared to examine and to rethink schemes such as the hydrofoil project. We should think carefully about what we are doing in both these fields of government activity.
I appreciate the close questioning that the hon. member for Calgary North has directed toward the hydrofoil scheme, because its total cost of $50,006,000, is staggering, especially if one thinks of 50 $1 million schools or 50 $1 million hospitals. An equivalent sum could have been spent in a variety of constructive ways in Canada.

The minister has expressed the wish that the added knowledge the military personnel will gain will prove worth while. If that added knowledge is confined only to the armed forces it will be worth no more than the worth of a new toy. Such knowledge, in return for an expenditure of $50 million, will not increase the defence capability of Canada. I hope it may be possible to translate some of that knowledge into the private industrial, productive, and commercial sector of this country.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, as I rise to speak there are two main questions I wish to ask about this department. I will not refer to details. The first question is: In view of what has happened since we had the opportunity to question the minister in February, March and April of this year and in view of what happened in the Middle East recently, what is to be the future role of the armed forces of Canada? My second question is: Is there a role for Canadian peace keeping forces in the world today? Before the minister enunciates defence policy I would ask him to answer these two questions.
For a few moments I wish to refer to some comments the minister made in opening the discussion of his estimates. As found on page 1816 of Hansard for June 22 he said:
The purpose of our defence policy is not and never was to create simply a giant peace keeping force.
That is a far cry from what he said in this house several months ago. The minister shakes his head. I shall quote certain statements he made before the defence committee. I take it from the minister's nod at the present time that he is indicating that he never maintained that one of the purposes of his defence policy was to create a giant peace keeping force.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I always said it was one of the purposes but not the sole purpose. So long as my hon. friend clearly delineates this distinction I am sure that we shall both be on common ground.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes. That is what I want to get straight, Mr. Chairman. I find it hard to reconcile what the minister said on the defence estimates previously and what he has said at the present time with some statements that the chief of the general staff has made. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred to those statements. I ask the minister whether the chief of the general staff had
July 6. 1967

authority to make the statement which is attributed to him in the Globe and Mail o f April 24. The hon. member tor Winnipeg South Centre referred to that article which is headed, "Mobile Peace Force Is Goal." Then follow the general's remarks:
The creation of a mobile world peace keeping force as well as elimination of waste are the goals of Canada's proposed reorganization-
The minister a few moments ago said that this is not one of the goals of defence policy. Whom are the people of Canada to believe? Are they to believe the chief of general staff or the Minister of National Defence? Is this another red herring with which the minister is trying to confuse the public? Regardless of the question asked him, he can say both yes and no to it. I will refresh the minister's memory as to what the chief of the general staff has said. He has told us that Canada's forces are being made into a highly mobile force in keeping with their role as peace keepers in the world. He further said that in the wake of the defence white paper it was clear that Canada was committed diplomatically and militarily to an expanding peace keeping role. Here again, I say that the statements of the chief of staff are not in accord with what the minister has just told us. This is one of the matters we should clear up before we go further with these estimates. Just what is Canada's defence policy? Let the minister get up and express it clearly. I invite him to do so in the course of this debate. This is the time.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, the policy is as stated in the white paper of 1964 and as reiterated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this house a few weeks ago and by myself. The priorities are set out at page 24 of the white paper on defence and they are still in effect.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Some of us believe the emphasis has been placed on peace keeping. The minister informed us in the committee in no uncertain terms that this was the major role. The subject was discussed many times in the committee. We were afraid we might be opting out of our collective commitments under NATO and NORAD, though the minister denied this when it was brought to his attention during the latter part of the debate.
Some people think Canada is taking a position of neutrality in her approach to external affairs. If this is the case all the figures we are referring to today might very well be wiped out. Before Canada adopts a position of
Supply-National Defence neutrality we should reflect upon what happened to certain other countries which adopted a similar attitude. I say that Canada cannot possibly take such a position because of her geographical situation. If a neutral country lies in the path of an aggressor the aggressor will not recognize a declaration of neutrality. Think of what happened to Belgium and Holland in the first world war. Canada cannot adopt a neutral role in world affairs today. We are committed to the collective defence of our country and this, I think, is the major consideration in any policy devised for our protection. We must honour our commitments for peace in the world.
The minister also told us that during the period of reorganization there had been no falling off in our organizational capacity but that on the contrary in practically every field our operational capacity had been enhanced. I wonder what basis the hon. gentleman had for making such a statement. Is this his opinion or is it the opinion of our allies? I understand that under the program of reorganization which the minister has undertaken, the force for which his department is responsible, will no longer fit in with the requirements of NATO commanders. Maybe the minister is putting the cart before the horse. We are devising a force unlike any force in the world and then expecting NATO and allied commanders to use it. The first step should be to ascertain what the requirements of these various forces are likely to be and the best way in which our forces can fit into the general scheme as devised by NATO commanders.
I submit too that in attempting to insist upon Canada's idea that there should be a peace keeping force we are also putting the cart before the horse. It has been obvious for many years in the history of the United Nations that many of the great powers in that organization do not want a peace keeping force. The minister stated as much during his opening remarks in this debate. He said that certain factors, economic, political and so on, should be decided first. I agree, and if these factors were correctly dealt with there might be no need for a peace keeping force at all. I cannot for the life of me see why Canada should be so insistent upon putting a peace keeping force into areas where such a force is not wanted and not required.
The minister mentioned this himself when he was referring to the supervisory organization in Palestine. He said it was possible that the United Nations might have to build on that organization to supply a United Nations
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence presence in the Middle East as a result of recent developments. I would ask the minister this question. As a result of the recent developments in the Middle East, does he think that while we are here as members of this parliament any of the countries of the Middle East will ever ask Canada to participate in a peace keeping force in that area? I doubt it very much. It may be unjust to say that this is the result of statements made by some members of the present cabinet, but I doubt that the Arabs would ever ask Canada to participate in any peace keeping force.
What good is accomplished by sending such a force to that area? The minister tells us it kept the peace for ten years. I do not believe that. I think the Israelis and the Arabs kept the peace themselves. I And fault with the United Nations for failing to make some effort to solve the economic and political problems which existed in the region. The very fact that the refugees were there for so many years, neglected by the United Nations, is one of the factors which contributed to the recent outbreak. I believe Canada should put forward more effort in the debates at the United Nations in calling attention to the necessity of eliminating these problems rather than spending Canadian money on once more establishing a force which is not required and which to my mind was of very little use during the ten years in which it served in the Gaza Strip.
The minister said that the fault was not with the peace keeping force but with the failure to come to grips with the social, economic and political problems which made the peace keeping force necessary in the first place. He was referring to the withdrawal of the UNEF force from the Gaza strip. He went on to say it was typical of the efficiency of this force and of transport command that when the word came to leave the area the force was removed in a remarkably effective manner. I fail to see how the minister or any Canadian can take pride in what happened to our force at that time. I wonder, though, whether this is what the minister had in mind when in January of this year he told us that Canada will have her name indelibly etched as a world leader in military organization. Or is this what he meant when he made the statement that Canadians were now becoming leaders in defence organization, not just followers? Just what did he mean? In this respect the hon. gentleman said:
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 ten 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.
I suggest that they actually did nothing during the ten years they were there. When the Arabs and the Israelis no longer wanted them there they told the Secretary General of the United Nations to take them out and they were taken out. How can one give the Canadian force credit for keeping the peace in the area in those circumstances? They certainly did not.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I think that again we are putting the cart before the horse. I think we should concentrate our efforts in the United Nations on an attempt to overcome the problems which we know exist. I believe Canadian funds are being wasted. The same thing is apparently happening in Cyprus.
I say to the minister that with the addition of the peace restoring role he is getting deeper and deeper into hot water than he has been. It is a more dangerous role. The fact that we have so few troops means that we cannot be an effective force in that regard in any event. During the debate in the defence committee I believe figures were presented concerning how many personnel would be needed to keep a force of 1,000 men in the field in such a role. The minister is aware that any time Canada has sent forces overseas she has relied on other nations to look after their supply.
If the minister says, as he said a few moments ago, that it is not the intention to concentrate on peace keeping, then why did he put all the emphasis on mobility and the ability to supply these forces when he talked to us in February, March and April of this year. At this time I should like to ask the minister to clarify, for me at least, what he meant by his statement in respect of peace keeping and to explain how he can reconcile it with what the chief of the general staff has said. Is the minister right or is the chief of the general staff right? I think Canadians are entitled to know this. I should like the minister to reply to this before I ask any further questions.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 1 carry?


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, Mr. Chairman. I do not know what is the matter with the minister.
July 6, 1967

He has been given the opportunity to answer this question. I think the Canadian people have a right to an answer of some kind. I do not want to repeat what the chief of the general staff as said. He did say, however, that peace keeping is the goal of present government defence policy. Is he right and has he the authority to speak for the department? If not, he should shut up and I think the minister should tell him to. If the minister permits the chief of the general staff to make this kind of speech, then surely he should get up in the house and support what the general has said or deny it. I believe the minister owes the people of Canada an answer in this regard.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. We are being faced this afternoon with the typical reaction of the Minister of National Defence. For four years he has stubbornly refused to disclose facts and give information to members of the house. It is to be expected that we would be a trifle annoyed at this. We have had four long years under this stubborn and obstinate Minister of National Defence during which time he has concealed information from us, has sat silent and has refused to answer questions. He did not give a satisfactory answer this afternoon to the question with regard to equipment for our forces. He has not given an answer to the member who has just spoken. He has not answered the things which were said when we discussed the estimates on June 22. We have had silent treatment and evasive answers from the minister.
Some time ago I asked the minister about our naval commitments this summer with regard to NATO. He did not have the information then and he has not given it since. Is he prepared to give it now? What are our naval forces doing, if anything, with regard to NATO this summer? We get nothing from the minister except great statements about how wonderful his program is and that he is striking out on a new departure which will be an example to the world. These statements are not based on fact; they are not supported by evidence. I have just read a very interesting book by a member of the cabinet in England who resigned last year. I forget his exact position but I believe he was associated with the minister of national defence. This gentleman was here in 1965 at which time he looked into the matter of the rearrangement of Canada's defence forces. With the minister and his officials he examined the program of

Supply-National Defence unification. In his book he sets out very clearly that he believes such a program would be unsuitable for the United Kingdom to follow. He says that it sounds fine to have a unified force with everybody in one uniform and everybody put together but that in actual fact it will not work. So he rejected it and the minister of national defence in England rejected it.
The other day I spoke to a member of the Australian parliament. I told him that during the course of a defence debate we had here our minister used as evidence the example of a civil servant in Australia who had written an article commending the project of unification. I asked him whether he knew anything about this. He said he had never heard of it before. Yet the minister paraded that in the house as evidence that other countries are keenly interested in what we are doing and are about to follow suit. All these years have gone by and no other country in the world has followed the course laid out by the minister. As I have said time and time again the people of this country have been confused and bemused by the minister's statements. The minister has no good evidence to give us.
Earlier this afternoon the minister was asked about the mobile force. He now tells us that it will take four to five years to get it in shape for action. Yet he has fed us propaganda to the effect that this mobile force would be ready on almost instant notice to go anywhere in the world and play a part. Now he says that it will take four to five years. All he could tell us this afternoon is that one battalion is ready for service on the request of the United Nations.
This is a very confusing picture indeed. The minister has been asked questions about the role at which Canada is aiming. We spoke about this at some length on June 22. No answer has been given. We heard again the statement made by the chief of the defence staff to the effect that this is the major role for Canada. He said that the transformation-that is the word which was used by the chief of the general staff when he appeared before the committee-set out in the white paper was to alter our role to one of peace keeping under United Nations auspices. The minister has made no reply to this. Obviously he agrees with the chief of the general staff. Perhaps he told him to make the statement as a roundabout way of attempting to influence the public.
The minister is now saddled with a failure in his much lauded cost efficiency or cost
2320	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence accounting procedure. I recall many occasions when he accused our government of failing to estimate costs correctly. With great glee he used the example of the armoured personnel carrier. Now he has a hydrofoil on his hands. The cost of this project is about four times as great as it was estimated it would be and it is not finished. Yet this minister has told us that he has set up a system which is so superior that this type of error would not occur.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The minister criticized the hon. member for Calgary North about the difficulties he encountered in respect of the armoured personnel carrier. Now he has his own white elephant, the hydrofoil, and he does not know what to do with it. He has talked about efficiency and a new method of determining expenditures and costs, but what has he saddled us with at this time? He has created enormous expenditures amounting to millions of dollars but has given no satisfactory explanation as to the progress or effectiveness of this project. He has given no explanation why other countries appear to have had greater success with a similar type of vessel. He is afraid to cancel the program. Instead he carries it on, perhaps in order to load it on his successor after he leaves the Department of National Defence this year. At that time I suppose he hopes to be free of complaints.
The record of the minister over the last four years is one of colossal failure and the people of Canada are beginning to realize it. His unification of the forces has proved to be ineffective and unwise, and the people of Canada clearly realize now that the wiping out of the history and traditions of our fighting men was an unsatisfactory step.
During the last week the people have been able to observe our forces, particularly the army, in their special regimental uniforms, proudly displaying their esprit de corps. This is what the minister wants to destroy. I suppose that if we have other state ceremonies in a year or so our armed forces will all be in the same uniform and will look alike. I hope the people of Canada will not stand for that. I have been told that the military tattoo, which I have not had a chance to see, has been regarded in the various cities where it has been seen as a wonderful success.
M,r. Winch: It is a wonderful performance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has spoiled at least part of it by amalgamating the bands and putting them all together rather than

