1969-04-23

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in English and in French-Mr. Fernand-E. Leblanc (Laurier).
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Ovide Laflam-me (Montmorency).
[Editor's Note: The text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

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

Mr. Simpson: 1.	Who participated in the preparation of the Stanbury-Field Report on the taxation of Indians in British Columbia?
2.	How much was paid in salary and expenses to each of these persons?
3.	What terms of reference were given to those preparing the report?
4.	When the investigation was initiated, was it the intention of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to release the Report and, if not, for what reason?
5.	When was the Report submitted to the Department?
6.	Do portions of the Report contain confidential information on individuals?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to table the report without any such confidential details included?
8.	Is it the intention of the government to initiate similar analyses of taxes paid by Indians of other provinces to their provincial governments?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Professor D. B. Fields, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia; Mr. W. T. Stanbury, Department
of Economics, University of British Columbia; D. P. Squarey and Associates, Vancouver, B.C.
2.	Contract for study was between Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Professor D. B. Fields in the amount of $20,365 including all salaries and expenses of those associated with the study.
3.	The terms of reference for the report were as follows:
"The project shall consist of a study and quantitative assessment of the financial significance of the special status of Indians as taxpayers in the province of British Columbia and without limiting its scope in any way shall include a general analysis of present and potential taxes levied on Indians, the nature and cost of services rendered to Indians at present and future trends, the growing significance of taxes paid by non-Indian lease-holders of Indian lands, the tax implications of an increase in business activities on Indian reserves, and significant changes in income and spending patterns of Indians including their potential to pay income tax if they were subject thereto."
4.	No prior decision was made respecting release of the report.
5.	September 21, 1968.
6.	Yes.
7.	It is not the intention of the Department to table the report.
8.	No decision has been made.


CAPE BRETON, N.S., MINES SUBSIDIES
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the total amount spent by the Government of Canada during the years 1967 and 1968 in subsidies to mines in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the total number of tons subsidized, and at what price per ton?
3.	At what price is the coal from such mines sold by the company?
4.	What is the cost of production per ton?
5.	How many workers are employed by the coal industry in Cape Breton?
6.	What is the hourly salary of the miners?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines

April 23, 1969
Questions
and Resources, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and the Department of Labour as follows:	1.	$25,501,319.22 for fiscal year
1967-68; nil since April 1968 except for certain holdback and adjustment amounts owing on coal shipped prior to April 1, 1968. No breakdown of these further payments is available until final accounting and auditing are completed.
2.	2,865,693.89 tons in fiscal year 1967-68 at an average subvention cost of $8.90 per ton.
3.	Actual selling prices are matters between vendors and purchasers. Except where there have been public announcements of the terms of individual contracts, available information regarding such prices has been confidentially received, is not amenable to averaging and cannot be disclosed without contravention of Section 15 of the Statistics Act.
It can, however, be stated that 1967-68 price ranges for various kinds, sizes and qualities of Cape Breton coal, f.o.b. mines, as reported by the mining companies, ran from a low of $7.00 per ton for certain types to a high of $18.15 for others. The average value of the coal, f.o.b. mines, although not a selling price, can also be given. As compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics from reports required of the producers, this was $14.05 per ton in 1967.
4.	The latest available information for all Nova Scotia coal mines is the annual survey of the Dominion Coal Board for 1967. This report indicates that the average total cost per ton for the production and distribution of Nova Scotia coal in 1967 was $13.98.
5.	During the year 1967, the average number of employees in the coal mining industry in Cape Breton, N.S., was 4,920.
6.	As of October 1, 1968, the average hourly rate of pay in Cape Breton coal mines for miners on an incentive or production basis was $2.63 per hour for an eight-hour day.


NEWFOUNDLAND-ADVANCES TO C.M.H.C.
Mr. Marshall: Under the section on Loans, Investments, and Advances in the Estimates for 1969/1970, L175, how much money is allocated the Province of Newfoundland in (a) advances to CMHC in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the provinces (b) advances to CMHC in respect of loans to municipalities for the construction or expansion of sewage treatment projects (c) advances to CMHC in respect of loans made to assist in the implementation of an urban renewal scheme?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Vote L175 of the Corporation's Estimates for 1969/1970 includes the following estimated requirements to meet outstanding commitments for the Province of Newfoundland: (a) $2,000,000; (b) $100,000; (c) $500,000.


PROGRAM IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO ESKIMOS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What program, if any, has been devised to assist teachers who have the task of teaching Eskimo children English?
2.	Do they attend special in-service training courses before beginning teaching English?
3.	If so, for how long and who conducts the courses?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. In 1968, all Northwest Territories and Arctic Quebec schools concerned were supplied from Ottawa with the NEW Let's Begin English Kit prepared by Curriculum Section specialists. This included seven reference books for teachers, records, filmstrip, charts, objects and other material. At the same time, each regional library was supplied with a recommended set of professional references on second language instruction. A 16mm film series prepared by the Centre for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., was obtained and used in teacher education services. Commercially prepared remedial and developmental materials and equipment were also purchased and sent to selected schools for use and appraisal.
In 1968, manuscripts for 16 northern-oriented developmental readers were prepared for non-graded use at the primary level. Text was articulated with the prerequisite oral English program described above. These readers are now being illustrated and printed with a target date of October 1, 1969. Related materials for reading readiness, spelling, and handwriting were also prepared. These materials were added to previous listings of supplementary reading books and guidebooks for teachers.
In 1968, the first draft of a northern preschool program was also prepared-a program intended to involve an informal transition from vernacular languages to English as a second language. Related to this, a revised approach to the duties and training of bilingual classroom aides was prepared.
2 and 3. Second language teaching is one of the components of the Orientation Course given to all teachers before they commence teaching in the North.
April 23, 1969

Most materials used in second language instruction were developed at summer workshops attended by northern teachers. Until 1967, summer courses involving curriculum specialists and experienced teachers as staff were conducted by the Education Division. Teacher consultants who are experienced in second language teaching visit new teachers in their classrooms and assist in teacher workshops during the school year.
Reliance is now placed on the availability of one common basic program for introducing English as a second language in northern schools. Reliance is also placed on the increased number of university and Department of Education summer courses in second language teaching. These courses are normally of five to six weeks duration.
C.M.H.C. INDEBTEDNESS ON HOUSING Quetsion No. 1,459-Mr. Caouelle:
1.	What amount does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation owe to the government with regard to the various Acts on housing?
2.	What interest rate does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation pay to the government for these loans?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	$3,846,319,427.00 at December 31, 1968.
2.	Interest rates at which the Corporation borrows from the government are established quarterly by the Minister of Finance. The interest rates, therefore, on its debt structure are very numerous and vary from 2 per cent to 1\ per cent, depending on when the loan was made and the term of the loan. For the quarter ending December 31, 1963, the rates were:	10-15 years, 6-1146 per cent; 15-20
years, 6J per cent; 20 years or more, 6-u/lf; per cent.


PUBLIC SERVANTS LANGUAGE TRAINING
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many public servants have successfully completed language training at public expense?
2.	How many who were enrolled failed to complete the course?
3.	What is the estimated total cost of salaries, for those attending this course for the time spent away from their employment, since the course was started?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secrelary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. The second-language training provided by the Public Service Commission is conducted at four levels. Level I is designed to provide minimum oral skills
Questions
while level IV is expected to give students working proficiency in all four skill areas (reading, writing, speaking and oral comprehension).
Employees attend courses at succeeding levels until the skills needed by the duties of their positions have been acquired.
In the period from January 1964 to August 1968, the numbers of public servants who completed training courses were: Level IV, 703; level III, 1,409; level II, 2,267; level I, 6,224.
2.	During the same period 1,176 public servants withdrew from training courses before completing the particular course in which they were enrolled. Many of these withdrew for reasons related to their duties or health; others withdrew because they had reached the level of proficiency required for their respective positions.
3.	The Public Service Commission does not maintain records of the salaries of language students. However, on the basis of a significant sample, the Commission estimates that the average earnings of trainees is about $1,100. On this basis, total earnings of those engaged as trainees over the four and a half year period approximates $12 million. However, trainees are not usually replaced while attending language courses and in that case there is no additional salary cost attributable to language training. In addition, each student on language training contributes about one hour of his own time for every two working hours he spends in language training.


WHEAT ACREAGE AND QUOTAS
Mr. Southam: Is it the intention of the government to (a) adopt the proposal of the federal Agricultural Task Force to cut back the Prairie wheat acreage by 33% by 1980 (b) if the government adopts this policy does it mean progressively tighter wheat quotas each year in order to bring about this objective (c) what proposal has the government to utilize the acreage and maintain farm income if the 10 million acres are taken out of the present 30 million acres planted to wheat?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No proposal to cut back prairie wheat acreage has been made to the government by the Agricultural Task Force. The proposal referred to in this question is contained in an interim position paper on the Task Force's studies on grains to date which has been prepared for use as a position paper for discussion at the Canadian Agricultural Congress to provide the Task Force with the views on

April 23. 1969
Questions
grain production ol all segments oi the agricultural industry in Canada.