DEBATES	July 6, 1967
leaving them in their own formations. The minister put the sailors along the royal route to Uplands airport in spotted positions along the route where they stood solemn and alone in their white dress. He should have kept them together so they could be proudly displayed. This is the type of activity the minister has been undertaking.
My complaint, ever since we began to talk about this situation a few years ago, has been that the emphasis should be placed on military efficiency rather than just on managerial arrangements. It is in this regard the minister has made his greatest mistake. He is so concerned with the managerial approach that he overlooks everything else. He is a great follower of Mr. McNamara of the United States and has learned some of his lessons from him. I hope the minister is aware of some of the disputes taking place in that country in respect of standardization of aircraft in the armed forces.
There is a great distinction between the requirements of the navy and the air force in respect of aircraft. Different aircraft are needed because of weight requirements, particularly in regard to aircraft carrier functions. There is also a distinction in respect of weaponry. This minister wants to put everything together and wants to make everything the same. He has no comprehension of the requirements of our military forces. If our men are called upon to take some part in an action at the risk of their lives will they be efficiently trained and properly equipped? This is the sole purpose of the department of defence and the minister. Our people in the services must be efficiently trained and properly equipped.
We have asked the minister many questions but we receive no answers or answers which are evasive. We have been subjected to the silent treatment. The minister sits silent hoping that the time will run out. This has been a very unsatisfactory display this afternoon. I thought the minister would rise to this occasion to explain his thesis and defend his position. He has not done so. He has sat silent.
The hon. member for Calgary North asked the minister to give a breakdown of the money spent in support of our three services. The minister said it is difficult to give such a breakdown because of the amalgamation of the forces. He says the costs cannot be separated. This displays a most unsatisfactory and regrettable attitude. We are facing an early adjournment and we cannot continue to press
July 6. 1967

the minister for an accounting of his stewardship of out forces. I think this minister has done more damage to Canada's armed forces than any other minister. According to the book I mentioned earlier, he told a minister from the United Kingdom who visited Ottawa in 1965 that he was lopping off the head of the armed forces and tying up the arteries to stop the bleeding. The bleeding continues.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to follow in the vein of the remarks of the hon. and gallant member for Winnipeg South Centre, although I am very much in agreement with the views he has expressed since I came into the house about ten minutes ago. I do intend to bring before this committee and the country a matter of importance to human freedom and the preservation of the rights of the individual which should be and must be of concern to parliament.
Today the Prime Minister stated that the government would be convening a conference late this year or early in 1968 with a view to bringing about a constitutional amendment in respect of the Bill of Rights, which was so long condemned and ridiculed. I hope he will be successful. During my period of office we tried to bring about an acceptance by the provinces of a constitutional Bill of Rights with the idea that the rights and freedoms of Canadians would be the same in all parts of Canada, regardless of geographical address. It is my intention to bring before the committee a matter of freedom which deserves immediate action on the part of the government. It has to do with a teacher at the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean. This man, Mr. A. David Price, was a lecturer in the department of English of that school when he was removed.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I bring this matter to the attention of the house because I believe that a gross and grave injustice is being done to this man. The royal prerogative permits the crown, even today, to deny the individual the right to know the reasons why action is taken against him. Indeed, whenever the crown has decided that it is not in the public interest to reveal the reasons for its action, the courts have found themselves impelled to accept the archaic principle that the king or the queen can do no wrong. That principle, which over the years has been basic to the system of constitutional monarchy, is no longer applicable. In 1953 or 1954, I think it was, the high court of the United Kingdom decided that no individual could be deprived of his rights by the simple

Supply-National Defence expedient of a declaration by a representative of the crown that it is not in the public interest to reveal the true facts.
Within the last ten days in the United Kingdom the question of the royal prerogative has again received attention. The court of appeal of the United Kingdom has come to the conclusion, one judge dissenting, that the old principle that used to be in effect, namely, that the individual vis-a-vis the crown must accept whatever decision is made with reference to him under the crown, when the crown takes the stand that it is not in the public interest to reveal the reasons for the alleged wrongdoing, is no longer valid.
I bring this matter to the attention of the house because for months there has been an endeavour by Mr. Price and the Professional Institute of Canada to find out what actually took place which brought about the end of the service of Mr. Price in the department of English at this military school. The argument advanced at one time was that he was not a Ph. D. and that there could be no promotion without the teacher holding a Ph. D. I have here a list of the promotions in this college during the last two or three years which indicates that this rule has not been honoured by acceptance in its entirety, or indeed at all. For several months there have been reports of unhappy conditions at the defence college which one would take to be, as it should be, a model for all Canada.
All of us remember the story of Archer-Shee. In the United Kingdom in 1911 Arch-er-Shee was fired from the naval college he was attending. The reason given was that he had been guilty of wrongdoing. The most able counsel in Britain at that time, Sir Edward Carson, undertook that case and fought it for several years against an almost impenetrable stand taken by the military authorities. Finally Archer-Shee was cleared. One of the first officers of the Old Contemptibles in the expeditionary force in 1914 to fall in France was Lieutenant Archer-Shee. I recall that case because it represents the epitome of an attitude that too often grips those who have power without that responsibility which should accompany power and should ameliorate wrongdoing or the suggestion of wrongdoing.
I say at once that I do not know Mr. Price except by reputation. That reputation has been given to me in numbers of letters from outstanding representatives of the professional institute. These people have said Mr. Price has a high reputation for integrity and
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence that his moral life is of the best. Yet what has happened to him? He is out. He is out because a certain person made charges against him and his reputation. Mr. Price was an instructor in English. The reason given for his dismissal is that one of the teachers, who is a tale-bearer, a West Indian, made allegations against this man of moral wrongdoing of the most ridiculous kind. I have here a statement containing those allegations. It is alleged that Mr. Price acted in a way that would render him a suspicious person, indeed of being a homosexual, because on one occasion he put his arm around the janitor and said, "Happy New Year to you."
That is the sole evidence of alleged wrongdoing. The man who made the allegation has been a troublemaker. The reputation of Mr. Price has been destroyed as a result of unfounded insinuations. No one claims to understand homosexuality, but I wonder whether anyone would make an advance in a public place, in a hall of a school, with other people there. Yet that is the sole evidence against this man. So serious a situation has been created that one teacher resigned in protest against the treatment of Price.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The Professional Institute of Canada has received a number of unsolicited letters from members of the staff supporting Price, his integrity and his moral purpose. Price does not ask to be cleared of wrongdoing without being given the opportunity of clearing himself. What he asks for is a public inquiry, and until the last 24 hours the Department of National Defence has not shown any willingness to grant him that. One of the major elements of justice is not only that justice shall be done but that it shall appear to have been done. This man is out. He raised a grievance, made a complaint and took his case to the deputy minister under section 90 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. We were told that this piece of legislation passed in 1966-67 was one of the finest ever to be placed on the statute books to protect the rights of those in the public service of Canada. I quote the section because Price has been advised that he should proceed under it. It reads as follows:
(1) Where any employee feels himself to be aggrieved.
(a) by the Interpretation or application in respect of him of (i) a provision of a statute, or of a regulation, by-law, direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, dealing with terms and conditions of employment, or (ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or

(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his terms and conditions of employment, other than a provision described in subparagraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (a), in respect of which no administrative procedure for redress is provided in or under an act of parliament, he is entitled, subject to subsection (2), to present the grievance at each of the levels, up to and including the final level, in the grievance process provided for by this act.
Price did so, but the deputy minister decided that what had happened to Price was not a grievance within the meaning of section 90. I believe that section 90 is wide enough to deal with such a case, but that was not the view of the deputy minister. He simply said "You do not have this right under the section, and that is the end of it".
That is not the end of it. The associate minister of defence said that Price can appeal. There is no provision for appeals under this act in respect of this matter, and I say that as one who has some knowledge of the law. The associate minister cannot hide behind that technicality. I may use stronger words later unless some action is taken in this regard. At present there is provision for a request for ajudication under section 91, but that deals with disciplinary action. What is required is not a simple examination of Price's case on the basis of an individual grievance but an inquiry into the administration where it can happen that a man's reputation which is equal to that of anyone in this house can be destroyed as a result of the scandalous machinations of a little fellow who has been a scandalmonger on at least one other occasion. Surely the time has not come when in the administration of the rights of the individual a man can be turfed out on the unsupported word of a colleague working with him in the same organization.
I now come to what I want to request with all the force at my command. Price is out. He is just like a wandering person with the blight of immorality on him. Let any hon. member consider how he would like to be ousted because somebody said there was something wrong with his moral character. I see the hon. member for Lotbiniere is smiling. I take that to be agreement on his part that it would be a terrible thing if we in this House of Commons were to be ousted on the basis of some uncorroborated statement regarding our alleged moral misconduct. Such a thing would not happen in the case of the hon. gentleman, but as he has taken an interest in what I am saying I thought I might mention it. How would he like that kind of treatment? He would not accept it. As a good lawyer he would be the very first to object.
July 6, 1967


Mr. Choquelle:: I would be entitled to a pension.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman always has an eye to the future, and pensions have an attraction. Price received no pension. He will not receive $18,666. He is out. He is stigmatized and condemned, and an aura of deserving the treatment which he received hangs over him.
The Professional Institute of Canada asked for information with regard to this case and the information that has been given has been as scanty as the reasons advanced for his removal. It is said that he was not removed but was just not rehired. The reason he was not rehired was the result of what this scandalmonger produced. The excuse given is that he did not have a Ph.D. and therefore there could be no advancement. Let me point out the fact that Mr. R. Lapierre, M.A., history, was promoted to assistant professor, as is reported in the commandant's annual report of 1962-63. Mr. G. Lapointe, M.A., French, was similarly promoted, as reported in the commandant's annual report of 1963-64, and so was Mr. J. P. Rivet, M.A., mathematics, as reported in the college calendars of 1961-62 and 1963-64. Mr. Y. Pigeon, M.A., French was promoted from assistant professor to associate professor, as reported in the college calendars of 1964-65 and 1965-66, and Mr. S. Stallard, M.A., mathematics, was also promoted from assistant professor to associate professor, as reported in the college calendars of 1961-62 and 1963-64. None of the above mentioned had a Ph.D. So the excuse that Price did not have a Ph.D. or was not on his way to getting it is unsatisfactory.
I mentioned that letters of protest from other members of the staff had been received by the government. I ask the minister to produce these letters from the staff condemning the arbitrary and unjust decision in this case. I will go further than that. I say, let us forget what has taken place and let us act. I ask that the government pass an order in council to provide for an inquiry under part II of the Inquiries Act.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I have had considerable correspondence of a personal and confidential nature, but I shall not refer to that. The letter from the minister reads:
I find that Mr. A. David Price submitted a grievance on February 17, 1967, and that this was considered through the appropriate stages, finally being dismissed by the deputy minister on April 28 because "The charge made in Part II of the Public Service grievance form is not a grievance
Supply-National Defence
coming within Section 90 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act".
If it does not come within that section, and I am not going to argue that at all, then something else must be done. I continue reading from the letter:
I understand that it is open to Mr. Price to take advantage of the appeal procedures under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the regulations and rules of procedure made thereunder relating to the grievance process. Up to the present time, apparently, he has not elected to do so.
I have read the act and I find no provision for appeal in a case such as this. When we passed this bill, naturally we could not contemplate all the possible exigencies that would arise. This is no criticism of anyone. We all worked together to make this a good act. However, there is no appeal procedure of which this man could take advantage under the law as it now stands in respect of the matters I have set out.
The minister writes as follows:
If Mr. Price elects to take advantage of the procedures open to him under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and if the appeal board should rule that it does not have jurisdiction, or in the event that it dismisses the appeal and Mr. Price still feels that his case has not been adequately considered, I would be prepared to recommend to the governor in council the establishment of an inquiry under Part II of the Inquiries Act.
This letter of yesterday was the culmination of months of representations made by Mr. Price and others on his behalf. The matter came to my attention and I looked it over. Somewhere, somehow, there has been a slip and a man's reputation has suffered harm that will be irreparable unless he is cleared by the appropriate body. If he has been a wrongdoer, an inquiry will determine it. There is strong feeling amongst the staff members that this man has been given kangaroo court treatment, but if an inquiry is established justice will have been done.
I could go into a great many other facts but I am not going to do so. However, I should like to summarize the situation in this way: On January 23 he was presented by the head of the English department, Dr. Agop Ha-cikyan, with a curt note from the director of studies saying that his services were no longer required after May 31. No reason was given except privately by Dr. Hacikyan who said the man was not proceeding quickly enough on work for his doctorate.
This letter I have reads in part as follows:
On January 26 at a meeting before the entire department of English with the director of studies in the chair, I required Dr. Benoit to answer if I had been charged with moral turpitude.
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence
Dr. Benoit is the director of studies.
Each time he hesitated more and finally said, I must say no.
At the same meeting a charge ot slander and character assassination was made by me and six members of the English department against one Felix Cherniavsky, a lecturer in the same department.
Incidentally, this man is out now. He has gone elsewhere. I believe he is in the western provinces. He had better not try any of his monkeyshines out there. Mr. Cherniavsky was accused of slander on three counts, none of which he would deny. He claimed that Price was an alcoholic, that he was a homosexual and that he was a moral danger to the cadets at the college.
Just imagine a person walking around with such serious allegations made against him at what was more or less a public gathering, a meeting of the staff. Furthermore, it was then reported that Price had been dismissed for these reasons and that Cherniavsky had supplied these alleged reasons to the head of the English department to pass on for action. As I have said, Cherniavsky is not now a member of the college staff.
Therefore, without further ado I ask the minister, in the name of justice, to remove this cloud which hangs over Mr. Price by providing immediately for an inquiry. Let the chips fall where they may. No Canadian deserves to be placed in a position where he is out of employment, especially in a profession like teaching where moral conduct is of the first importance, when the justification given after the event was that he was not a Ph.D. The letters I have show there is concern. The government has received quite a lot of correspondence about this matter. I am not going into it because I am simply going to request an inquiry.
You will not always do right when you are the government. You make your decision. Your deputy minister decides there is no basis for an appeal under section 90. If there is no basis for an appeal under section 90, then surely this is indeed a case in which the individual has a right to that basic element of British justice, namely, to no man will we delay the right to have a fair and full inquiry. You say he has not been convicted of any offence, and that is so. He is a man who goes about and people say, "I wonder". A department of government was his employer. We cannot ask others to do more than the government will do. I make this appeal to the minister. I am not going into other considerations. I simply say, do not crucify this man.

Do not destroy his work and his reputation. There is no right of appeal under section 90, the deputy minister says. Give the man an inquiry; it will not take long. The evidence will be very simple and it will be a wonderful opportunity for somebody to cross-examine Mr. Cherniavsky, churn him up and get the facts.
o (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Chairman, the question brought up this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was not unexpected, because we have been exchanging correspondence on this matter for the last three or four weeks.
The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) also wrote me on this matter and I have communicated with him in what I believe to be a spirit of objectiveness, not being tied down by previous decisions within the service.
When the Leader of the Opposition speaks so eloquently of individual freedom, I am quite at ease in replying that I also believe in individual freedom, that I also believe that a civil servant must not be crushed by the civil service and that his rights must be respected. For that reason, facts and responsibilities must be ascertained. It is necessary not only to be just but also to appear just.
In the present case, I want to co-operate as far as I can in establishing the truth and ensuring that justice is done.
There is, first of all, the position of the department which explains the situation in a certain chronological order, as follows: In the present case, it is a matter of a term appointment of one year, and reference is made to section 21 which provides that a one year appointment is generally renewed for two years.
In the case of Mr. Price, that was done, and his appointment was not renewed after the two year period. That is the first and official explanation.
There is also the second aspect, with regard to the charges made by other professors, which would actually be considered as libellous. According to the legal interpretation given at a certain time in that connection, it was a personal matter coming under the jurisdiction of civil courts.
This however remains to be established: has the appointment of Mr. Price actually not been renewed for strictly academic reasons, as our officers claim? That is what must be
July 6, 1967	COMMONS
established. And I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), since I wrote to him saying that if Mr. Price was not satisfied with the decision on the appeal, I would agree to recommend to the governor in council that a special court of inquiry should be instituted to deal with the matter. Therefore, there is no conflict, and I undertake to follow up the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, which I had made anyway in the letter which he was kind enough to quote and which I sent him by messenger yesterday morning.
Therefore, I trust that the two of us will have helped to ensure the recognition of the rights of an individual, regardless of where he fits in society, and to have those rights respected and upheld by people who are not prejudiced and who do not hide behind the rules. There is a saying in English which I have never accepted: "They throw the book at you." I am not saying that we did that in this case, but since there are such serious doubts, it is surely in the interest of everybody, including the government, to throw some light on this matter. And the way to do this is to recommend to the governor in council to set up an inquiry into this matter. And I am very pleased to undertake to do that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister at once that this matter came to my attention after having been dealt with previously. Four of the professors had communicated with the department. As soon as I started to deal with the minister he showed the attitude he now reveals, and I thank him on behalf not of Mr. Price but for doing justice. I look forward to the early appointment of this inquiry to the end that justice will be done.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, a matter has been brought to my attention very recently by a very well known Vancouver solicitor, and because it is necessary for us to go away now for some time and I will not be able to get information in any other way I wish to raise it with the minister today. It concerns two women, one of whom who is from West Vancouver and the other from Vancouver itself. One of them is the wife of a retired army major and the other the wife of a wing commander in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Both are separated from their husbands. They did not consult their solicitor professionally on this question, although both have a solicitor acting for them
DEBATES	2325
Supply-National Defence in connection with their personal problems, but they wanted some help in forming an organization to attempt to get support inside and outside parliament for changes in the law so that they and other wives in their position can attach the pay, allowances and pensions of their husbands for alimony purposes.
From what they say it is understood by the solicitor that the pay, allowances and pensions of members of the armed forces cannot be attached at present and that the Judge Advocate General's branch provides members of the forces with legal assistance in defeating the just claims of their wives and children. The comment of the solicitor is that it is hard to understand why in the year 1967 a man in the forces should be immune from ordinary civil process.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether the legislation in this regard is such that women in this position are unable to make a claim on the pay, allowances and pensions of their husbands as presumably can other women separated from husbands who are not members of the forces. If that is the case, then is there any possibility of changing the legislation? If these women are separated from their husbands and have children, in fact, even if they do not have children, they are faced with problems of alimony and maintenance. At this stage what I want to find out from the minister is the exact position of these women under the law, before inquiring what they should do next.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I admit frankly that this is such a thorny question that I would rather consult with the legal advisers of the department and give an answer tonight at eight o'clock, if that is agreeable.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a further question of the minister on a point which has interested me for the last two months? I understand that the minister's policy is that the Canadian forces shall be mobile and we know from answers he has given in the house, in committee of supply and before the defence committee that he is satisfied with the progress being made in the implementation of this policy and with the equipment that is being obtained. If we can meet an emergency call to supply a brigade or battalion to NATO or to the United Nations-and I hope that such a call will not come-I am puzzled as to why, in moving
July 6. 1967

Supply-National Defence militia personnel and cadets across Canada to their training grounds, it is necessary to charter aircraft from Air Canada for such movements. That has been done in the past and is to be done this year.
The minister will see what I am driving at. If we have the equipment to meet demands to move our regular forces quickly, why should it be necessary to charter commercial carriers to transport militia personnel and cadets to training camps, particularly to Camp Gage-town?
For the first time we are sending some 300 militia personnel to Germany. They are to take part in military training in the field. Are these men to be flown overseas by our air force or are they to be taken by commercial carriers which have been chartered for the purpose?
Perhaps I might be given an honest answer to another question. Possibly I should not have said that inasmuch as I know that any answer from a minister supposedly is honest.
I still wish to know what the actual strength of our brigade in Germany is. What is the actual number of personnel serving with it? Only by answering that question will the minister dispel the impression that the 300 militia reservists are being sent to Germany to bolster the number of those on strength in the brigade in order to meet our commitment.
I hope the minister will also explain why, if we can airlift combat forces overseas, it is necessary to charter commercial carriers to transport militia personnel and reservists inside Canada. The United Kingdom sends either a regiment or a battalion to the Camp Gagetown manoeuvres, but why are we sending men to Germany? Is this a new policy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the first point, Mr. Chairman, we have a considerable airlift capability. It is not yet as great as I should like to see it and it is the intention of the government to augment it in the years ahead, as was indicated in the white paper and in subsequent statements before the house.
We move a tremendous number of people each year and much equipment. To keep the forces at maximum potential they are exercised regularly in the movement of personnel and equipment. That is the best possible training for any real emergency. Our peak load period is in the summer and we fly across the ocean large numbers of servicemen and their dependants on rotation. We try to do as much as possible of this in the summer


to meet the need of dependants to move between school years. Our requirement for airlift capability is much larger during the two summer months than at any other time of the year and each year we have had to augment that capability by hiring commercial carriers to move cadets and, in some instances, militia men. Mostly cadets have been moved by such commercial carriers. That is because larger numbers of people are moved in the summer than at other times of the year and our total capabilities are strained.
In respect of those who are being taken overseas, I should like to give the hon. member a definitive answer. From my experience they are taken by the regular R.C.A.F. overseas flights. Our men go over there for precisely the same reason, in reverse, that the British send troops to Canada. It is to exercise them in a different environment and to increase their total military training. We are taking advantage of this excellent opportunity this year to a greater extent than in previous years. Selected individuals are to be taken to exercise with the regular forces in Germany during manoeuvres. This is first class training for the individuals selected and gives a real incentive to militia units to have in their ranks and at appropriate levels of training individuals who can be so employed. We think that as a result of this we shall obtain a better utilization of the reserve forces as potential reinforcements in case of emergency. That is why we are doing it.
Keeping the brigade in Europe at full strength is a high priority, but that is not the reason for moving the men over there. It is true that some of the jobs that the reservists do over there are marginal and might otherwise have to be done by men who would need to be sent over to do them. Primarily, the reservists are sent over so they can participate in an environment which would otherwise not be available to them.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand that the men have a tremendous opportunity for training. I ask the minister whether the 300 men are being sent to Germany to bring our brigade over there up to full strength. Would the brigade be below strength without them?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The brigade is close to full strength, though it probably is not at 100 per cent full strength. It is slightly less than that, which is normal.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the 300 militia men bring it up to strength?
July 6, 1967	COMMONS


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps it would be better if I obtained the figures.


Harold Edward Winch: I wish to know whether the 300 militia men who are going to Germany will bring the brigade up to full strength. I understand that that is why the men are going over.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The 300 men are not going over for that purpose. They are going for a short period which is to be devoted primarily to training.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, if I may return to the matter of information about details of the capital equipment of the forces, the minister gave us a breakdown of three major items under vote 15 as they appear on page 318. I asked on June 22 as well as today for a breakdown of those items appearing on page 319 as they relate to capital items under the various commands. It is all very well to say that we are to have so many ships, tanks and aircraft, the kinds of aircraft they are to be, and so on and so forth, but how are these being allocated in the commands? So far there has been a great silence in this regard. I should like to see a breakdown in reasonable detail of the capital expenditures as they appear on page 319.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In his earlier replies this afternoon the minister gave the figures with regard to recruitment. I wonder whether, particularly with regard to the men, any of these figures include re-engagement. Is recruiting deemed to include re-engagement?
There is a third point I should like to draw to the minister's attention. I refer him to a series of questions which appears in Hansard at page 1826. I asked for an explanation of what is happening with respect to subclauses 3 and 4 of clause 6 of Bill C-243. Although the act has not yet been proclaimed, I want to know whether the six months notice is now being generally applied throughout the services in respect of every man who wishes to retire ahead of time.
I wonder also whether the minister is in a position to tell us the conditions of retirement under clause 6 (3) when the act is proclaimed. The hon. minister will remember that when the bill was being studied by the committee he undertook that any regulations of general application under the act would be referred back to the defence committee for determination, particularly as they concerned the implications of a single service.
DEBATES	2327
Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To answer the last question first, the regulations at the present time with respect to retirement are precisely as they were when I outlined them during the unification debate. There has been no change since then.
There is one additional breakdown I can give the hon. member, the one requested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. It is as follows: Armoured fighting vehicles, armoured personnel carriers, the M-113A1 command post carrier, M-557A1, and the cargo carrier M-548A1, $4 million. Command and reconnaisance armoured vehicles, $5 million. Howitzers, medium, self-propelled, 115mm, M109, $500,000. General purpose armoured vehicles, $5 million. Total, $14,500,000, an increase of $1,342,000 over the estimates of the previous year.


Harold Edward Winch: I have tried not to be absent from the house both today and on June 22 when I believe these estimates first came up for consideration. I hope I have not missed anything, but in case I have there is one question to which I would appreciate a definitive answer today, even if it is repetitive.
The minister and the associate minister will remember that in all the long discussions we had in the defence committee on the *unification bill there was one phase of the program which caused much concern. This concern arose from the necessity of making regulations and passing orders in council consequent upon the unification measure, and the minister told us it would take a few months to draw up the regulations and the orders in council which were required. As I understood the situation, the minister undertook that once the required regulations and orders in council had been completed they would be submitted to the defence committee. I should like to know whether they will be submitted to the committee prior to proclamation when the house reconvenes after the recess or whether they will be submitted to the committee only after they have become faits accompli. I think it would be most interesting to members of the committee if they could be told what is in the mind of the minister relative to these regulations and in particular to the orders in council required under the unification act.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The undertaking was to refer them to the committee after they had been promulgated. This was made clear by the hon. member for Edmonton West.
2328	COMMONS DEBATES	July 6, 1967
Supply-National Defence


Harold Edward Winch: The minister's answer leads to in the white paper and which have been my next question. May we take it for granted reiterated by the government from time to then, since we shall be dealing with these time. At no time have I found anything inmatters as faits accompli, that if the defence consistent between what he has said and the committee feels changes should be made their government policy. I must admit that the em-recommendations will receive the careful and, phasis which has been placed on some of his I hope, the favourable consideration of the speeches in the newspapers tends to give a minister? Otherwise, why produce them?	different slant to the policy.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They will certainly receive careful and sympathetic consideration. This is what the hon. gentleman would expect.
There is another summary I could give of the types of equipment by commands, but perhaps that could wait until eight o'clock in view of the fact that it is now so close to six. Would it be possible to pass item 1, Mr. Chairman?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Not yet. I asked the minister whether he would confirm or deny the statement made in public by the chief of the general staff that the present defence policy of the government has a mobile peace force as its goal. Will he confirm or deny that statement? To my mind it is in conflict with what the minister told us in his policy statement of June 22.
I should also like to ask the minister whether there is any foundation for the statement which appeared in the papers not long ago that the Department of National Defence intended to acquire land in the Bahamas or the West Indies either by purchase or by leasing for the training of Canadian troops. If so, would the minister table the names of those with whom he has been negotiating in connection with this project? The minister looks at me with some amazement, but I have seen two articles in the press indicating that this is a possibility. I understand an approach has been made by certain people in the Bahamas and I ask him to confirm or deny this rumour.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On more than one occasion the chief of the defence staff has sent me copies of the speeches he has made and the impression given by this speech is quite different from that conveyed in the newspapers and quite different from that received by the hon. member, it would appear, in the instance he mentioned this afternoon. It is always a problem in reporting to put into balance various points which are made in a speech, and I have no doubt that the hon. member has experienced this difficulty.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The chief of the defence staff in his speeches sets out the same general policy and the same general procedures that are set out


John (Jack) McIntosh: They quote his statements.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, but they quote them out of context or do not quote sufficient of his remarks so that they are in proper context with exactly what he has said. So I say that in his speeches he reflects the policy of the government which still is, as set out in the white paper, to maintain forces for the support of our alliances, for the defence of Canada, for United Nations peace keeping activities as required and in accordance with the general priorities which are set out in the white paper. Therefore there really is no inconsistency whatsoever, except perhaps in respect of the weight or emphasis which some newspapers have placed on other aspects of it.
So far as the second question is concerned, to the best of my knowledge we have neither purchased nor leased any land in the West Indies. We did carry out exercises there last winter on land which is owned, I believe, by the United States government. There is no plan of which I know to lease land. There is, however, great interest in the West Indies with the idea that the relations of the Canadian armed forces with those countries will not only continue but also be built up and perhaps increased in the years ahead. This is a matter for study as we try to augment the capability of our forces to respond to any situations which may arise in the years ahead.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 1 carry?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the associate minister promised that at eight o'clock tonight he would have the reply to my question. I should not like this vote to carry before I receive the reply.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, it would not jeopardize the answer if the hon. lady would agree that the associate minister give the answer during consideration of the remainder of the items.