USE OF SOVIET ICE-BREAKERS
Mr. Foriin: Has the Soviet Government offered the services of its ice-breakers to open the St. Lawrence River for winter navigation and, if so, what was the government's response?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Soviet Government has never offered the services of its icebreakers to open the St. Lawrence River for winter navigation.


CONSULTATION CONFERENCE WITH INDIAN PEOPLE
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What is the name and address of each person who asked that the proposed consultation conference with Indian people to have been held in Ottawa, March 6 to 14, be postponed?
2.	By what means of communication did each such person so indicate that desire for postponement?
3.	What, in detail, was the nature of each such request?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. (a) Mr. Harold Cardinal, President of the Indian Association of Alberta, (b) Mr. Walter Dieter, President, National Indian Brotherhood.
2.	Mr. Cardinal's request was by letter dated February 14, 1969, and Mr. Dieter's request was during discussions with the Minister of Indian Affairs in late February.
3.	The nature of the communications were an expression of concern that insufficient time was available for the associations to study the position of the other provinces as outlined in their reports.


INCOME TAX EVASION PROSECUTIONS
Mr. Paproski: 1.	By province, how many prosecutions of individuals for non-payment of income tax were ordered by the federal government in each of the following years: 1968, 1967, 1966, 1965, 1964, 1963?
2.	In each of the same years, by province, how many cases of non-payment or evasion of income tax payment were reported?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minisier of Na-fional Revenue):: 1. Number of cases in which prosecutions for attempted evasion or nonpayment of income tax were instituted:
Fiscal Year	1962-3	1963-4	1964-5	1965-6	1966-7	1967-8
Newfoundland							
Prince Edward Island	-	-	1	-	-	-Nova Scotia	-	-	-	-	1	-New Brunswick	-	1	-	-	-	-Quebec	
7	10	21	4	3	8Ontario	
4	3	3	8	8	6Manitoba	
1	-	1	1	-	2Saskatchewan	-	1	2	-	3	2Alberta	
1	3	2	1	1	3British Columbia	
4	3	1	-	-	2Yukon	
-	-	-	-	-	-Total	
17	21	31	14	16	232. Number of cases of attempted evasion or non-payment	of income tax investigated:	Fiscal Year	1962-3	1963-4	1964-5	1965-6	1966-7	1967-8Newfoundland	
26	7	6	9	8	4Prince Edward Island...	
1	1	2	2	3	1Nova Scotia	
8	9	4	6	5	6NewBrunswick	
3	6	5	2	4	5Quebec	
86	76	121	73	72	74Ontario	
150	174	166	170	121	107Manitoba	
15	11	12	13	9	7Saskatchewan	
24	58	52	26	24	20Alberta	
53	38	33	25	35	30British Columbia	
24	58	27	34	29	33Yukon	
1	2	3	1	-	2Total	
391	440	431	361	310	289

April 23, 1963


ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRIES IN MANICOUAGAN
Mr. Blouin: 1.	Has the federal government helped some industries located in the Constituency of Manicoua-gan under the Act concerning designated areas since the 1st of May, 1967, and if so (a) what are these industries (b) what amount did each of them receive (c) where in the constituency are they located?
2.	If not, did any industries request assistance, either for expansion or improvement?
Questions


DEPARTMENTAL SUBSIDIES AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources provide subsidies and/or support programs for any segment of the economy, groups or individuals inside Canada and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts and to whom are the amounts paid?
2.	What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. 8 applications have been received and five of these have been approved,
(a)	Three companies have announced their intentions to proceed, and these are: Canadian British Aluminum Co. Limited; La Society Populaire des Pates et Papiers du Quebec Inc.; Quebec North Shore Paper Co. (b) Payments of grants commence when facilities reach commercial production; (c) Canadian British Aluminum Co. Ltd., Baie Comeau; La Societe Populaire des Pates et Papiers du Quebec Inc., Sacre-Coeur; Quebec North Shore Paper Co., Baie Comeau.
2. Not applicable.


TONNAGE HANDLED IN CANADIAN PORTS
Mr. Blouin: How many tons of merchandise were handled during the year 1968 in the following ports: Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Rimouski, Baie-Comeau, Port-Cartier, Sept-Iles (including Pointe-Claire) ?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Insofar as the Department of Transport is concerned, Cargo tonnage handled during the calendar year 1968 is as follows:
Harbour
Tons
Rimouski
Baie-Comeau
Port-Cartier
Sept-Iles
(including
Pointe-Noire)
533,663
4,511,272
12,467,727
26,012,690
Insofar as the National Harbours Board is concerned, total cargo tonnage handled during the calendar year 1968 at National Harbours is as follows:
Harbour Montreal Vancouver Halifax Saint John Quebec 29180-497
Tons
20,895,922
24,490,320
10,079,884
5,865,240
6,833,056


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. and 2. Yes.
Assistance to gold mine operators: 1959-60, $13,129,447; 1960-61, $12,116,281; 1961-62; $12,413,248; 1962-63, $15,155,854; 1963-64, $14,967,203; 1964-65, $15,666,822; 1965-66, $14,757,573;
1966-	67, $14,959,891; 1967-68, $15,199,765. Roads to resources program-costs shared
with provinces: 1959-60, $8,999,996;	1960-61,
$12,000,000; 1961-62, $12,000,000; 1962-63, $10,365,803; 1963-64, $8,132,492; 1964-65, $6,062,027; 1965-66, $7,265,000; 1966-67, $4,527,500;
1967-	68, $2,732,466.
Grants to universities in aid of research:
1959-	60,	$50,000;	1960-61,	$49,550;	1961-62,$75,000;	1962-63,	$85,000;	1963-64, $110,000;1964-65,	$144,600;	1965-66,	$236,263;	1966-67,
$322,297; 1967-68, $557,117.
Dominion provincial aeromagnetic surveys -costs shared with provinces: 1959-60, Nil;
1960-	61, Nil; 1961-62, $512,099; 1962-63, $910,189; 1963-64, $557,796; 1964-65, $511,673; 196566, $206,123; 1966-67, $317,687; 1967-68, $484,698.
Canada's share of the expenses of the Sas-katchewan-Nelson Basin Board-costs shared with Prairie Provinces: 1966-67, Nil; 1967-68, $2,816.
Canada's share of the expenses of the Atlantic Tidal Programming Board-costs shared with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia: 196667, $15,602; 1967-68, $695,908.
Canada's share of the cost of Water Resources Inventories under joint Federal-Provincial Agreements: Any expenditure relative to this question could not be separately identified during the period under question.
Canada's share of the cost of Regional Water Resources Planning Investigations under Federal-Provincial Agreements: Any expenditure relative to this question could not be separately identified during the period under question.
Contributions to the provinces towards the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water

April 23. 1969
Questions
resources in accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces:
1959-	60, Nil; 1960-61, Nil; 1961-62, $156,011; 1962-63, $3,097,376; 1963-64, $7,600,015; 196465, $8,949,500; 1965-66, $9,353,659; 1966-67, $9,220,926; 1967-68, $6,875,777.
Provincial and territorial boundary surveys -costs shared with provinces: 1959-60, $48,800;
1960-	61, $30,500; 1961-62, $19,785; 1962-63, $7,081; 1963-64, $250; 1964-65, $14,077; 196566, $14,510; 1966-67, $8,808; 1967-68, $9,318.


MR. ROYCE FRITH
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What sums of money has Mr. Royce Frith received from the Government of Canada in each year since April, 1963, in the form of (a) per diem allowances (b) expenses and (c) fees for services either to him or to his law firm?
2.	Has Mr. Frith ever held any licenses for any activity covered by the federal government either through a regulatory or licensing authority and, if so, what licenses, when were they issued and when were they surrendered or transferred?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Office of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicultur-alism
Year
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
1968-	69 (to March 20)
(a)
Honoraria at$100 per diem $
3,550.00
11,600.00
12,200.00
14.600.00
19.450.00
17.300.00
(b)
Expenses, per diem and travel $
902.70
3,221.57
3,558.75
4,043.84
5,771.88
4,670.50
$78,700.00	$22,169.24
(c)	Neither Mr. Frith nor his law firm received any fees for services from the Commission.
Canadian Film Development Corporation: As a member of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, Mr. Frith has received, since May 28, 1968: (a) and (b) $430.50 for travel expenses including per diem allowances; (c) $1,000 for attending meetings of the Corporation.
2. Canadian Radio-Television Commission: A licence was issued March 6, 1964 for 
Radio Station CKWW, Windsor to Radio Windsor Canadian Limited of which Mr. Royce Frith was 100 per cent owner.
In a public announcement dated September 18, 1964, the Board of Broadcast Governors recommended for approval transfer of 90 per cent of the shares of Radio Windsor Canadian Limited from Mr. Royce Frith to WWKC Holdings Limited. Mr. Frith retained 10 per cent of the shares. The Department of Transport approved this transfer on October 21, 1964.
Mr. Royce Frith is the holder of 20 per cent of the shares of a cable television (CATV) company, Clear Colour Cable Service Limited, which received a licence from the Department of Transport, April 12, 1967 for operation in the Metro Toronto area. Clear Colour Cable Service Limited has made application for a license from Canadian Radio-Television Commission under Section 63 of the Broadcasting Act.