Winona Grace MacInnis: There may be other questions which hon members might wish to ask arising out of the answer.
July 6, 1967


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I realize that by unanimous consent the house has agreed to forgo private members' hour today and tomorrow. I understand, however, that there is urgency in respect of two private bills to incorporate mutual insurance companies which have been approved by the Senate. They are orders Nos. 4 and 5 on page 22 of the order paper and I understand there is unanimous consent to allow them to pass today. I would ask, therefore, that we proceed now to deal with these two private bills.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member is requesting that I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day?


Michael Starr: Yes.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows:	The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), Criminal Code-proposed amendment respecting representation by counsel; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), The Canadian economy-sugar

increase in price; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), Housing-suggested change in formula to determine mortgage rates.
Yesterday an order of the house was passed to the effect that the hour for the consideration of private members' business today would be suspended. I understand there has been some agreement in the house in respect of the request of the hon. member for Ontario that by unanimous consent we now proceed with consideration of the two bills the hon. member has mentioned. I should like to remind hon. members of the context of standing order 102. However, there is no objection on the part of the Chair if there is unanimous consent that we proceed. Is there unanimous consent that the house proceed with the consideration of these two bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to raise any objection to the procedure which has been suggested. I understand, however,
Private Bills
that Your Honour has referred to an agreement which has been arrived at. I should like to say that so far as I am aware no contact has been made with our group in this connection.


Michael Starr: I understood from the sponsors of the bills that they had spoken to representatives of all parties. If that is not the case, then I apologize. It is an oversight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the intention of the house to proceed with private members' business for the purpose of considering Bills S-12 and S-13 which appear as items Nos. 4 and 5 on today's order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: the second reading of Bill No. S-12, to incorporate Western Farmers Mutual Insurance Company.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the understanding of the Chair that we should deal with both bills at the same time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FARMERS CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. John Loney (Bruce) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-13, to incorporate Farmers Central Mutual Insurance Company.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, this is a procedure which is new to me. Is it all right to deal with two bills at the same time in committee?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I may say to the hon. member for Vancouver East that there is a procedure provided for this purpose, although it is not used very often. There is nothing irregular in the procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to, bills read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.
July 6. 1967

Supply-National Defence



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 part 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.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Pursuant to an order of the house passed yesterday I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of National Defence, Vote No. 1.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, will the minister reply to my question now?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, just before the supper adjournment the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway raised a question regarding the attachment of pay, allowances and pensions for alimony purposes. According to the Queen's Regulations and Orders, article 207.02(2):
When there is in effect an order or decree enforceable under the laws of Canada or any province thereof requiring payment to be made by an officer or man in respect of the support, care or maintenance of his wife or former wife or any legitimate or illegitimate child, the commanding officer may order a monthly compulsory allotment of pay as prescribed in (3) of this article.
[The Chairman.]
Section (3) of this article states:
The compulsory pay allotment shall consist of such portion of the pay of the officer or man, not exceeding the amount of the order or decree, as the commanding officer from time to time thinks fit, but no such compulsory pay allotment shall, in any month, exceed an amount equal to ten days pay of the officer or man.
So an active service officer or man can be required to support his dependants. Further this article states in section (9):
When there is no order or decree in effect but it has been represented to the Chief of the Defence Staff that an officer or man has deserted or is otherwise without reasonable cause failing to maintain his wife or any child under the age of 16, the Chief of the Defence Staff may order deductions to be made from the pay of the officer or man in the manner and subject to the limits prescribed in (2) and (3) of this article.
With respect to those officers on pension, the hon. lady will find in section 14, appendix 22, of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act-and I am quoting subsection (2)-the following:
Where any court in Canada of competent jurisdiction has made an order requiring a recipient to pay an amount to his spouse, former spouse, child or other dependant and the court has issued to the minister a notice, in the form prescribed by the regulations, requesting on behalf of the recipient that there be paid to the person named in the order an amount specified in the notice, the amount so specified or any lesser amount specified by the minister shall, if the minister so directs, be deducted either in a lump sum or in instalments from any amount that is or is about to become payable to the recipient under this act, and shall be paid to the person named in the order.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it appears that in both these cases, if a court order is obtained it would be applied within the regulations and orders of the Canadian Armed Forces. In the case of diversion of pension under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, it is the current policy not to divert more than 50 per cent. Under the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act a court order is not necessary. The matter is investigated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the minister acts on their recommendation.
Finally I should like to deal with the question that the Judge Advocate General's department provides legal help for the Canadian Armed Forces. I am informed by the Judge Advocate General that the Judge Advocate General simply informs the serviceman of the legal implications of any order but does not appear in court on the serviceman's behalf. If I may be permitted to create a pun, the legal officers of the Judge Advocate General's department advise the serviceman to get a lawyer. I think this answer should satisfy the concern expressed by the hon. lady.
July 6, 1967


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for his very careful and comprehensive reply. It would appear to me that the lawyers and ladies in question were unaware of the possibilities open to them. I shall lose no opportunity to convey to them what the minister has said, because it would be a misfortune if an organization were formed by these women to get something if they are able to get it by applying under the act. Unless there are circumstances of which I do not know, it should certainly be possible for them to obtain the redress they are seeking. I thank the associate minister for his reply.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: If I may say so
in respect of these people, it is both unfortunate and unnecessary.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a follow-up question to that asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I admit that in 14 years I have had only two such cases, but I should like to ask the associate minister a question in this respect. I ask the question because the associate minister has said that the authority of the commanding officer is governed by the word "may" and the authority of N.H.Q. also includes the word "may". I took particular note of this. The commanding officer or N.H.Q. "may" order such a deduction.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Upon occasion, and particularly the two I have in mind, the payment of alimony was not a legal requirement, and yet the officer or O.R. still has to bear the responsibility. I understand the decision of the department is to apply the permissive policy to everyone from the commanding officer to the N.H.Q. I should therefore like to ask as to the position or the policy of the department with regard to this?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: From my experience the word "may" is more than permissive because every time I have come across a case like that, alimony is deducted.


Harold Edward Winch: So the minister's opinion is that although the word "may" is used all the way through the regulations, it really means "shall". Is that his experience?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: That is my understanding, in practical terms.


Mr. Davis:: I should like to ask the minister a few questions having to do with the disposal of property owned by the Department of National Defence on the west coast. However,

Supply-National Defence first I would like to compliment him, in view of the criticism which he has received today from the other side of the house, on the businesslike way in which he has been running his department. Over the last five years our national income has risen from roughly $40 billion to $60 billion. In other words it has gone up 50 per cent. We have seen expenditures on many fronts go up by comparable amounts. On the other hand, the expenditures of the Department of National Defence have been kept constant. Five years ago they were $1.7 billion a year, that is for the year 196364, and this year 1967-68, they are estimated to be the same amount, that is $1.7 billion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But what is the size of our forces?


John (Jack) Davis: In other words, our outlay on defence as a percentage of the national income has gone down from more than 4 per cent in 1963 to about 3 per cent in 1967. Considerable evidence meanwhile has been presented both in the house and in the committees of the house, that the effectiveness of our armed forces has been substantially increased. So I would say that for the same number of dollars-dollars with a declining purchasing value-to get a greater value in terms of defence in this country is no mean accomplishment.
I would like to deal more specifically with property owned by the Department of National Defence and then say a word about the disposal of lands which have been acquired by the department over the years. I understand that under the present minister a new policy was instituted. It was instituted a few years ago and it gave a real incentive to the members of the armed forces with authority over supply to get rid of surplus supplies, to sell off land that the Department of National Defence no longer required, and to dispose of inventories, out-dated materiel, ammunition, equipment, etc.
The policy was that the Department of National Defence would itself receive and keep the funds which resulted from selling off these surplus properties. In other words, the officers responsible for the administration and disposal of surplus materials, land and so on, could count on having this money put back into the coffers of the defence department and not paid over to the Receiver General of Canada.
This was a revolutionary idea because prior to that time there was no real incentive for the defence department, particularly for
2332	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence those in the armed forces, to dispose of land, equipment etc., they merely accumulated and maintained them, guarded them and watched them deteriorate. In the last few years we have seen the disposal of a substantial amount of property which was deteriorating, and which otherwise would have deteriorated to no value whatsoever.
In my own particular riding there was a large ordnance depot. I would put its present value at around $3 million. It was built in 1944 for naval stores and it continued to be filled with the same naval stores as were put into it in 1945. When the present minister took over in 1963 it was like a naval museum with guards but no one was allowed to see it. This materiel it contained was promptly disposed of under the new policy. It was turned over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, and subsequently sold to the National Harbours Board. This property, on the waterfront in Vancouver, is now earning an income of the order of $300,000 a year. So instead of being a liability, it is a source of revenue to the people of Canada. This is the kind of policy, the kind of businesslike thinking and the kind of management which we need not only in our private affairs but also in the affairs of the government.
There are one or two other properties in my riding which I would like to see disposed of, one of them being a rifle range. It is located on 500 acres which used to be a long way out in the bush. Subsequently a $20 million bridge was built across the Vancouver harbour, almost to the doorstep of this property. These 500 acres suddenly became extremely valuable.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the hon. member referring to the Blair rifle range?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, the Blair rifle range in north Vancouver. Residential properties of considerable value are building up around this range. Roughly a third of the Blair range land has been cleared. Occasionally the clearing is used as a rifle range, but the rest is still covered with trees. I urge that the Department of National Defence turn all of this property over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, in effect sell it to the highest bidder, and with part of the proceeds buy other land farther away and develop a comparable rifle range, if one is required.
I have corresponded with the defence department concerning this matter. I was told it is prepared to consider this proposal and that shortly it will be sending out one of its appraisers to look at this land with a

DEBATES	July 6, 1967
view to selling it for residential purposes. The district of north Vancouver has already zoned this property. It is an ideal property for residential construction. My own estimate of the value of these 500 acres is $3,000 an acre, so that it should be worth at least $1 million. The national defence department would have at least $1 million in hand with which, I am sure, they could buy several other rifle ranges. Let us hope they can get one other rifle range with a fraction of that money, put the rest back in the kitty-thus reducing the sum total of new taxation required to pay our defence bill.
I should like to speak now about another property which is a classic case. It is on Jericho beach in the Vancouver area occupied by the Department of National Defence. Jericho Beach is on the north side of Point Grey and forms part of the outer harbour in Vancouver. It is one of the finest recreational areas in Canada, located near an area referred to as Spanish Banks, where early Spanish explorers first dropped anchor. They dropped anchor there because it was an ideal location. There are miles and miles of sandy beach there. When the tide goes out, the beach runs out half a mile. It looks across at the coast range, which is snow capped, and into the downtown area of Vancouver. It is a beautiful spot. Yet, right in the centre of that long beach there is a defence base. The defence base is located there because originally it was a seaplane base. During world war II the Department of National Defence bought out a handsome golf course and several expensive homes in that area. They bought approximately 154 acres. Ever since the beginning of world war II there has been a defence base bisecting the beach there, requiring everyone travelling along Marine drive in Vancouver to circumvent this area of 154 acres. What is there now? The golf course went to rack and ruin. Gigantic hangars were built in the early 1940's and paint is now peeling off them. There are only a few hundred men in uniform there now. According to a recent editorial in one of the Vancouver papers, the area is now being used as a supply depot by the construction engineers detachment, transportation section, supply section, and maintenance subsection. Basically this is a supply depot for the army base at Chilliwack which is approximately 100 miles away.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This waterfront land is extremely valuable. It is land which politician after politician,
July 6. 1967

elected member after elected member from the Vancouver area has said should properly revert to the people of Vancouver to be developed for recreational purposes. The Department of National Defence or some other department of the Canadian government can keep part of the property, the highlands. However, a wide strip along the waterfront should be turned over to the city of Vancouver. I suggest that after these many years all of the waterfront area should be turned over to the city of Vancouver at no cost.
What does the city of Vancouver do in return? I suggest that the city of Vancouver might well rezone the remaining acreage, the highland, for multiple housing, for apartments, essentially high density residential purposes. What happened during the previous administration? Hon. Howard Green was the member for that area and he promised many times to have it turned over to the city. Instead of that the highlands were built upon by the Department of National Defence. We have now a number of small brick boxes, homes obviously designed for eastern winters, placed on land which would otherwise have been available for homes of many times their value.
This area should certainly be developed for high density residential purposes. I know there have been discussions from time to time between the city fathers in Vancouver and members of parliament, between the mayors of Vancouver and successive ministers of national defence. I know that the present minister has had a study carried out in respect of the land values. I hope he will give sympathetic consideration to the division of this land so that all of the waterfront between the sea and a new rerouted marine drive will give the city of Vancouver an area to be developed for recreational purposes. The rest of the land, given an agreement from the city, would then be rezoned and developed for other purposes.
I know the people of Vancouver would be overjoyed if this were to happen. I know every second person visiting Vancouver, perhaps every person visiting Vancouver during the summer months, would drive along a marine drive which was not cut up by an ugly property owned by the Department of National Defence. The buildings are run down and a substantial acreage has simply gone to seed.
I might mention that the waterfront itself is unused at the moment, except by some 20 officers who have pleasure boats there. Close by the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club, with 27053-148
Supply-National Defence literally hundreds of members, exists on a fraction of the waterfront area owned by the Department of National Defence.
I suggest to the minister that if he would apply his policy of selling oft surplus property, of selling off the upland property, he will recover far more than the original investment of a paltry $325,000. Perhaps he will recover several millions of dollars. In the meantime the people of Vancouver, and indirectly the people of Canada, will get a recreational area four or five miles long on what is probably the most glorious waterfront in all of Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we, the members of parliament from Vancouver proper, appreciate the great interest and the remarks of our colleague from North Vancouver. May I, in making a very brief comment, draw the attention of the Minister of National Defence and the associate minister to the fact that when they consider what shall be done with Blair range they base their considerations not on disposal but on the fact this is a rifle range? I speak as a result of being a training officer for some four years for the Irish Fusiliers, second battalion, Vancouver regiment. This is not just a rifle range. It was a range for submachine guns, light machine guns and three-inch mortars. If you are considering getting rid of the Blair range, and perhaps you should, keep in mind the reserve militia regiments of Vancouver, North Vancouver, New Westminster, Burnaby and Fraser valley. They all require training facilities. I plead with the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, not to sell it for a million dollars; it is worth a lot more than that. Do not sell it until proper arrangements have been made for training facilities right from rifles through submachine guns to light machine guns and three-inch mortars. There is no purpose served by trying to train a person in an armoury in the use of these weapons. You must have an actual firing range in the immediate area.
Now, that is all I am going to say about the Blair range. I want to thank the hon. member for what he had to say. I am sure every member from Vancouver supports him in respect of the Jericho area which, in one area alone, is owned by the Department of National Defence. I just want to add this, sir, because it is my home. There is only one block which prevents a complete beach area from Spanish Banks to Jericho, around Kit-silano, around False Creek, English Bay, First, Second and Third Beaches, around
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence Stanley Park until you hit Coal Harbour entrance. This is a most fantastic area with only one block, the Jericho Beach area, preventing a complete waterfront drive. As pointed out by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, every citizen of Vancouver, the city council and the parks board are asking for some arrangement whereby we might have a complete marine drive from Spanish Banks. We need this beach area, this promenade area, for Vancouver. According to the latest figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics it will not be long before the population of metropolitan Vancouver will reach one million.
The history of the United States indicates that they did not save beach or park areas and it has cost them millions to reclaim them. We are not asking, as the hon. member said, for something for nothing. We in Vancouver do not want that area for nothing. All we want is a 99 year lease at $1 a year. We are prepared to pay for it. I will pay for the 99 year lease myself at $1 a year if the department will agree to it. There is a little difference between the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and me. He said that the department could make millions out of the beach area at Jericho for high rise buildings. I plead with the minister not to have a high rise development because we need a park area. This land is at the foot of our university area, between the university and the residential area of Kitsilano. It should be a beach and park area.
I know there have been negotiations with the associate minister in respect of this matter. Although there may be a little differentiation as to details, in view of the inquiry tonight by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, supported by all hon. members from Vancouver, before this vote is put through can the associate minister tell the committee what consideration is being given to the request that this beach area should be leased for 99 years at $1 per annum to complete the entire marine drive around that beautiful paradise of British Columbia, Vancouver?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the associate minister has suggested that I reply because I was here the other day when a consultant whom we had engaged to look at the North Jericho area was in Ottawa and reported to us.
I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and also what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East, and they will of course be taken into consideration. I am sure that these hon. gentlemen

will be pleased to know that some months ago we did engage a consultant to draw up a plan for the redevelopment of the entire North Jericho area. He has recently reported to us his suggestions how this might best be carried out.
A couple of days ago I wrote the mayor and said that I would be pleased to meet with the mayor and his council, perhaps in Vancouver later this summer, in order to discuss with them the report that we have received and to engage in negotiations as to how we implement the report, or something along those lines.
I should like to see this project go forward because I think it could be an outstanding redevelopment project. I should like to save the city of Vancouver the dollar and the legal fees for the beach area by offering some more realistic plan which would make available to them the area most needed for parkland in exchange for rezoning some of the other surplus lands which we could then dispose of. This would reimburse us for the loss which would accrue in the disposition of the property. I can assure the hon. members that if the city of Vancouver is as reasonable as the department of defence is prepared to be, we should be able to reach agreement on this project and to trigger what should become an outstanding and really wonderful development of the North Jericho area.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Two very brief comments, Mr. Chairman. The first relates to national defence headquarters. I submit to the minister that he ought to use all the influence which he has with the Minister of Public Works in order to commence the development of national defence headquarters as soon as possible. We have lost a great deal by having delayed as long as we have. I blame not the present government any more than any previous administration, but the time to get out of the old buildings in Cartier square has long since passed. The development of the new national defence headquarters should take place as quickly as possible. Every day that goes by is going to cost a great deal of additional money to the people of Canada, and we should proceed with the greatest possible expedition.
The second matter about which I want to comment is the thrill that so many people experienced on seeing the display yesterday on parliament hill. It was a wonderful show, with Her Majesty the Queen and all the colour of the uniforms there. This indicates to us that within our human hearts there is
July 6, 1967	COMMONS
something that has an appeal that is not going to be satisfied by a simple green uniform.
I want to put to the hon. gentleman, the Minister of National Defence, tonight, that he should not abandon all the traditions of the individual units. I speak for example of the P.L.D.G.'s, the Princess Louise Dragoon Guards, which had such a great reputation in this community that you and I represent, Mr. Chairman. I hope that some of this tradition which we saw yesterday on parliament hill will be retained because if it is not retained we will not have the type of nation during the next 100 years which all of us so much desire.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think I should reply at once to those two suggestions, and I should like to deal with the second one first. Both the associate minister and myself have said on numerous occasions, to the point where it should now be clear to anyone willing to listen or believe, that we have no intention of doing away with the regimental dress uniforms. It is planned to keep them. Indeed this has been in the plan from the time that the idea of a unified force was first conceived.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No-you have changed your mind.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It has not been changed at any time and I can show the hon. gentleman the record on that.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask the minister a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, you may.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Time and time again the minister has made that same statement in the house, with the exception that in his original statement to the house he said that there would be no change until such time as unification takes place. The word he used was "until". What does he mean by that? He said there would be no change.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry, but I do not follow that question, Mr. Chairman. The policy which was enunciated right from the beginning was that the regimental system would remain and that regimental full dress would be retained. There has never been any deviation whatever in this policy, right from the outset.
I should warn my hon. friend that if he looks back to the uniforms of 20 or 30 years ago he will find there have been changes in regimental full dress since then, and I would 27053-1481
DEBATES	2335
Supply-National Defence not want to bind future generations to the precise details of regimental dress. But so far as the colour, pageantry and tradition are concerned, they remain, and there is no reason that they should not. We came quite consciously to the conclusion that one would always have for ceremonies like the one we enjoyed on the hill yesterday the variety of colour and uniforms which would add to the occasion in this kind of thrilling military ceremony.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question for clarification. Perhaps I have a different understanding from those to my right, but it was my understanding in the defence committee and in this house that when the minister spoke of a common uniform he was speaking only of a walking out uniform, not a traditional parade uniform. Is that correct?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is quite correct. The new service dress or walking out uniform is comparable to the day to day uniform which has been worn by the three services in summer and in winter, and it replaces a number of uniforms. However, it does not replace regimental ceremonial dress, where no change is contemplated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister a question on this. The minister has now recognized the importance of distinctive regimental attire. Why does he not feel the same concern for the Royal Canadian Navy and permit its members to continue to have their distinctive attire so that they are marked off from airmen and from soldiers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In so far as ceremonial occasions are concerned, if this is deemed to be desirable there is no reason why it cannot be.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Now the minister is being vague-"if it is deemed to be desirable".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is a question of cost involved. My hon. friend will appreciate that, with the exception of the Canadian Guards, regimental full dress outfits are acquired by the regiments themselves out of regimental funds. They have deemed it desirable to acquire full regimental dress, and that is what I would have in mind.
May I now comment briefly on the defence headquarters and about the connection of the Minister of Public Works with this matter.
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence


John Angus MacLean: Before the minister proceeds to that matter may I ask him, as a supplementary question, what is to be the position of members of what used to be the Canadian navy when Canadian ships visit foreign ports? It should be remembered that the only Canadian servicemen those in foreign countries see are, or were, sailors in their distinctive naval uniforms. Around the world naval uniforms generally follow a similar pattern. It does not matter what country the sailors come from, they take pride in being recognized as sailors.
Our sailors, when visiting foreign countries-as they frequently do-become ambassadors of this country. I should like the minister to say, if he can, that when our ships visit foreign ports Canadian sailors will be able to go ashore to be recognized for what they are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have talked to quite a few sailors in the last three or four weeks who told me that in future they would be very proud to wear the Canadian service dress when they visit foreign ports.
So far as the new headquarters is concerned, I assure the hon. member for Carleton that the Minister of Public Works is as anxious as is the associate minister and as I am to see this matter go forward. Pretty well, so far, we have stuck to the schedule. As my hon. friend knows, this project has been more thoroughly planned than any other major office building has been planned in the history of the Canadian government. At the same time there is an urgency to get ahead with it. It is being actively considered at the present time by the government, and I hope that a decision may be taken shortly to proceed with the project as planned.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the minister be good enough to tell me what the time scheduling of the building is?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: From memory, the last time schedule I saw called for completion in 1972.


Richard Albert Bell: Commencing when?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have to qualify that answer, because it depends on the contract. If it is a fixed price contract the commencement is likely to be later than if separate contracts are let for separate parts of the building.


Richard Albert Bell: When does the minister expect tenders will be called?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not sooner than one year from now, or perhaps two years from now, depending on the type of contract that is approved.


Richard Albert Bell: Why is there such a long delay?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Considerable detailed work has to be done in the plans for the building -these are the working drawings. If a fixed price contract is decided on by the government it will require about one year's additional detailed work before tenders can be called. The time involved is approximately of that order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister leaves that question, may I raise a point? Was he leaving that question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That question, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before he leaves that question may I ask whether the plans for the new national defence headquarters, and particularly the height of the building, have been
reconsidered? As the minister knows, some of us registered an objection to a building which would be higher than the peace tower on parliament hill being built close to these parliament buildings.


Richard Albert Bell: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether the height of the building has been reconsidered?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: After the objection was raised the matter was reconsidered. Nevertheless, following consultations with some of the best site architects on this side of the water, and on the other, it was concluded that the building is sufficiently removed from parliament hill that it will not interfere in any way with the skyline. In fact, it will enhance the skyline, particularly from the Hull side, the Interprovincial bridge and the Macdonald-Cartier bridge. The present plan is to proceed with the building, as designed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has expressed an opinion with which some of us may disagree. Have we yet voted the money for this building?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, not yet. My hon. friend at the requisite time will have another opportunity to state his views on this matter. He appreciates, I expect, that there are as many views about architecture and town planning as there are people involved with respect to
July 6, 1967	COMMONS
those matters. We obtained the best professional advice that we could get. The consensus was that the new defence headquarters, as they have been planned, will enhance the skyline of Ottawa considerably and will be pleasing aesthetically.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Granted that there are many views; but is it not also admitted that the final decision on the matter should be that of parliament? Should parliament not be heard before the matter is made final?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Parliament will have that opportunity. We cannot begin construction until the funds are voted. That will be parliament's opportunity to approve or disapprove of the existing plans.


Thomas Miller Bell: When the minister said that he had obtained opinions from architects on this side of the water, I was not sure whether he was referring to the Ottawa river or the Atlantic.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was thinking of the Atlantic.


Thomas Miller Bell: Being more parochial than the minister, perhaps I was thinking of the other side of the river when he made that remark. I wonder if the minister will not give the assurance that the plans for the building will be submitted to the special joint committee which his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has proposed should be appointed to deal with matters affecting the national capital. I share the view that has already been expressed, that there could be considerable difficulty with a building as high as this building being built close to parliament hill. This matter, I think, should be studied by members of parliament-by the representatives of our people-before a final decision is taken.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not in a position to give that assurance. That is the prerogative of the Minister of Public Works-if I am correct in assuming that the Department of Public Works will ask parliament to vote the money for this building.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister not recommend the view I have expressed to his colleague?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I shall be glad to refer it to him for his consideration. Perhaps I ought to
DEBATES	2337
Supply-National Defence say that the requests of my two hon. friends, in a sense, are conflicting, as plans have reached the stage where any redesign might entail considerable delay, with resulting escalated costs. I added that remark by way of caveat so that my hon. friends will not overlook the contradictions in their suggestions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Carleton that this question be referred to the joint committee for study? I realize that parliament has the final say and that we have not yet voted the money. However, I have not seen many occasions when parliament has turned down a vote for money that was placed before it. When that point is reached, when we are asked to vote money, the die is pretty well cast.
The minister will recognize, from opinions which have been expressed here tonight, that the opinion I happen to hold is shared by many other hon. members. I wonder whether there are not already too many high structures close to these parliament buildings to spoil the skyline of this city. Some are private structures and should not have been permitted to be as high as they are.