AIR CANADA MEALS
Mr. Thomson: Would the government consider a relative study of Air Canada with a view to the upgrading of the meals?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No study of the meals provided by Air Canada is planned by the government since the policy, standards and costs of such is an internal management function of the Company.


AGENCIES MARKETING WHEAT CROP
Mr. Paproski: Through what agencies, persons or companies did the Canadian Wheat Board contract the marketing of the 1968 wheat crop and where are such agencies located?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Canadian Wheat Board has not contracted for the marketing of the 1968 crop. As required by the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Board is responsible for the sale of grain acquired by it pursuant to its operations under the Act. In the acquisition and handling of the grain, the Board makes use of the facilities of the elevator companies. Similarly in the forwarding and exporting of the grain, and in the development of sales in many commercial markets, the Board makes use of the facilities of various grain companies who are engaged in the shipping and exporting of grain.
April 23, 1969


PHILLIP'S SECURITY SERVICE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	From January 1, by day, how many man-hours of security service from the Phillip's Security Service has the Post Office used in connection with deliveries made by employees of Rod Service Limited and how much by day, did this service cost?
2.	Has the Post Office purchased security services from other firms or organizations in connection with deliveries made by employees of Rod Service Limited and, if so, at what cost?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. Phillip's Security Service was employed as follows:
Date	Hours	CostMarch 5	255.5	$ 766.50March 6	385	1,155.00March 7	236.5	709.50March 8	23	69.00March 10	388	1,164.00March 11	456	1,368.00March 12	360.25	1,080.75March 14	484	1,452.00March 17	230	690.00March 18	386	1,158.00March 19	439	1,317.00March 20	468	1,404.00March 21	480	1,440.00March 24	100	300.00March 25	189.5	568.504,880.75	$14,642.25
Note: No service was provided by Phillip's Security Service prior to March 5.
2. No.


COST STUDY OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,881
Mr. Schreyer:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department undertaken a cost-benefit study related to the proposed satellite communication system and, if so, what was the cost-benefit ratio and what specific alternatives were evaluated?
2.	Did the Treasury Board request a cost-benefit study from the Department regarding the proposed satellite communication system and, if not, why were other alternatives under the PPBS system utilized for the evaluation of the satellite system?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Communications Department is concerned: 1. A number of cost benefit studies of various configurations of domestic communications satellite systems were undertaken prior to the publication by the government of the White Paper on a 29180-4971
Questions
Domestic Satellite Communications System for Canada. Alternatives evaluated included various satellite configurations and terrestrial alternatives. The results were most favourable for a 3 to 6 transponder satellite.
2. No, because a cost-benefit study had been carried out as explained in the answer to Part 1 of this question.
STEAM HEATING OF LOCK MACHINERY Question No. 1,887


Mr. McCleave:: 1.	Is the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority using steam heating of lock machinery and ice diversion channels to provide a longer shipping season?
2.	If so, what are the costs involved and are these paid for by special charges on vessels taking advantage of same?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority uses heating devices and ice diversion channels to provide better control of icing conditions in the Canal between the Cote Ste. Catherine and St. Lambert Locks during the close of the official navigation season, which now extends to December 10th. In years when icing occurs late in the season, this has the effect of lengthening what would otherwise be a shorter than normal season.
2. No. Since the costs involved are related to the normal navigation season, they are paid by the vessels which use the system during the entire season.


QUEBEC GOVERNMENT SUBMISSIONS ON STE SCHOLASTIQUE AIRPORT SITE
Mr. Godin: When Ste Scholastique was being studied as the future site for the new Montreal International Airport, did any departments of the Government of Quebec express opinions and, if so, which ones?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Discussions with the Province of Quebec were held on a continuing basis over the period from August 1968 almost up to the moment of the site announcement. Ste Scholastique was one of the 4-5 sites that were discussed extensively out of the original 20 possibilities.
The Government of Quebec expressed opinions on all of these sites and certainly on Ste Scholastique. These opinions were formerly presented by the Honourable Dr. R. Lussier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs of the Province of Quebec who was the representative of the Government of Quebec in these discussions. We are aware that he

April 23, 1969
Questions
received opinions from other Quebec Departments including the following: Ministere de la Voirie; Ministere des Affaires intergouver-nementales; Ministere de l'lndustrie.


MOTORCAR RECALLS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many motor vehicles have been recalled by (a) General Motors (b) Chrysler Corporation (c) American Motors (d) other companies, during each of the years 1960-69 inclusive?
2 Were any of the recalls of motor vehicles due to faulty workmanship?
3.	Has the government investigated any of the reasons for recall?
4.	Is the government proposing to set adequate automobile standards and inspection services for the automobile industry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. No information is available on the number of motor vehicles recalled during the years 1960-61. During the five years 1962-1966 the total number of motor vehicles recalled in Canada was 780,609. A complete breakdown of this number by Company and year is not available.
From January 1, 1967 to April 11, 1969, the number of motor vehicles recalled was as follows:
Number of Vehicles
Company	1967	1968	1-1-69 to 11-4-69American Motors	3,227	Nil	NilChrysler	23,210	318	246Ford	22,298	6,514	1,166General Motors	195,651	49,773	554,184Kaiser-Jeep	Nil	Nil	191Rolls-Royce	97
The figure of 554,184 for General Motors includes motor vehicles sold from 1965 to date.
2.	It is not possible to classify defects by workmanship as distinct, for instance, from design, assembly and wear in use.
3.	The federal government has obtained from the manufacturers complete and satisfactory explanations of the reasons for each of the recalls since January 1, 1967.
4.	As announced in the House of Commons recently, the federal government is presently considering legislation for mandatory safety standards for motor vehicles and parts manufactured in or imported into Canada. The need for inspection services to ensure compliance with mandatory standards is also being studied.
[Mr. Hellyer.1


J. F. PARKINSON OF C.M.H.C.
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Is J. F. Parkinson a Director of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, if so, when was he elected as a Director and what is his remuneration?
2.	What criteria was used in his selection as Director of the Corporation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Yes. Mr. Parkinson was appointed May 20, 1954. He receives no additional salary or fee for his services as a director.
2. Mr. Parkinson is Economic Adviser to the Deputy Minister of Finance and is one of three directors to be appointed from within the public service of Canada by the Governor in Council pursuant to The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.


FRASER VALLEY DYKING ASSISTANCE
Mr. Rose: 1.	Which Fraser Valley municipalities have applied for dyking assistance under the Federal-Provincial Fraser River Flood Control Program signed in December, 1968?
2.	What Fraser flood crest are the present Fraser Valley dykes capable of withstanding?
3.	In which areas of the Fraser Valley are the dykes considered to be less than adequate to withstand a greater than normal spring freshet?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Applications have been received by the Province of British Columbia from 13 municipalities and dyking districts for assistance under the Fraser River Flood Control Program covered by the federal-provincial agreement signed on May 24, 1968. The Province is forwarding to the Fraser River Joint Program Committee for its consideration the applications made by the Municipalities of Kent, Pitt Meadows and Richmond. The remaining 10 applications are being reviewed by the Province prior to their transmittal to the Program Committee.
2. The present Fraser Valley dykes were constructed after the 1948 flood to withstand a river elevation of 26 feet at Mission City, which elevation is equivalent to the flood of record. The present dykes withstood peak elevations of 23 feet at Mission City in 1964 and again in 1967; however, in both years emergency dyke repairs were required at a number of locations. Although the present dykes are not in completely uniform condition, it is presumed that they would be capable of again withstanding a peak elevation of about 23 feet at Mission City.
April 23, 1969

3. The mean annual peak high water elevation at Mission City is about 19.5 feet, which would represent the normal spring freshet on the Fraser River. All of the present Fraser Valley dykes have withstood spring freshets with peak elevations higher than 19.5 feet on a number of occasions.


GRANTING OF CENTENNIAL MEDALS
Mr. Robinson: For what reason did the government grant Centennial Medals to Non-Commissioned Officers and not to officers and men in the following regiments: (a) 1st Battalion, the Nova Scotia Highlanders (North)-19 medals (b) the West Nova Scotia Regiment-16 medals (c) the 1st Battalion, the Royal New Brunswick Regiment-14 medals (d) the Royal Newfoundland Regiment-21 medals (e) the Canadian Grenadier Guards-11 medals (f) the 4th Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment-15 medals (g) Les Fusiliers du St. Laurent-21 medals (h) Le Regiment de la Chaudiere-15 medals (i) the Quebec Service Battalion-15 medals (J) the 49th Field Artillery Regiment (RCA)-11 medals (k) the Toronto Signal Regiment-8 medals (1) the 1st Toronto Service Battalion-10 medals (m) the 2nd Toronto Service Battalion-13 medals (n) the Hamilton Service Battalion-12 medals (o) the Highland Fusiliers of Canada-10 medals (p) the 3rd Battalion, the Royal Canadian Regiment- 9 medals (q) the 2nd Battalion, the North Saskatchewan Regiment-8 medals (r) Regina Rifle Regiment-10 medals (s) the Calgary Highlanders- 8 medals (t) the 15th Field Artillery Regiment (RCA)-11 medals (u) the Royal Westminster Regiment-11 medals?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: See reply to your question 737, Hansard dated 25 November 1968, pages 3125-26 and supplementary reply tabled 15 january 1969, (Votes and Proceedings page 590 refers); also reply to your question 1,854, Hansard dated 16 April 1969, page 7584.


PUNISHMENT FOR EXCEEDING WORK QUOTA
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Does any federal statute covering hours of work, rates of pay, or working conditions in any way whatsoever contain any provision or authorize any regulation made under such a statute permit any labour union, or any local thereof to set up any quota system of production whereby a worker may be disciplined or punished for exceeding any such quota whether quantitative or fixed in monetary terms?
2.	Is the Minister of Labour aware of any statute dealing with labour relations or working conditions passed by a provincial legislature to the same effect as expressed in 1 above?
Questions


Mr. Jim McNuliy (Parliamentary Secretary fo Minister of Labour):: 1. There is no federal statute covering hours of work, rates of pay, or working conditions, containing the provisions stated in the question.
2. The Minister of Labour is not aware of any statute dealing with labour relations or working conditions passed by a provincial legislature containing the provisions stated in the question.


ADULT TRAINING COURSES IN QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: How much has the federal government paid during the 1967-1968 fiscal year for training courses for adults (a) in the Province of Quebec; (b) for manpower offices in La Sarre, Rouyn, Amos, Val D'Or and Ville-Marie?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a) $24,714,359; (b>
Rouyn, La Sarre, Ville-Marie-$77,431; Val D'Or, Amos-$25,886.
In 1967-68 La Sarre, Ville-Marie and Amos were sub offices and expenditures for training were grouped under the main offices of Rouyn and Val D'Or as shown.


AIRPORT SITE NEAR ST. JEROME, QUEBEC
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Did the planning and the responsibility regarding the selection of the new airport site at St. Jerome, Quebec, rest with the Department of Transport?
2 Was the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission consulted regarding the selection of this new site, and did they concur in that decision?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Yes.
2.	The Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission was consulted during the period of discussions with other levels of Government and with airlines. The Air Transport Committee was specifically interested in the assignment of air traffic to the new International Airport and to Dorval.


E.M.O. AMBULANCE SERVICE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does EMO provide ambulance service to municipalities and, if so, where, and what is the cost of the service to EMO?
2.	What is the value of the buildings and/or equipment and/or other benefits received by EMO from municipalities where this ambulance service is provided?

April 23, 1969
Questions


David Walter Groos: 1. No.	pated before the government has received
2. Not applicable.	and considered the full report.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What federal-provincial agreements have been entered into, to date, by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	What are the amounts involved regarding these agreements, by provinces?
3.	Are these agreements, and the amounts involved, issued under the sole authority of the Minister?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. No federal-provincial agreements have been entered into since the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was officially established on April 1.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION INSIGNIA
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Who was responsible for the insignia of the new federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	Was a contract awarded concerning this undertaking?
3.	If so, to whom and in what amount?
4.	If departmental employees were not used, for what reason?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Hanz Simcik, design artist and illustrator, Graphics Unit, Public Information Division, Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
2.	Yes.
3.	Avenue Advertising Art Inc. of Montreal prepared four designs at a price of $545.
4.	Not applicable.


'TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION
Mr. Schreyer: When is it anticipated that the Task Force on Information will complete its report, and will the Report be tabled in the House?


Yves Forest: The Prime Minister received a progress report several weeks ago from members of the task force and they hope to present their recommendations to the government next month. The
IMr. Robinson.]


TAXATION FREE U.S. SUBSIDIARY
Mrs. Maclnnis: What is the name of the wholly-owned United States subsidiary company, referred to in the 1968 Auditor General's Report, page 94, paragraph 155, which earned $9 million not subject to income tax?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: This information is confidential and cannot be divulged.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lewis: 1. What are the (a) names (b) subjects (c) dates of publication of all published text-books developed by the Curriculum Section of the Northern Education Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development designed specifically for teaching in a Northern and/or crosscultural situation?
2.	(a) Was the Curriculum Section solely responsible for the development of these text-books or was outside assistance required (b) if so, of what sort (c) did the teaching staff participate in the preparation of these text-books?
3.	Which grades were these text-books designed to serve?
4.	How many students are using these text-books?
Return tabled.


STUDENTS OF ESKIMO AND INDIAN STATUS
Mr. Lewis: 1.	For each of the academic years 1959-60 through
1967-	68 inclusive, what was the number of students having Indian and Eskimo status in all schools operated by, or under contract for, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the Northwest Territories and Arctic Quebec who (a) entered each grade level (b) failed from each grade level (c) "dropped out" from each grade level, and including figures for each grade from pre-school through to the final year of high school for each of (a), (b) and (c) above?
2.	In each of the academic years 1959-60 through
1968-	69 inclusive, how many school age children having Indian or Eskimo status were there in the Northwest Territories and Arctic Quebec?
3.	In each of the academic years 1959-60 through 1963-69 inclusive, how many school age children having Indian or Eskimo status in the Northwest Territories or Arctic Quebec have not attended or are not attending school?
Return tabled.
April 23, 1969

Motions for Papers
CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS	[DOT] (2:10 P-m-)

Question No. 1,693-Mr. Mongrain:
For the fiscal years beginning on April 1, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968	(a) what persons obtained
scholarships and grants from the Canada Council (b) for what purposes was each such grant extended?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL HOUSING-PUBLIC UNITS INQUIRY
Mr. Gilbert: 1.	How many public units have been built in Canada (a) under Section 35 (a) and (b) under Section 35 (d) of the National Housing Act?
2.	Of these, how many were single family dwelling units, semi-detached, row housing, mai-sonetttes, three-story walk-ups, high rise?
3.	Of the high rise, how many units are intended for (a) families without young children (b) families with young children and in connection with those under (b), where are they located?
4.	Of the units approved by order-in-council since January 1, 1969, under both 35 (a) and 35 (d), what has been the average cost per unit for each of the following Provinces (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) Ontario?
Return tabled.


ROD SERVICE LTD.-SALE OF VEHICLES TO GOVERNMENT
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Who inspected the vehicles sold to the Government of Canada by Rod Service Ltd. and when were these Inspections made?
2.	Was it required to make a reference to a third party appraiser in order to establish the prices of any or all of the vehicles purchased by the government?
3.	During the purchase procedures, did the Government of Canada determine the amounts paid by Rod Service for each of these vehicles at the time of purchase by that Company and, if so, what was the purchase price by Rod Service of each of these vehicles?
4.	How much was paid for each of the vehicles bought by the Government of Canada from Rod Service?
5.	Which of the vehicles bought from Rod Service were then sold to Transfer Lapalme of Montreal and at what price was each of these vehicles sold?
6.	Which of the vehicles bought from Rod Service were not sold to Transfer Lapalme of Montreal, and (a) what disposition was made of these vehicles by the Post Office, and (b) what disposition was made of these vehicles by the Government of Canada?
7.	On what date(s) were cheques for payment of these vehicles sent to Rod Service Ltd. and from what place (s) were they mailed?
8.	On what date(s) were these cheques received at Montreal by Rod Service Ltd.?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 94 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.



FEDERAL PARKS IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 94-Mr. Fortin:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of any documents exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec concerning the establishment of federal parks in the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by thie Parliamentary Secretary is it the pleasure of the house that Notice of Motion No. 94 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motion Nos. 82, 84, 86, 88, 92, 93, 95, and 101?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.