Richard Albert Bell: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: To permit a government structure only half a mile from this building to be higher than the peace tower itself, higher indeed than the flagpole on top of the tower, is I think a mistake symbolically. Further, I think it would destroy the beauty of this setting. I urge the minister not to rely on the proposition that before construction can begin an estimate has to come before the committee of supply. In practical terms it would be too late, then, bearing in mind the way in which the house votes money. I think the suggestion that this should be studied in advance by a committee considering the whole Ottawa situation is one which the minister should recommend strongly to his colleague.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I must admit that at the outset I shared the hon. member's concern. Having looked carefully at the site plan and the model, I was reassured. This does not say that the hon. member would be reassured if he were to study them. I will certainly recommend to
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence my colleague that he consider this request. I think it is a reasonable one and I am sure he would be pleased to give it his thoughtful consideration.


Richard Albert Bell: Thank you very much.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This afternoon I undertook to put on record one further table, a breakdown of construction and equipment by commands. It is under the general heading "Capital acquisition or Construction of Building Works and Lands". The details are as follows:

tT
Capital	Maritime Com- mand	Mobile Com- mand	4 C.X.B.G.	1 Air Div.	Air Defence Com- mand	Air Trans- port Com- mand	Training Com- mand	Materiel Com- mand	Cdn. Forces Com- munica- tions System	Cdn. Force H.Q. and misc.	Reserves	Total
Acquisition or Construction of												
Buildings, Works, and Land		5,062	5,220	937	892	6,430	2,309	1,985	1,438	-	1,727	-	26,000
Equipment:												
Ships	56,819	-	-	-	-	-	45	-	-	4,286	46	61,196Armoured fighting vehicles	-	11,815	2,125	-	-	-	560	-	-	-	-	14,500Aircraft and engines	10,655	60,000	-	1,966	459	21,214	911	-	-	16	-	95,221Ground mobile equipment	1,477	3,715	719	494	2,066	1,227	1,436	1,005	-	-	-	12,139Armament equipment	1,410	2,632	1,802	68	2,205	65	385	114	2	49	701	9,433Electronic and communication	equipment	13,954	2,260	709	399	1,008	2,955	1,567	179	7,082	3,025	-	33,138Special training equipment	1,737	150	-	-	46	800	527	-	-	-	-	3,260Miscellaneous technical eqpt	7,326	1,339	418	753	1,201	446	2,088	622	83	665	190	15,131Ammunition and bombs	9,029	72	16,370	379	26	158	26	26	-	-	-	26,086Total equipment	102,407	81,983	22,143	4,059	7,011	26,865	7,545	1,946	7,167	8,041	937	270,104DEVELOPMENT	8,488	1,495	1,393	267	261	202	-	-	208	5,686	-	18,000Total, capital	115,957	88,698	24,473	5,218	13,702	29,376	9,530	3,384	7,375	15,454	937	314,104 ,
0>
o
o



o
ss
w
o

w
>
hi

Supply-National Defence
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Forreslall:: I have one brief question to ask. I apologize for not having been here this afternoon. I wonder whether the minister has touched on the broad problem, which seems to be raising its head again in Halifax, having to do with tenders called for H.M.C.S. Scotian. Can the minister enlighten us on this matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No; I did not touch on that, Mr. Chairman. I have no up to date information on it of which I am aware. There has been no change in the plans of which I know.


J. Michael Forrestall: Then there is no money in these estimates for that building program?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That project is being paid for from what we call vote 48, which is the vote in respect of the funds we have accumulated from the sale of surplus properties.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a more or less related question. Have any steps been taken to improve the efficiency of our east coast dockyards? The minister is aware that because of the peaks and valleys our naval dockyards are an efficiency expert's nightmare. I wonder whether any consideration has been given to an attempt to level out the flow of the work at the dockyards, for example in respect of the refit work, without impeding the efficiency of the fleet. Has any consideration been given to this aspect of the refit work, especially as it pertains to the east coast?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I understood the question correctly, it is this: Have any studies been made in an attempt to level out the amount of work?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the answer is yes, subject to confirmation by the members of my staff. I remember seeing a paper not too long ago which mentioned that they were attempting to cycle the refits and the other work being done in the dockyards in such a way that there would be the least tendency toward peaks and valleys in the work load, and so that there would be the maximum utilization of the personnel there.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Has any consideration been given to going back to the old system of allocation of work at the yards, particularly at Lunenburg and Liverpool, whereby they could look to the federal government for assistance in the form of refit work when their

own yards are experiencing a slack period or a period when there is a certain amount of unemployment. This is a policy which has been followed in years gone by, as I am sure the minister knows.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This really is something which comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defence Production, since it pertains to allocation of work.


Richard Albert Bell: The minister said either too much or too little in reply to the question asked by the hon. member fox Halifax. He said that this applied to what we call vote 48, and that this is the vote in respect of the funds that we have accumulated from surplus. Now, sir, surely it cannot be the funds we have accumulated from surplus. I have before me the existing vote 48, which is a one dollar item. I will not go into my views in connection with one dollar items and their legislative capacity; but surely the minister cannot say, as he has, that this is something we have accumulated from surplus. I do not think there is any right vested in the department to accumulate anything from surplus. The department must go back to parliament and obtain a vote of parliament for anything that they may have in the way of surplus. The minister either has said too much or too little.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Last year parliament did in fact grant the department the right to dispose of properties up to a value of $5 million and to use the money for other works as approved by Treasury Board. During the course of last year we did just that. We sold slightly over $5 million worth of property and are now spending that money on necessary works and buildings including H.M.C.S. Scotian. This in essence really is the good management policy which the hon. member for Coast-Capilano was talking about a few minutes ago, when he said that a system had been implemented which provided an incentive for the department to get rid of surplus stores, including lands and buildings. This is the same kind of an incentive a private corporation would have. I can assure my hon. friend that it is working exactly the way we might expect it to work. Before we had this authority there was a great reluctance on the part of the staff to dispose of anything because the revenue went back into the consolidated revenue fund. There was no benefit to the department, and if anyone could make even the slightest case for retention of the stores, lands or buildings,
July 6. 1967

or whatever it might be, it was kept in inventory.
Now, with the authority to use these funds for important projects such as the one at Halifax, the staff is trained to make an effort to declare surplus anything we really do not need and invest the money in something which will be more productive on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers.


Thomas Miller Bell: Has this been considered by the standing committee on public accounts?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the Auditor General made some comment about this last year, but I am speaking from memory.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I might make an observation here: It was discussed by the public accounts committee. If my memory serves me correctly, that committee was of the opinion that it is a good method to dispose of surplus material. The money goes into the consolidated account, but Treasury Board should have some say over how the money is spent. I think possibly Treasury Board does have some say concerning how this money which has been accumulated by the sale of excess or obsolete equipment is spent.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is quite correct; we cannot spend a cent of the money without Treasury Board approval.


Richard Albert Bell: It seems to me that there should be some special report to parliament in relation to these items.


Mr.   Johnsion@: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a brief and perhaps not unrelated question. With the completion of the plan for unification a great many badges, flashes and markings will become obsolete. Therefore their value will increase sharply. Has the department given any thought to registering or licensing legitimate collectors, and to formalizing the arrangement by which such materiel which is not actually called surplus materiel, proceeds on to the market, because although the fictitious idea is that it is destroyed, it does somehow get into the hands of dealers who thereby are able to make a profit on it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure what the details are. I believe the Queen approves the badges and there would be a crown patent in respect of them. In so far as the method of disposal is concerned, I am afraid I really

Supply-National Defence cannot say anything in that regard at this
time.
While I have the floor I might reply briefly to a question raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke when he was referring to the expenditures of the department. I should like to say to him that in principle there often is a very real fall-out, or whatever he called it-


Howard Earl Johnston: Spin-off.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -spin-off to the civilian economy from defence research development. One might think of many examples of this. Our market for turbine engines, for example, is something which is a direct derivative of defence expenditures for airplane turbine engines. Many of the developments in the electronics field fall into this category. One of the most dramatic examples is the proposed new Canadian communications satellite. At the time the Defence Research Board undertook this development there was no known defence requirement for it. Similarly there was no known commercial requirement for it; but during the course of the development, which began some years ago and is still continuing, there have arisen two requirements, one defence and one commercial.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We are very much interested in satellite communications in the defence department and we are getting real value from the development of the Defence Research Board. In addition to that there has been much discussion about Canada putting a satellite into orbit for our own communications. If we do this-and I think there is no doubt about our intention because this is something our nation should do-the technology and know-how of our experts who will implement that project will increase from the knowledge and experience they derive from these defence expenditures.
I must say there has been a great deal spent on defence research and development. I think it is fair to say there is no nation in the world which has not made expenditures for a similar purpose. We can thank many industries for the amount of experience we now have in this regard, and thank them again for the work which has been done in previous years, from which the defence department has gained.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words before vote No. 1 passes.
July 6. 1967

Supply-National Defence First let me say how proud we are in Renfrew North to have the Canadian Forces Base, Petawawa, in our area. This base is of great economic importance to my area, and its existence adds colour in many ways. We have a great deal of respect for the present camp commander, Colonel Reilander, who has upheld his position with dignity and prestige, as a result of which he has terrific public relations with the various municipalities which surround the base.
This camp was first started in 1905 and has played a very important role in the economy of the area since. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the people at the camp are very important to this area and play a major role. We must always keep this fact in mind. A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of attending the dedication ceremony of a new chapel on the base, and I should like to thank the minister and the associate minister for the interest they take in matters such as these. Not long ago there was a drowning tragedy in the Petawawa river near the base. There were 17 volunteers from the Canadian army based at Petawawa who searched the river for a distance of two miles. This type of thing certainly adds to the respect people have for our Canadian Armed Forces.
In conclusion I should like to say to the minister and the associate minister that if they have any problem in finding a location for that proposed tall D.N.D. building in the city of Ottawa, we in the Pembroke-Petawawa area will welcome it with open arms. We do not care if it is built high enough to cast a shadow on Ottawa during the course of the evening. I think the minister and his associate once again for the excellent co-operation I have received from them since coming to Ottawa as a member of parliament in respect of many items within their jurisdiction.


J. Michael Forrestall: Let me say one final word before we conclude our deliberations on vote No. 1. I should like to ask the minister to say a few words about our present armed forces voting rules. Perhaps he will indicate whether or not the department considers them adequate, or whether in view of our present day communications system there is some way that the information in respect of exercising of a franchise could be delivered in a shorter period of time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am completely dissatisfied with the present system. It has long been said that there is nothing which

can be done about it, but I do not believe that.


J. Michael Forrestall: Neither do I believe it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think if enough effort is put into solving this problem, with our present-day modern communications we can accomplish something which will mean that the federal recorded vote will be known the same night. I have this electoral situation high on my agenda of things to do during this summer recess, and I intend to meet with the chief electoral officer to see if he can come up with something to assist in accomplishing my intention. I hope to work with him in cooperation with other experts to find out how to do this, because I am convinced it can be done.


J. Michael Forrestall: Thank you very much.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to warn the hon. member for Carleton not to be taken in by the answer he received from the Minister of National Defence.


Richard Albert Bell: He has not been.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The hon. member asked a question as to whether or not there was an accumulation of surplus funds. This is a question which has been asked repeatedly by a number of critics of the present defence policy. Let me refer to the minister's speech of December 7, 1966, and his words in this regard. Before doing so I should like to say that this afternoon he was also asked whether he denies or confirms the statement made by his chief of defence staff. He got around the question by saying that members had on many occasions taken these words out of context. He did not deny or confirm these words. Nor did he deny whether the present policy of department was leaning in the direction of a peace keeping role.
In his statement to the house at the opening of our consideration of these estimates the minister left hon. members in some doubt as to his meaning. I think he forgot that some of us had attended the meetings of the committee, during which the chief of general staff made certain statements. We in the opposition were particularly anxious to examine his speech to determine what he meant by "unification". At that time he left us confused. Let me refer to several things I said at that time, beginning with the following:
We in the opposition were particularly anxious to examine this speech to determine the minister's meaning-
July 6, 1967	COMMONS
I asked the minister how the three services could be different and still be identical. I asked how the three separate service entities could be abandoned in favour of one without any change in the three services. I also asked the minister what he meant by his statement that none of these aspects would be changed by moving to a single service from three separate services. I then went on to say that I did not hesitate to reveal that after reading the minister's speech I was confused as to his intentions regarding the present services. I said it was my hope that we had found a declaration in the minister's statement that we were going to retain the three services as we have known them-the army, the navy and the air force. I said I was not sure what the situation was, but reread the statement and discovered the last paragraph under the heading "careers" in which the minister said:
One general principle should be underlined again: the combat units will retain their identity, and their specialized functions and training. It is important to state that it is not and never has been any part of the planning associated with unification to convert our servicemen to "Jack-of-all-trades". An infantry soldier will not be asked to do the job of a sailor in a fighting ship: a sailor will not be asked to fight in an infantry platoon; and a fighter pilot will not be required to drive a tank.
Under the heading "continuation of Units and Elements" we find these words:
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
At the time the new force comes into being its units and elements shall be those which then exist in the navy, army and air force.
The minister said units and elements of the force are the command entities. For example in the navy, ships and squadrons; in the army, the battalions of infantry, regiments of artillery, armoured regiments and brigades; in the air force, squadrons, wings and groups. He said all these would remain unchanged. I read that last sentence over three times. I reflected back to the minister's previous words, when he said:
None of these will be changed in moving to a single service-
There was to be no change in the organization of these force units. I began to wonder why we had been concerned about the minister's coined word "unification." I began to wonder why the large number of senior officers had resigned or taken early retirement. The minister had stated there would be no change in the three separate services. I was beginning to understand the minister. What he meant was integration at the top, in administration and supply; and as we said at 27053-1491
DEBATES	2343
Supply-National Defence that time, we agreed with the requirements for integration. We would support such a move. I was further elated when I read in the same paragraph the following statement by the minister:
This system will not be changed by reason of unification. Certainly we will continue to have infantry regiments as well as the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps and the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery.
Although a unified personnel management system will be introduced, the separate units and elements of naval, field and air force will continue to exist.
Personnel in the combat forces will continue to be identified as sailors, soldiers and airmen.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the roof fell in on me because the minister ended his sentence, after saying all those things about no change, with these words; "until the force structure within the unified force is developed." The minister said there would be no change until that time. I want to know when this force structure will be developed and when all this change will take place.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, Mr. Chairman. I should like the minister to answer that question. When does he intend that the change in the force structure shall take place?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure to what force structure the hon. gentleman is referring.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am referring to the statement the minister made on December 7. If he has his speech there he will be able to find it. The minister said there would be no change until the force structure within the unified force was developed. When is this to take place?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I explained all this once to my hon. friend and I would have thought he could have referred to what I told him and spared the committee. If he is wondering at what time, say, the drivers of the three forces will be put together in one list, I cannot say. I would say, frankly, the sooner the better, but certainly not until we have had a chance to get the regulations drawn up and promulgated. Therefore I cannot answer the hon. member specifically. But I would hope that within a few months in regard to those areas that are common in the support sections we shall be able to develop common lists and the people in those lists will know what their seniority is, and so on. This is all I was referring to, and it should not excite my
July 6, 1967