INDIANS-REPORT OF WORKING GROUP

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 82-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the document entitled "Report of Working Group I-Indians to the Executive Committee" which Working Group had its terms of reference set out in February, 1968 and which was formed to examine and outline the problems relating to Indians and to make recommendations concerning strategy, policy and programming.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Skeena?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that his departmental officials were unable to identify the document requested by the hon. member for Skeena and he has been informed of this fact. I understand that the hon. member is willing to withdraw the motion under the circumstances.

April 23, 1969
Motions for Papers


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under the circumstances I guess I have to agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Motion withdrawn.
BACKGROUND REPORTS ON WATKINS REPORT Motion No. 84-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all background reports and papers prepared for the Watkins Report on Foreign Ownership and the Structure of Canadian Industry.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, these studies were prepared under special arrangements. In the case of the studies prepared by arrangement with the authors there were two understandings. The first was that the studies were confidential when prepared for the task force, and the second was that the authors were to have the right of publication afterwards. There is a third limitation, namely that some of them were prepared on the basis of confidential material in government files. The government would be prepared to table such studies as are not covered by those inhibitions, and in addition we can seek the consent of those particular authors for the tabling of those documents that do not contain confidential material. If the hon. member is agreeable to those limitations the motion could pass subject to them.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: agree, although I am somewhat doubtful about how much I will get.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations, conditions and inhibitions expressed by the minister is it the pleasure of the house that Notice of Motion No. 84 be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
RESEARCH STUDIES ON LABOUR RELATIONS Motion No. 86-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of each of the research studies commissioned and completed by and for the Labour Relations Task Force.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be agreed that this should stand for another week.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.

DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION OF VATICAN Motion No. 88-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents received by the Prime Minister or any other member of the government since January 1, 1969 relating to the proposal that Canada extend diplomatic recognition to the Vatican.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, dare I offer to move this one on behalf of the hon. member?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You can try.


Stanley Howard Knowles: shall try.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am advised with respect to this that the correspondence concerning diplomatic recognition of the Vatican exceeds over 10,000 separate pieces. The exact number between January 1st and March 31st is 10,275, and in order to comply with the rules of the house two copies of each would have to be prepared so that more than 20,000 copies would be necessary to comply with this motion. Under the circumstances I wonder would the hon. member not prefer to withdraw the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps it can stand until the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) comes back to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



HIGGIN'S REPORT ON QUEBEC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 95-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a eopy of the Higgin's Report regarding the selection of the International Airport site in Quebec referred to by the Prime Minister in Hansard on Friday, March 28. 1969.
Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, the report requested in this notice of motion was tabled on Friday last, and I think the hon. member will agree that the motion may now be removed from the order paper.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Motion withdrawn.
April 23, 1969



STUDIES ON DEFENCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 101-Mr. Broadbeni:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the cost-benefit studies on the Defence Development Sharing Program showing a 24:1 ratio, referred to by Mr. David Mundy, Assistant Deputy Minister for External Service of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, at the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on April 1, 1969.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that he is prepared to produce a copy of the cost-benefit analysis showing sales resulting from defence industry productivity program support to Canadian industry referred to by an official of the department at the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on April 1, 1969.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I did not understand the statement. I wonder whether it could be repeated.


Yves Forest: Yes. I am informed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that he agrees to produce a copy of the cost-benefit analysis showing sales resulting from defence industry productivity program support to Canadian industry referred to by any official of the department at the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on April 1, 1969.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion 101 be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might put this as a question of privilege. More than three months ago it was agreed that the documents I was looking for with regard to the Prince Edward Island causeway construction, particularly the Stanford Research Institute study, would be presented by the government and tabled in the House of Commons. More than three months have gone by and these statements have not been produced. I wonder whether there should be some time limit, when the government has agreed to produce documents,
Inquiries of the Ministry within which they should be tabled in the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They were to be produced, subject to the normal restrictions of consent being obtained from the appropriate provincial authorities. I have had correspondence which I hope will result in the final consents being obtained, but at the moment they have not been obtained.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is my understanding that some weeks ago the specific provincial governments indicated they wanted these documents tabled in the house.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the general expectation of another serious decline in wheat exports this year, whether he can say if an early statement will be made by one of his colleagues indicating whether there is any hope for improvement in the situation and, if not, whether we may expect a decision soon on the request for interim assistance to western farmers.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will discuss that with my colleagues.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the U.S.S.R. intends to fill the original terms of its long term wheat agreement with Canada, which I believe expires July 31.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think it would be preferable if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is concerned with the negotiations reported to this house on that in due course.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is one further point in this regard which the minister might answer when he makes his report. Would he say whether it is the view of the government that shipments of grain this year are expected to be minimal, as forward sales of wheat other than Durums are very disappointing and should be amply covered by stocks already in store in St. Lawrence ports.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think I would be willing to agree with the prophecy of the Leader of the Opposition.
April 23, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry WHEAT-COMPETITION FROM XJ.S. FOR U.S.S.R.



AND CHINESE PURCHASES

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary probably falls peculiarly within the knowledge of the Prime Minister. Has he any information on whether the United States is considering bidding for Russian or perhaps Chinese wheat markets? Did the Prime Minister receive any information on this subject in his discussions with President Nixon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-SUGGESTED EXPANSION OF SALES PROMOTION ACTIVITIES

Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary arises from the statement made by the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg on Friday last to the effect that the Wheat Board would welcome any supplement to the sales staff of the Wheat Board by means of an expansion of the trade promotion bureau of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Will the government give consideration to the observation made by the Chairman of the Wheat Board in respect of the sales promotion staff of the Canadian Wheat Board being supplemented by other officials of the government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sine the minister will take note of the representations of the member, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-ATTRACTIVE TERMS TO POTENTIAL IMPORTERS

Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in respect of what I consider to be a matter of grave urgency. In view of the fact that the recent tour of the agricultural committee through western Canada indicated that the basic problem facing grain farmers was the huge pileup of unsold grain, will the Prime Minister in full co-operation with his ministers immediately develop trade policies with potential importers, such as long-term low interest rate credit arrangements, reciprocal trade agreements and the like, so that our Wheat Board will have some practical support in moving our large stocks of prairie grain?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question takes the form of a submission or representation. I assume the minister has made note of it.



EXCHANGE OF WHEAT FOR JAPANESE MANUFACTURES

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, who, along with the Minister of Agriculture, has just returned from Japan. During these discussions did Japanese authorities offer to take more western wheat in return for the importation by Canada of certain industrial goods from Japan? Was there any deal or discussion in this regard?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister said not to his
knowledge, but I should like to know whether there was any discussion in respect of this matter. He was present during the discussions. Did he stimulate any thought in this regard?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we stimulated a great deal of thought in respect of Japan importing more wheat, rapeseed and many other products of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Are you prepared to give us a statement?



JURISDICTION BY WHEAT BOARD OVER FEED GRAINS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the tremendous reception given the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board at a mass meeting of the Saskatchewan Farmers Union in Saskatoon on April 10, at which time a brief was presented to the government of Canada, the government of Saskatchewan and the Canadian Wheat Board, concerning the return of feed grains including flax, rye and rapeseed, to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, can the Prime Minister advise whether this report has been considered by the government and indicate what action the government proposes to take as a result of this request on the part of this farm organization?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This also will be dealt with by the relevant minister, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit when there is a continuing serious crisis the government and the Prime Minister should forget the arbitrary, highly improper and illegal roster system the Prime Minister has introduced, and have someone here to answer the questions.

April 23, 1969



CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding representations' made to the Senate standing committee yesterday by the Canadian Economic Council, requesting that the war on poverty program as outlined in its annual review be implemented forthwith. Does the Prime Minister intend to reconstitute the special planning secretariat whose task it was to mastermind the war on poverty program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it not the Prime Minister's
intention to reconstitute this special planning secretariat, is he going to name any agency to co-ordinate the efforts of his ministers in respect of this war on poverty program and, if so, what agency?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have at least two cabinet committees co-ordinating the economic and regional development aspects of this1 matter.



AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
{Translation]

Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: My
question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the government still negotiating with the Quebec government about the matter of the .site for the international airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the decision final or is it still possible to carry out other studies' and negotiations on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is asking a question already asked yesterday.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, 'circumstances change from day to day, on account of the kind of government we
Inquiries of the Ministry have. I wonder if the minister has not changed his mind overnight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unfortunately for the hon. member, the rules of the house do not change from day to day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



INQUIRY AS TO COST OF STE SCHOLASTIQUE SITE

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us whether the Quebec government authorities have advised him that they would refuse to build the access roads to the new international airport at Ste Scholastique?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly not officially, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. They have indicated their displeasure with the choice of the site, but they have not officially advised us that the necessary co-operation will not be forthcoming.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he not of the opinion that a supplementary expenditure amounting to $91 million to be borne by the Canadian people would justify pursuing negotiations with the government of the province of Quebec and showing as much co-operation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that his question is rather an argument and is therefore unacceptable.



AIR CANADA


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Now that he has indicated that the question of money is not the chief difference between the union of machinists and Air Canada, and that the union has admitted this is not the principal difference, would the minister kindly advise the house what are the issues between this international union and
7858	COMMONS DEBATES	April 23, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Air Canada, in a matter which is so disrupting communications in this country?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the question was posed by such an experienced member of the House of Commons, who really appreciates that a wide and sweeping statement as to all the issues involved could only jeopardize what are very delicate negotiations. Provided the house has a little confidence in the Minister of Labour-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -and will not aggravate a very delicate situation for the sake of curiosity, we may be able to bring this matter to a successful conclusion pretty soon.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I refrain from comment on that answer. Perhaps the minister could take the house and the country into his confidence and tell us in general terms-we are not asking for the dollars and cents-whether it is a question of wages, fringe benefits, seniority; or what are the problems?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has done a very capable job of outlining the problems yet to be resolved in all these areas. I can assure the house that if the matter is not settled fairly soon, and I think one party or the other is to blame, I will assume my responsibility as Minister of Labour to inform the Canadian public, in the house, what I think is the reason for this dispute. I will have no hesitation in telling the house and the country who is the culprit, if there is a culprit, in the dispute.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Is the minister now preparing to apply his well known personal magnetism to bring about a speedy settlement of this dispute?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With all due deference, I am not trying to fix any blame. I am just asking the minister, because of his interest-I am sure his interest is shared by all-in getting this dispute settled, whether he will tell the house in general terms just what might be the issues.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



STRIKE OF MECHANICS-ALTERNATE SERVICE BY REGIONAL AIR CARRIERS

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the government considering the expansion of services by regional air carriers both for the present and future, so that in the event of disruption of air service as at present the public will have more alternate service available?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the air policy announced several years ago does provide for the strengthening and growth of the regional air carriers, as business available to support them increases.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is that 30 years ago?



STRIKE OF MECHANICS-TRANSPORTATION OF PERISHABLE GOODS

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, in reply to a question on the subject of baby chicks, the minister indicated that he would check into the situation with a view to making all possible arrangements to facilitate the movement of these baby chicks. Has the minister had a chance to look into the situation, and can he report on the success of his investigation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have had a preliminary look at it. The regional carriers are able to undertake shipments over the distances they operate. There are, I understand, two regional carriers in a position to offer charter flights which might be useful for the chicks.
It has been suggested to some of the producers that they might get in touch with these operators to see if it is possible to charter flights which would help them out in the situation. Ini addition, I think there are one or two circumstances in which it will be necessary to have the eo-operationi of the Canadian Pacific Airlines, and I will make representations directly to the airlines- to see if they will not help out.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary -question-, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would take kindly the suggestion that he get in touch with the Department of Transport to see whether they could move perishable goods, including chicks, to the domestic market in Canada and also to the export market in Japan.
April 23, 1969


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We do not have transoceanic airplanes, Mr. Speaker, but if we did we would consider it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put the following question to the minister with regard to his suggestion concerning C.P.A.: Is the minister aware that C.P.A. is so choked with the mail of the Postmaster General, and, other goods, that they have openly said there is no room for those kinds of goods in their aircraft?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE BUDGET


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he in a position now to inform the house whether he intends to present a budget, and if not a budget then an economic survey, and if so, when may we expect him to do so?


Edgar John Benson: As
I stated previously, I intend to make a budget speech of one form or another, and the time for it would be some time toward the end of May or in the early part of June.



INCOME TAX


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In preparing his budgetary statement, is the minister still considering including in it a provision so that taxation will not continue to be levied on old age pensioners who have only their pensions and the guaranteed income supplement on which to live?


Edgar John Benson: In
the preparation of the budget we consider all submissions which have been made to the government in- this regard.



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT ACT


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the serious accusations made by the Hon. Gabriel Loubier, minister of tourism, fish and game of the province of Quebec, regarding the federal government's reluctance to allow Quebec to enter the federal fitness and amateur sport program, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain this delay to the house?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There has been no reluctance on our part since the inception of the fitness program. We have had agreements with other provinces, and Quebec has chosen not to enter those agreements. Lately, during the last year of the current three year agreement, Quebec has indicated some interest. We are more than happy to have them come in, but some of their suggestions are novel ones and we are carrying out discussions with regard to them. We are prepared to carry them on with Quebec.
I have endeavoured on several occasions to talk to the minister to whom the hon. member referred, but apparently he has not been in a position to reply, other than to send his telegram.



RESEARCH


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to page 6891 of Hansard on which appears a question which I asked of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement that appeared in a leading newspaper to the effect that Canada's reputation in animal research, and even the health of scientists engaged in that field, has been put in jeopardy by the government's austerity measures, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare state what measures are now being taken to correct this terrible situation?
On that date you said, Mr. Speaker, that the minister could probably give the answer in the form of a statement on motions. Therefore I ask that this information be put in the form of a statement on motions tomorrow by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or by the Minister of Agriculture, so that we are informed of what is going on.


John Carr Munro: I am not aware of the fact that our research program in this area has been jeopardized as a result of any cutback in the health resources fund, or whatever fund the hon. member is talking about. As he knows, we have more than doubled the millions of dollars we have already allocated to the research field, so far as medical research is concerned.


Philip Bernard Rynard: It is apparent that the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not understand my question. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could make this statement tomorrow on motions.
7860	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CANADIAN CULTURE


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Complon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Would he tell the house whether his meeting with the Quebec minister, Mr. Jean-Noel Tremblay, regarding a federal-provincial agreement on education, indicates the possibility of negotiations in a climate of co-operation and understanding?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, first I must correct the wrong impression under which the hon. member seems to be. Nothing was said about education. Only cultural affairs were discussed.
As a result of the meeting, it has been agreed that the representatives of the two departments would keep mutually informed, that they would endeavour to act in a complementary way and to co-ordinate their activities and that they would meet again in order to determine how this co-operation and this co-ordination could best be put into practice.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell us whether as a result of having been in touch with Mr. Tremblay, the Quebec minister of Cultural Affairs, he has enriched his own culture?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the minister's revelation a day or so ago that the United States voiced a contrary view to Canada's proposed recognition of China, will the minister undertake shortly to fill in the house and Canadians generally on the details of the U.S. position, since this is something which should be known to Canadians before any decision is taken?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I do not think it is necessary for us to do that. The U.S. secretary of state made a statement which was published
fMr. Rynard.]
DEBATES	April 23, 1969
many weeks ago. I will get it for the house and table it if necessary.


Robert Muir: May
I ask the minister whether the government intends to go ahead in its negotiations with Red China, regardless of the attitude taken by the United States or by the people of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope we make our own decisions in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: It is about time.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Hue Harries (Edmonton-Strathcona):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the International Air Transport Association is now discussing international air freight rates at the Athens meeting, I wonder what instructions the Canadian delegation has received to pursue vigorously the removal of the existing discriminatory, unreasonable and prejudicial air freight charges now being levied on all shipments between western Canada and Europe. If there have been no such instructions, I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to intervene to correct this prejudicial situation.


Gerald William Baldwin: It sounds like a description of Benson's budget.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be pleased to take these representations to the appropriate officials, and to see that they are given consideration.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance concerning the passenger and automobile rates on the Borden-Tormen-tine ferry service, a matter of real urgency in this causeway defunctus era. Can he advise if a decision to increase the rates has been taken, and if so when such an unwelcome measure is to go into effect?


Edgar John Benson: That is a question that should be referred to the Minister of Transport.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't disclaim responsibility for it.
April 23, 1969	COMMONS


An hon. Member:: Rise and shine.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I put a somewhat similar question some days ago to the Minister of Transport and he assured me that within a day or two he would be prepared to make a statement both on the rates and on some of the difficulties that have been encountered recently with regard to the C.N.R. operations. Is that being postponed again, or may we expect a statement this week?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I doubt that it will be possible to make it this week, but I hope that we can have this matter settled in a just manner within a few days.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to say to the house whether a decision has been taken to raise the rates on this important service this summer?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no as of now.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Having in mind the fact that this month a great many consumers across the country are having to pay a great deal more money for a much reduced mail service, I wonder whether the minister would investigate those responsible for this situation, possibly starting with the Postmaster General?


EXPROPRIATION
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of past assurances by the minister that legislation to amend the Expropriation Act would be introduced to the house this session, can the minister inform the house when this might be?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: said, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Peel South a few days ago, that I hope the legislation will be introduced in the next two or three weeks.
DEBATES	7861
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


WORLD HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIPS IN SWEDEN
Steve Eugene Paproski: My question is directed to the Secretary of State and it relates to the coverage by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of the recent world hockey championships in Sweden. In view of the government's declared intention to avoid waste, can the minister report to the house the reason for sending 56 C.B.C. employees to Sweden for three weeks, when the television contract for the world hockey games had already been secured by C.T.V.?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid this question should be placed on the order paper.