Supply-National Defence hon. friend in any way because it does not relate to the fighting units or sub-units.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre stated that too much emphasis had been placed on the administrative aspect of this department and not enough on the combat aspect. I would suggest that in view of the unhappy events that within the last two or three weeks have taken place in the Middle East, and what has happened to the peace keeping force which was there at the time, the minister should take a second look at any plan that would change the combat structure of our forces. We have time and time again warned the minister that if we cannot live up to our commitments in the collective defence of the North American continent we will place an added strain not only on our ally and good neighbour, the United States, and will be fast approaching a position of neutrality in respect of external affairs, which would be disastrous as far as Canada is concerned.
I referred this afternoon to what would happen to this country in the face of a determined aggressor. Canada is not in a position, because of its geographic location, to adopt a position of neutrality. The minister should look twice before he changes any of the combat units in being at the present time, because they may not fit into the requirements of our collective alliances. I would say again to the hon. member for Carleton that he should not be too sure that there will not be any change in the traditions of these regiments, which he mentioned in such glowing terms a few moments ago, because if this minister and his government remain in power I am quite sure the Canadian forces will in the future not be a source of pride to Canadians because of the actions taken under the guidance of the government.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
Defence services-
15. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment and development for the Canadian forces and $1,850,000 for Grants to the Town of Oromocto. $1,467,713,000.
Defence research-
Defence research board-
20. Operation and maintenance, $35,670,000.
25. Construction or aquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $8,947,000.
[Mr. Hellyer.l
30. To foster defence research in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence applied research programs, on terms and conditions approved by the treasury board, $4,500,000.
35. Research satellite program-to provide for the design and instrumentation of a series of satellites to carry out a scientific research program agreed upon jointly by the United States national aeronautical and space administration and the defence research board. $3,000,000.
Mutual aid-
45. Contributions to infrastructure and the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the transfer of defence equipment and supplies and the provision of services and facilities for defence purposes in accordance with section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, not exceeding a total of $27,076,000 including the present value of defence equipment or supplies or the cost of services made available by the Canadian forces estimated in the amount of $9,076,000 and provided by appropriations for those forces in the current and former years in respect of which, notwithstanding subsection (3) of section 3 of the said Act, no amount shall be charged to this appropriation or paid into a special account; provided by this vote, $18,000,000-
General-
43. To authorize, notwithstanding the financial Administration Act and section 11 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act, the payment into the special account in the consolidated revenue fund referred to in national defence vote 48 of the main estimates for 1965-66 of revenues received during the current and subsequent fiscal years from the sale during the current fiscal year of surplus buildings, works and land not exceeding an aggregate amount of $10,000,000, $1.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether this is the right vote under which to raise the matter I have in mind. This is a department that over the last five years has spent about $85 million per year in buying equipment, material and supplies. I realize that the department keeps a physical inventory of this equipment, but if any member of parliament should ask the Minister of National Defence to give him the value of this inventory, that is, the cost price of the inventory, the minister could not answer. The department is not keeping a dollar value of its inventory. It is only keeping a record of the physical count. This is no way to run a business. It is obsolete, it is old fashioned, and it is not good housekeeping.
To improve the situation would involve only a matter of tabulating when the equipment was bought, counting it and recording the cost price of the equipment. This record would become very valuable when the Department of National Defence turns its obsolete equipment over to Crown Assets for sale to the public. Goodness knows, the department turns over a great deal of equipment to Crown Assets because the equipment has become obsolete. If we ask Crown Assets
July 6, 1967

what this equipment cost, they cannot tell us because the Department of National Defence cannot tell them.
I ask the minister: Are you endeavouring to keep not only a physical inventory but a record of the dollar value of the inventory; and if so, at what stage is the department, and does the minister hope to have this system in operation in the near future?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman, the previous system, which we all felt to be inadequate, is being changed. We have it practically up to date at the present time and by this time next year it should be thoroughly accurate in so far as inventories are concerned, and broken down by activity within the department. We are at the moment, I think for the first time in living memory, in the process of calculating a dollar inventory value based upon cost.


Alfred Dryden Hales: It is high time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being 9.30 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to special order made Monday, June 26, 1967, to interrupt the proceedings and successively forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main estimates of the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Transport.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE General-
48. To authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act and section 11 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act, the payment into the special account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund referred to in National Defence Vote 48 of the main estimates for 1965-66 of revenues received during the current and subsequent fiscal years from the sale during the current fiscal year of surplus buildings, works and land not exceeding an aggregate amount of $10,000,000, $1.


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
50. Civil pensions and annuities as detailed in the estimates and to authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British Commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payments to their dependants of amounts equal to the amounts such dependants would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependants under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives
Supply-Health and Welfare of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organization. $9,990.
Item agreed to.
Defence construction (1951) limited-
55. Expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the construction and maintenance of defence projects on behalf of the department of national defence and procuring the construction of such other projects as are approved by treasury board, $2,350,000.
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Administration-
1.	Departmental administration including recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada pension plan and $500,000 for health grants and welfare grants, under terms and conditions approved by the treasury board, for research and demonstration activities in the field of mental retardation, $4,127,000.
Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: I should point out to the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac that the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare are passed without debate at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
Health services-
5.	Administration, operation and maintenance, and authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for prosthetic services, $7,954,800.
6.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $921,200.
Health insurance and resources-
8. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,412,500.
10. To authorize general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms of conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $40,817,720, $31,528,000.
15. To authorize hospital construction grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $29,706,601, $20,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
July 6. 1967
Supply-Transport
17. Amount to be credited to the hospital insurance supplementary fund established by national health and welfare vote 17a, Appropriation Act No. 9, 1966, for payments in respect of the cost of insured services incurred by a person who, through no fault of his own, ceased to be eligible for and entitled to insured services under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, $20,000.
Medical Services-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the total of all amounts to be paid by the Governments of the provinces and territories under agreements to be entered on terms approved by the governor in council with such Governments in respect of health assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and to residents of the Territories other than Indians and Eskimos, $37,540,000.
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including payments to hospitals and other institutions which care for Indians and Eskimos as contributions toward the construction of hospitals and related facilities, $2,812,000.
Food and drug services-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,372,000.
35. Construction or acquisition of equipment,
[Stage Direction]
Welfare services-
40.	Administration, operation and maintenance including recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada pension plan, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,103,900.
41.	Family assistance, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the treasury board, in respect of children of immigrants and settlers, $4,315,000.
45. National welfare grants-to authorize, on terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, national welfare grants to provinces and welfare agencies including schools of social work, and to individuals in the form of scholarships and fellowships, $2,500,000.

[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to.
A-Department-
1.	Departmental administration, $6,655,700.
2.	Acquisition of railway cars and other equipment, $200,000.
3.	Reimbursement of the department of transport working capital advance for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $100,000.
Marine services-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, pensions, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act and, in respect of the Canadian coastguard service, authority to make recoverable advances for transportation, stevedoring [The Chairman.]
and other shipping services performed on behalf of individuals, outside agencies and other governments and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $28,456,100, $52,921,000.
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land, vessels and equipment including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, $50,387,700.
Railways and steamships-
15. Payments to the Canadian national railway company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1967 in respect of the following:
(i)	Canadian national railways system, (subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund):
(ii)	Ferry services:
Newfoundland ferry and terminals; Prince Edward Island ferry and terminals and Yarmouth, N.S.-Bar Harbour, Maine, U.S.A., $36,397,600.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land, dock and terminal facilities, including improvements to terminal facilities owned by Newfoundland, and of vessels and related equipment as listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects, $24,527,000.
25. Payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, payments to provinces as contributions to assist highway construction related to the abandonment of railway branch lines, grants in aid of transportation research to universities and such other organizations as may be approved by the treasury board, and payments for supplemental pension allowances to railway employees, subject to the terms specified in the subvote titles listed in the details of the estimates, $16,247,100.
Air services-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder and the administration of the Radio Act and regulations issued thereunder, $118,888,000.
35. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport) and related facilities, contributions towards construction done by local or private authorities with respect to such airports; amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act, and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed for airports and other ground services a total amount of $37,240,000, for radio aids to air and marine navigation a total amount of $15,273,000, and for meteorological services a total amount of $3,189,500, $47,253,000.
July 6, 1967
[Stage Direction]


40. Grants, contributions, subsidies and other payments as detailed in the estimates, Canada's share of the cost of the international radio, telephone and telegraph organizations listed in the details of the estimates and Canada's assessment for membership in the world meteorological organization, $3,493,200.
B-Air transport board-
50. Salaries and other expenses, $1,000,000.
52. Payment of operating subsidies as approved by the treasury board to regional air carriers, $3,000,000.
C-Board of transport commissioners for Canada- 55. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,833,300.
57. Amount to be credited to the railway grade crossing fund, in addition to the amount to be credited to the fund under the Railway Act in the current fiscal year, for the general purposes of the fund and, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to authorize the making of commitments totalling $43,967,000 (in addition to any commitments in respect of which amounts are appropriated under this or any other act) in the current and subsequent fiscal years, $10,000,000.
D-Canadian maritime commission-
60. Administration of the commission and the degaussing of Canada government ships and Canadian-owned merchant ships of 3,000 gross tons to 20,000 gross tons, of Canadian registry or of United Kingdom registry if subject to re-transfer to Canadian registry under special inter-governmental arrangement, $405,000.
65. Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $9,727,000.
E-National harbours board-
70. Payments to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet reconstruction and capital expenditures during the calendar year 1967 as detailed in the estimates, $5,880,000.
75. Payment to the national harbours board to be applied in payment of the deficit (exclusive of interest on advances authorized by parliament and depreciation on capital structures) expected to be incurred in the calendar year 1967 in the operation of the Jacques Cartier bridge, Montreal harbour, $473,600.
F-St. Lawrence seaway authority-
80. Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority with the approval of the governor in council, and to authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, the disbursement by the authority of revenue derived from the operation and management of such canals and works, $2,370,000.
85. Payment to the St. Lawrence seaway authority, upon application approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the authority to the Minister of Finance, to reimburse the authority in respect of the Welland canal deficit incurred by the authority during the calendar year 1967, $9,925,000.
G-Atlantic development board-
90. Administration and operation, $2,663,000.
Ways and Means
Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation- L100. Loan to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $6,600,000.
National harbours board-
L105. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1967 on any or all of the following accounts: reconstruction and capital expenditures-[DOT]
Belledune	$ 3,300,000
Trois Rivieres	 531,000
Montreal	 16,708,000
Vancouver	 16,788,000
37,327,000
Less-Amount to be expended from
replacement and other funds ..	6,531,000
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
L110. Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve. $45,500,000.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

Edgar John Benson: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten to the chair.


Edgar John Benson: Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1968, the sum of $2,450,967,350.24 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, before
the resolution is agreed to-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I doubt there can be any debate at this particular time.


Thomas Miller Bell: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, we have a right to comment in the committee of ways and means, and I only want to put one simple question to the President of the Treasury Board. I wish to ask him whether he would facilitate proceedings by agreeing to increase the amount by only a small amount in order to provide increases for retired civil servants.

July 6. 1967
Ways and Means


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, in reply to this question, and with due deference to my hon. friend, I will say that I do not think this is a matter to be debated at this time. However, I can assure him that the government has as much or more concern for retired civil servants as anyone else in this house. This is a matter which requires careful consideration by the government, as I have explained previously, and after due consideration the government will bring forth its proposals in this regard.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I must point out to the
house that the Chair is attempting to follow the direction given to the Chair by the order of the house made on June 26, which was to put successively every question relating to the supply of the departments concerned. It is the interpretation of the Chair that it is the duty of the Chair to put these questions now.


Thomas Miller Bell: The order said
"successively" but it did not say "without debate", and there is nothing in this resolution which says that it shall be put without debate. I venture to suggest that this house could go on indefinitely under the terms of this resolution. I have no intention of pursuing the matter further but I suggest that debate cannot be guillotined in this way.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Perhaps the hon. member for Carleton would permit me to differ with him at this particular time, but as I read the instructions given to the Chair-and the Chair is in the hands of the house-the order of the house made on June 26 was that every question shall successively be put forthwith. The Chair interprets that order of the house as meaning that all the questions dealing with the estimates of the department concerned should be put now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-146 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1968.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the bill has been printed?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the bill has been printed and copies of it are available.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we look at it, even if we cannot speak about it?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: the second reading of the biU.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think we have been given the wrong bill. The bill I have received is the bill for interim supply, which comes later.