PEST CONTROL
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: would direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that Sweden has banned outright the use of d.d.t. in that country because of its harmful effects on human beings and other higher forms of life-


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Gerald William Baldwin: He must mean Conservatives.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: -is the effect of this chemical and its use in Canada being investigated?


Mr. Speaker:: The question can be placed on the order paper or debated at the time of the adjournment.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell the house whether the United States anti-ballistic missile site for the Miehigan-Ohio area will be located in the vicinity of Sault Ste. Marie, in the upper peninsula of Michigan?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that this question, if it is in order, should be placed on the order paper.
7862	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry EDUCATION


ASSISTANCE TO ALBERTA YOUTH CORPS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State received a submission from the province of Alberta requesting assistance in financing the Alberta Youth Corps, a voluntary organization active in the field of education and mental health in that province?


Mr. Speaker:: I fail to see the urgency of the question, but if the hon. member thinks it is urgent I shall be pleased to return with him at the time of the adjournment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN ACTION IN MARKETING OF ANTIBIOTICS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last week, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare about the decision of the food and drug administration in the United States to ban the marketing of some 78 drugs because they contained antibiotics suspected of exposing patients to unnecessary risk. May I ask what action the hon. gentleman's department has taken to ban similar drugs in this country? The minister promised to consider this question and reply at a later date, and I wonder whether he now has anything to report to the house.


John Carr Munro: I hope to be in a position to report on this question, perhaps tomorrow.


UNITED NATIONS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he proposes to take any new initiative with regard to the conflict in Nigeria, particularly in view of the apparent breakdown of efforts1 by the appropriate association of African states in this area. In particular I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he proposes to take any initiative at the United Nations in this regard.

DEBATES	April 23, 1969


Mitchell William Sharp: Since the breakdown of the negotiations undertaken by the Organization of African Unity we have looked at this question again, and the same difficulty appears- that we are not likely to obtain sufficient support in the United Nations for this! question to be raised in a constructive way. The hon. gentleman is aware, as I am sure are all hon. members, that the problem arises from the fundamental difference which now exists as to what should be the future of Nigeria. Until there is some agreement on this I do not think negotiations can proceed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the hon. gentleman making any effort of an orderly sort to persuade the countries involved to reach agreement as to an appropriate method by which to proceed?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have said before, there is no lack of intermediaries. There are many, including ourselves, who would be only too happy to act in such a capacity. But until there can be agreement on whether there ought to be one Nigeria or an independent Biafra, I really do not see that there is much to be done.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the
minister whether he is how prepared to disclose to the house the message he sent to the government of Nigeria and the suggestions made to that government some weeks ago, which he declined to disclose until ample time had passed for the message to be delivered.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I had better answer that question tomorrow. I shall take the question as notice. I have a report and will make it tomorrow.


BIAFRA-DISCUSSION OF ACTION FOR HUMANITARIAN RELIEF
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Would the hon. gentleman tell us whether any progress is being made in connection with the proposal of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, endorsed by him I believe in his speech on November 26, that international action for humanitarian relief should be considered in the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: If the hon. gentleman will look up Hansard he will find I have answered this question.
April 23, 1969	COMMONS
Mr. B re win: The hon. minister answered it by saying he would look into the matter further and report later. Is he ready to report to the house now?


Mitchell William Sharp: That was the first answer I gave. I gave a supplementary answer later.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the house when he intends to make a statement concerning the recommendations conveyed to him by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence with regard to the whole Nigeria-Biafra conflict?


Mitchell William Sharp: When that report was presented to the house, I did make a statement, but I will review that statement now to see whether it needs to be modified in the light of later events.


AIRPORTS
Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Province of Quebec does not seem to want a new airport, and since the workers in Montreal and Air Canada do not seem to want to work, while we know that workers in Winnipeg will work, could the management-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the house will have to surmise the rest of the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Robert Jardine McCleave: My question is for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. gentleman send along to the appropriate C.B.C. authorities the resolution which members of the New Brunswick legislature passed expressing unanimous agreement on the need to retain Don Messer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	7863
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS


ALLEGED MONOPOLISTIC ACTION OF OIL COMPANIES
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: I
have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. According to news reports this morning a statement has been made by an executive of the National Automotive Trade Association inferring that because of monopolistic action by the oil companies Canadians are paying too much for gasoline and auto parts. In view of this statement and its implications as far as the cost of living of every Canadian is concerned, would the minister institute an examination of this industry to insure that Canadians are being given fair treatment?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Of course, this is a matter which is constantly under surveillance by the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act. I would also point out that I have not seen the statement to which the hon. member alludes, but the T.B.A. report is presently before the Economic Council of Canada for consideration, together with the report recently made in Alberta on the same subject. I expect to have a report from the Economic Council some time this spring.


Gerald William Baldwin: Always we have surveillance but never action.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister to make a statement some day in the house on these reports he is receiving, so all the people of Canada may understand what is going on.


Stanley Ronald Basford: If and when that is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister ask his prices commission to make a report in the matter?


COMBINES
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with monopolies. Has the minister received a formal complaint charging that Canada's big three sugar refineries have failed to obey a court order restricting them
April 23, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry from monopolistic practices. If so, what action does the government propose to take?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is long established practice not to reveal names of those who lodge complaints or information with us. Those people lodging complaints or information are free, of course, to make their own names public.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question to the minister did not concern privacy. I did not ask him for the names of any people involved in the matter. I asked him whether such complaint had been made and what the government intends to do in this regard?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act is, as always, carrying out his statutory duties.


AIR CANADA
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. A week ago today I asked him a question with respect to the transfer of the Air Canada Winnipeg base at Winnipeg to Northwest Industries Ltd. I asked what steps the government is taking to make sure that the employees affected will not be either unemployed or forced to take work at lower wages than they have had under Air Canada. The minister said he would give me an answer in a few days. Is that answer now available?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I got in touch with the officers of Air Canada at once. Unfortunately, the senior personnel of the corporation have been occupied in pressing negotiations with the machinists union during the last few days. This has made it impossible for them to obtain all the information I should like to have before answering my hon. friend's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that I asked what steps the government was taking? Will he not answer that question now?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, that is already known. The government indicated that it

wanted fair treatment at the time the direction was given to Air Canada in the first place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that the government not only said that it wanted fair treatment, but that it assured fair treatment in this matter. I ask, what has been done to keep this commitment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate, and not a supplementary question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
All Canadians recognize that the Prime Minister is very fond of sports and that during the election campaign of 1968 he collected kisses. But, since he collected tomatoes in, Calgary recently, could he tell us if they were grown in Canada or imported?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member, or others think that tomatoes were thrown at me. They were thrown, at the newspapermen and they are the ones who assume they were being aimed at me and not at them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
ADDITIONAL PASSPORT ISSUING SERVICE Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he use his influence with the cabinet to expand facilities for our most excellent and efficient passport department so that the department can carry on its excellent work in more efficient quarters.
['Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can clear up the misunderstanding at once by saying that the government has decided in principle to increase the ferry rates. Secondly, no decision has yet been taken with respect to the new level of the rates which the government is presently considering. I am afraid that this has been a question of semantics. I did not mean to mislead the house.\n\n[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)']
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet has already given me that authority.
April 23, 1969	COMMONS



Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Considering the poor standing of the national hockey team during the last world tournament, is it true that the minister is ready to announce changes likely to ensure a better Canadian performance in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the minister to confirm or deny a report or a rumour. I do not think the question as asked is in order.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you for recognizing me again, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General, since I know he is interested in cutting out waste. My question has to do with the visit of the R.C.M.P. to England, where they will partake in a musical ride. I understand that 14 constables have already arrived in the old country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member at this time must not make a speech, even if it is a musical speech. He ought to ask a question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, since 14 constables have arrived in England may I ask the Solicitor General, where are the horses?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, they are in the United Kingdom.


AGRICULTURE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It has to do with the comprehensive development plan of which the federal government is a signatory, and to which it will contribute something. Have the minister's officials had
DEBATES	7865
Inquiries of the Ministry occasion recently to contact responsible provincial officials with regard to bringing immediate assistance to some persons engaged in a basic industry covered by the plan, namely, the agricultural industry. In short, are there any plans to assist farmers engaged in potato growing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Is the hon. member asking a question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to know whether the minister or his officials have been discussing with provincial officials the question of providing assistance under the plan I referred to for potato growers.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, personally, I have not discussed the matter. As regards officials of my department, I shall inquire before replying to the hon. member.


THE MINISTRY
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to our honourable and fearless Secretary of State.
In a speech he delivered before the Quebec East Liberal Association, he is reported as having said that the western world has received-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to remind him that he cannot ask questions referring to speeches delivered by ministers outside the house. He can only ask the Prime Minister whether a speech made outside the house reflects government policy.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, according to the English text, the minister is reported as having said, and I quote:


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I am afraid the question cannot be asked in this way.