Edgar John Benson: This probably means we are a little bit ahead of time.


Richard Albert Bell: May we just sort out this confusion? While that is being done, I wonder if we at least have the right to hear the minister give the customary assurance that this bill is in standard form?


Edgar John Benson: This bill contains nothing which is not usual in such bills. I should like to say that the form of this bill is the usual one for full supply bills, and the procedure herein proposed is similar to that followed in April, 1957 when Appropriation Act No. 5,1957 granted total supply and supplementary estimates for the Post Office Department. I should like also to state that this bill contains full supply as contained in the main estimates for the various departments involved, those departments it was agreed would be passed at this time. It does not deal with the matter of supplementary estimates.


Harold Edward Winch: May we also ask why we have a bill that has no number?
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I report the bill?


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask, as a matter of interest, why this bill has no number? I thought it was necessary for a bill to have a number.


Edgar John Benson: I presume, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter for the Chair rather than for the minister involved. I can assure my hon. friend the number will be put on this particular appropriation bill. I think it is appropriation Bill No. 5.
Bill reported.
July 6, 1967


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Michael Starr: Now, by leave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair should point out that since this particular activity is under an order of the house, this bill could not be passed by leave.


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

Edgar John Benson: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $965,328,156.84 being the aggregate of-
(a)	four twelfths of the total of all the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament and not otherwise provided for, except public service commission item 5 and loans, investments and advances item L40, for which no proportion is granted hereby, $889,450,033.33;
(b)	four twelfths of the total amount of Public Works item 65 (Schedule A) of the said main estimates, $4,883,333.33;
(c)	three twelfths of the total amount of Legislation item 15 (Schedule B) of the said main estimates, $46,950;
(d)	two twelfths of the total amounts of External Affairs item 10, Secretary of State items 35, 40 and 45, Trade and Commerce item 29 (schedule C) of the said main estimates, $5,942,766.67;
(e)	one twelfth of the total amounts of Agriculture item 55, Finance item 10, National Film Board item 1 (Schedule D) of the said main estimates, $4,874,691.67;
(f)	seven twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates A for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $55,713,715.17;
(g)	four twelfths of the total amounts of loans, investments and advances items L40a and L112a (schedule E) of the said supplementary estimates, $4,416,666.67, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: As a minor concession to parliamentary control, would the minister explain why the fractions are different?


Edgar John Benson: The proportions requested in this bill, as indicated, are to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up until October 31, 1967. In no instance is
Ways and Means
the total amount of any item being released by this resolution and the subsequent bill. The form of this resolution and the subsequent bill are in the usual form for interim supply. The passage of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in the committee. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected, and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passage of this measure.
In answer to the specific question of my hon. friend, I should like to assure him that in some instances it is necessary to require more than the usual seven twelfths which would be included in this bill in order to pay accounts which may come due because particular projects happen faster in particular departments involved. However, in no case is more than eleven twelfths to be granted, and in some cases less than seven twelfths is being asked for, and I hope granted. The matters involved are completely open to debate.


Michael Starr: I think the minister should clarify what he said a moment ago, that no member is precluded from criticizing any part of these appropriations when we come to committee, in view of the order of the house.


Edgar John Benson: In future, I meant to say.


Michael Starr: I do not believe you mentioned the word "future".
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: I mentioned that in no case in the interim supply bill were we closing out any items which have not been passed in full supply in the preceding bill. So that in future, Mr. Chairman, members in committee will have the full right to criticize or raise any question on any item.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Edgar John Benson: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Edgar John Benson: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year

July 6, 1967
Ways and Means
ending the 31st March, 1968, the sum of $965,328,156.84 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson thereupon moved tor leave to introduce Bill No. C-147, tor granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1968.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House in committee of the whole on a bill entitled an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1968.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to D inclusive agreed to.
On schedule E:


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, in the footnote to schedule E the amount should read $4,416,666.67. There was a "6" left out and 1 should like to correct that figure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where was the "6" left out? In the hundreds or the tens?


Edgar John Benson: In the hundreds.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The correction to which the Minister of National Revenue refers is to a footnote at the bottom of page 8 in which there is a misprint, a "6" being left out. This is not part of the bill and is therefore not subject to amendment, though subject to correction.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the bill.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the bill contains no provision for increases in the pensions of superannuated civil servants, I ask that it be passed on division.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on June 21 I asked the Registrar General whether he could indicate why the price of a ten pound bag of sugar in Canada's third largest city, Vancouver, had risen from 97 cents at the beginning of June to $1.12 at the present time. In view of the fact that within the last half hour this evening we have passed, if my arithmetic is correct, the sum of $3,416,295,507.08, it seems to me slightly bewildering to think we should be concerning ourselves about this rise in the price of sugar. It is bewildering until one realizes that for people across the country the costs of sugar, bread, meat and milk are the costs that matter most, and some of our people unfortunately have smaller means than they should have with which to meet these costs.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I want to stress that the price of sugar in Vancouver within a three-week period rose from 95 cents to $1.12. The public was given no reason for that increase. One correspondent of mine in Vancouver was told by a merchant that the Israeli-Arab war caused the price increase. She said that that could not have been correct as sugar stocks were on hand before the war broke out. The war could not have affected sugar prices in so short a period.
I also wish to emphasize that on June 17 Christie's Bread announced that it would increase the price of its 24 ounce loaf to retailers by two cents, and the one pound loaf to retailers by one cent, effective as of June 26. Shoppers in Ontario and Quebec are affected by this increase. Also, on June 23 General Bakeries Limited and Canada Bread Company raised their prices. General Bakeries Limited raised its prices by the amount that Christie's had raised theirs, and Canada
July 6, 1967	COMMONS
Bread Company increased its price for the 24 ounce loaf by one cent.
Though the Registrar General is new to his job it is high time that he looked into matters affecting consumers. On June 16, in the speech in which he outlined his plans for the whole department under his control, he said, as reported on page 1608 of Hansard:
It is all very well to go off in all directions like a chicken with its head off, but I feel this would only cause unnecessary distortions in marketing practices and would provoke more difficulties than it would solve. If I were to suggest something which perhaps is un-Canadian, I might say I think we should have facts before we have policy. I intend to proceed with all deliberate speed in that fashion.
I am afraid that Canadian consumers will get the idea, if they have not already got it, that the minister is proceeding with more deliberation than speed, when one considers the price increases of commodities such as sugar and bread that I have spoken of tonight. The cost of living index is steadily creeping upward and has done so for items such as rent, household appliances, as well as many other commodities which are taken into account in the cost of living index.
I appreciate that the minister cannot single handed investigate what is happening. He cannot run to the bakeries to ask why prices are going up; nor can he go to sugar refineries to ask why their prices are rising. I believe that there should be a board-some of us have called it a prices review board-to look into price increases and to determine whether they are justified by increased costs that manufacturers have to pay.
I notice that when the prices of bread charged by Christie's were increased, H. A. Vivian, vice president of sales for Christie's Bread division of National Biscuit Company of New York, refused to say what the price increase is to retailers. He did not want the public to know what the dealer margin is. The joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on prices feels that that is exactly what the consumer should know. I urge the minister to establish within his department at once a fact finding body to determine why prices are going up.
The consumers are being most patient. The costs of bread, milk, sugar, housing and rents have increased, raising the cost of living. The price of milk has increased recently, as has the price of sugar. The cost of housing and of medical services has risen, together with many other items which make up the cost of living. Increasingly consumers will want to
DEBATES	2351
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion know why they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.
If the minister knows, let him tell us tonight why the cost of sugar increased in Vancouver. That is a specific inquiry I have to make. If he can do so, let him also tell us why there have been increases in the prices of bread and milk-increases which have caused great concern to families across this country. If the hon. gentleman does not know the reason, I should like him to tell us what steps he will take to ascertain it under his fine program of finding out the facts before making policy.


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: wish to say to the hon. lady in reply to the specific question she asked that Canadian refined sugar prices react almost immediately to changes in the world price for raw sugar. As a result of the Middle East crisis, world raw sugar prices advanced in early June and prices for refined sugar went up accordingly. Thus the B.C. Sugar Refinery in Vancouver, which was selling 100 lbs of cane sugar on June 1 for $7.85 had by June 5 raised its price to $8.95 per 100 lbs. Between June 5 and June 20 four reductions in price were made and by June 20 the refinery price was down to $7.40 per 100 lbs, lower than it had been on June 5. Similar price changes were made by the refiners in eastern Canada. It is to be hoped that retail prices will soon reflect the decreases in refinery prices which have taken place since June 5, if they have not already done so.
On the general question of prices, I wish to say to the hon. lady that constitutionally neither the federal government nor parliament has the authority to impose pervasive controls over the price of goods and services, except in a national emergency such as war. Consequently parliament would not have the authority to enact legislation regulating prices.
The movement of prices depends on a number of complicated factors. Some of the factors depend on world economic conditions; others relate to domestic fiscal, monetary and tariff policy. The conditions and economic expectations of the marketplace also come into play.
Under the Combines Investigation Act it is the responsibility of the Director of Investigation and Research to scrutinize all significant price movements which come to his attention and which may involve illegal restraints on competition. He is charged under that statute with the duty of initiating an
July 6, 1967
2352	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion investigation whenever he has reason to believe there has been an offence against it. If the hon. lady has any information to suggest that there has been any violation under that statute as it presently exists, she should send that information to the director and he will take the appropriate action. If I receive any information to the same effect, I will immediately make the same reference to the director under the statute.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: 
figures which have been released thus far indicate a further drop. This puts us on notice with regard to housing prices in Canada.
Then in the Toronto Star of July 1, I read that the N.H.A. rate has been increased from 7 per cent to 7J per cent. The headline of the article reads, "House costs up $840 as N.H.A. rate rises". Then the article continues:
It costs a Canadian homebuyer $840 more today than it did yesterday for a house financed under a government-insured mortgage of $18,000 over 25 years.
The hike-$33.60 a year-came within a whisker of being twice that much.
Costs are up because Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. last night boosted the National Housing Act interest rate from 7 to 7i per cent.
I would imagine the reason this was done was that the minister thought there would be an increase in housing.
Here are some of the comments which are pertinent to this increase:
A C.M.H.C. official in Ottawa said the increase would "hopefully" make N.H.A. mortgages attractive enough to stimulate lending-and building.
However, John McCulloch, C.M.H.C.'s Toronto manager, said money was so hard to find for any kind of investment the hike would probably not be effective.
He said mortgage money from conventional or private sources-usually trust and insurance companies-was already running between 72 and 82 per cent.
Reg Ryan, vice-president of Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada, said other investment areas- such as bonds-were too attractive for an increase in N.H.A. lending to occur soon. He said there is very little of this government-insured money being turned into mortgages in Metro.
M.I.C.C.'s Ryan said the demand for mortgage money is away ahead of supply and this means Canada is entering another painful, tight money period.
Harry Sadler, chief of Toronto Metro Home Builders Association, said this would likely mean higher house prices in the months ahead and a slowdown in building.
Builders are already predicting Canada will fall short of the 170,000 housing units expected by C.M.H.C. in the 12-month period which began June 1.
Donald Kirkup, research director of the Toronto Real Estate Board, blamed mortgage companies for contributing to tight money by holding back funds in anticipation of the N.H.A. increase.
There is one consolation though. It should mean some more money for mortgages but we fear there won't be as many takers because of the increase.
He said it was "sad news" for young families just starting out.
Kirkup said the average price of a new house in Metro is close to $30,000, up about $5,500 in one year and resales around $24,000, up over $2,000.
These are the comments with regard to the increase in the formula. Then, today I find in
July 6, 1967

the Globe and Mail that there is a further increase with regard to home improvement loans. This formula did not apply to home improvement loans which prevailed at 6 per cent. They are now applying that formula, and the interest rate in respect of home improvement loans will be 7J per cent.
We have a housing crisis in Canada and we have a slowdown in housing starts. We have the minister attempting to solve this problem by increasing the interest rate. We in the N.D.P. feel that this is not a proper solution, but that the solution should be to set up a federal ministry of housing and urban affairs, and to fix the rate of interest on N.H.A. mortgages at no more than 5 per cent. We also believe that, if necessary, the government should make more money available in order to have government participation in the building of homes with young families. If this was done I think Canadians would find an easing in this crisis and a solution to this problem.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to apologize to the hon. member for the absence of the minister and the parliamentary secretary responsible for this department. On behalf of them and the government let me assure the hon. member that recent statistics indicate housing starts have picked up remarkably in recent weeks and months, and that we expect by the end of the year they will be higher than in the previous year.
DEBATES	2353
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I regret, as does the minister and the government, that interest rates are as high as they are, but I think the hon. member should reflect upon the reasons. These rates are not high because of arbitrary action, but as a result of a shortage of money and a severe demand on this continent for money. I am sure the hon. member is also aware that the federal money available through C.M.H.C. is greater than it ever has been, but that the demand has been increased sharply. Finally, I am sure he is aware that as a result of recent revisions to the Bank Act, money is not available for housing from the chartered banks.
The government is doing everything it can to increase available money, but the interest rates reflect the economic condition of tight money supply. This is prevalent throughout the western world, together with a shortage of capital. The situation results from an over employment of monetary resources and an excessive demand for the same resources.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.19 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:


[Stage Direction]
1, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 45, 48, 50, 55.
[Stage Direction]
1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 41, 45.
[Stage Direction]
1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 52, 55, 57, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, L100, L105, L110.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 7, 1967