Mr. Maclnnis:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The original question was not allowed; therefore there can be no supplementary.

April 23, 1969


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind Your Honour that previously when you ruled a question out of order the Prime Minister nevertheless was permitted to answer.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. May I ask the minister why there are two versions of an important speech he gave. There is a French version and an English language version of the speech he made to the Quebec Liberal Association. He made a very important statement which appears in the English version but it is missing entirely from the French version.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this is a matter which can be brought up as a question of privilege. Perhaps a question ought to be directed to the translator.


TRANSPORT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates to an earlier question of privilege. I did not wish to bring the matter up earlier because I did not wish to take up the time of the house. During the course of questioning with regard to increases in ferry rates the Minister of Transport may have misled the house. He misrepresented, I submit, the position that was adopted before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications where it was indicated no decision had been taken. In the house he indicated that ferry rates governing the Northumberland Strait crossing by the Canadian National were to be increased. I therefore submit that he misled the standing committee and the house on a very important matter affecting transportation to and from one of our provinces. I think the house deserves an explanation from the minister with regard to this particular question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can clear up the misunderstanding at once by saying that the government has decided in principle to increase the ferry rates. Secondly, no decision has yet been taken with respect to the new level of the rates which the government is presently considering. I am afraid that this has been a question of semantics. I did not mean to mislead the house.

[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That this house supports the government's policy of continued Canadian participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the intention of the government, in consultation with Canada's allies, to take early steps to bring about a planned and phased reduction of the size of Canadian forces in Europe.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes this debate for it provides an occasion to discuss in the House of Commons those aspects of Canadian defence policy which were announced earlier this month.
The government's decision to engage in a thorough review of its foreign policy was, I think it fair to say, welcomed by most Canadians and indeed by representatives of all political parties. Some years have passed since the last careful re-evaluation of our external relations was conducted, and much has changed in the world in the interval. Our decision to review was taken with care, and the review in its several aspects is being pursued with care. In an exercise as important and as infrequent as this, haste is not a criterion which we on this side regard as necessary. Far better, we believe, to proceed with deliberate speed and attention than to meet artificial deadlines with incomplete studies and hurried decisions.
This comprehensive foreign policy review fulfils an undertaking given by the Liberal party in the last election campaign. I stated late last May that a thorough re-examination was needed "because of the changing nature of Canada and the world around us."
I also said and I quote:
-our approach will be pragmatic and realistic-above all to see that our policies in the future accord with our national needs and resources, with our ability to discharge Canada's legitimate responsibilities in world affairs.
It is our intention that the review will, prior to conclusion, encompass all aspects of our foreign relations, including trade, economic assistance programs, and defence. Some parts of the review are, of course, more
April 23. 1969

advanced than others. In all aspects, however, it has been our decision to return to fundamental principles; to make no assumptions about the validity of previously pursued policies.
It can, of course, be said that widespread studies were not needed in order to learn that the problems facing Canada in the foreign and defence areas are in broad dimension those that we have faced for some time-global and regional tensions, under-development, and economic disruptions. Nor to know that Canada's objectives have not varied much; we still seek a peaceful and secure world fortified by a general economic stability which will permit men and women everywhere to pursue the individual dignity which is their natural right. Fresh studies were needed nevertheless to review some of our traditional positions. They were needed because the breath-taking pace of change in this decade, whether measured in technological, demographic, or economic terms, has so altered the complexion and the scope of those problems, and so emphasized the desirability of those objectives, that we are in a very real sense in a new world.

What the government is seeking in the review, therefore, is something more than a catalogue of current problems, useful though that would be. We are attempting to learn whether Canada, by reassessing in a systematic fashion its own and the world situation, may play a more effective role in pursuing its objectives. We want to be sure that we are doing, so far as we are able, the right things in the right places. Canada's resources, both human and physical, are immense, but they are not limitless. We must establish priorities which will permit us to expend our energies in a fashion that will best further the values that we cherish.
We do not further those values by withdrawing from the world, nor will this government ever suggest that we should. But neither do we further those values effectively by needlessly fragmenting our efforts, by doing things that others can and should do better. Above all, we accomplish nothing by refusing to recognize that in the past two decades there have been changes in the world and in Canada which demand fresh policies and adjusted viewpoints.
In some respects, Mr. Speaker, it may be said that the foreign policy review is a clinical test of Canada's maturity. The policies that are being examined were formulated and

pursued over a period of time that can only be described as an outstanding chapter in the history of this country. Canada's contribution to the betterment of international relations in the post-war era is one of which all Canadians are justifiably proud. But the record of that period reveals that Canada's efforts were successful largely because of our ability to innovate, to meet new problems with new solutions, and to be aware that the world is a constantly changing place.
The man whose name is associated with brilliant statesmanship by millions of people around the globe, the Canadian who rightly earned for this country a proud place in the councils of the world, and was honoured with a Nobel Peace Prize, did not achieve his success by adhering stubbornly to old policies. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson is today celebrating his 72nd birthday in Tokyo where he is still exercising a service for the benefit of the world community. Had Mr. Pearson not approached new problems with new solutions, we would not regard him now with the respect he so richly deserves as a servant of peace.
And so it is today. Canadians must be prepared to face the world of actuality, the world of 1969.
We begin with the realization that we in Canada are in a relatively happy and unusual position. Not since Confederation has there existed a viable threat to our territorial integrity. The good fortune of geography has removed Canadian territory from physical contact with wars elsewhere; the good fortune of history has given us land frontiers with only a single, friendly nation. But we must remember that while there may be no present threat to Canada's territorial integrity, we are not able to say that there is no present threat from without to Canada's physical security. Should a major world conflict break out it will not likely involve territorial aggrandizement at Canada's expense, but it could easily involve mass destruction within Canada.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In a world as interdependent as that of today, with instant world-wide communications systems, and pre-targeted nuclear armed rockets only minutes flying time distant from all major European and North American cities, Canada's security is dependent on a peaceful world. Our efforts to

April 23, 1969

achieve such a world are therefore a necessity; they should be made as effective as possible. Physical security now, and in the long run, can be secured only if the nations of the world recognize that certain conditions must obtain. I believe that there are five such conditions; in the long run the final three offer the only hope for lasting security.
1.	Prevention of the erosion or serious imbalance of the nuclear arms stalemate which has so far been successful in deterring a nuclear holocaust;
2.	Co-operation in preventing, or in promptly settling conflicts of a nature that might, by their location, escalate into nuclear war;
3.	Participation in international peacekeeping forces and in non-military initiatives which will foster trust and strength in international conflict-resolution procedures and in an effective system of world order;
4.	Dedication of adequate resources to the study and negotiation of arms limitations and disarmament agreements;
5.	Contribution of an increasing percentage of national resources to activities which are designed to relieve or remove such causes of unrest as economic insecurity.
These conditions must prevail in the international community if mankind is to survive the 20th century. International mechanisms now exist to co-ordinate and further activities leading to these ends; they deserve and require the support of all governments, of men of all political leanings.
The Canadian government must consider which of these five conditions is deserving of the greatest expenditure at any given time, and toward which Canadian activity can be most effectively directed. Because none of the conditions can obtain through the efforts of any single nation, Canada's decisions in these matters must be taken after consultation with other states in the world community, but not necessarily with the same states in each instance.

The foregoing, Mr. Speaker, are some of the foreign policy considerations which are particularly pertinent to any discussion or evaluation of a Canadian defence policy. They make obvious the requirement that the defence policy of a country such as Canada must not be permitted either to estrange itself from its foreign policy or to become the dominant influence in that policy. Still more important, our defence policy must not

become totally dominated by any single military consideration or alliance. The broad foundation of all Canada's external relations must be its foreign policy. Plowing out of that foreign policy-and as a part of it-is our defence policy. The defence policy in turn will determine the nature of our military alliances and the deployment of our forces.
Described in these terms, it becomes apparent that Canada's NATO relationship is not, primarily, a military decision. It is a political decision. As such the Canadian government is acting in a responsible fashion when it observes that the European members of NATO now have a combined population of 300 millions, and a combined Gross National Product of 500 billion United States dollars. The remarkable post-World War II recovery of the states of Western Europe has increased considerably their capability of defending their own region. This increased capability in turn reduces the present need for a sustained Canadian military contribution.
I might emphasize as well that, apart from the United States, Canada is at present the only member of NATO which is carrying out an extensive NATO military role on two continents. In summary, we feel that Europe, twenty years after NATO, can defend itself better and we hope that NATO's European member countries, with the support of the United States and Canada, can reach some agreement with the Warsaw Pact countries to de-escalate the present tension. For our part we are not now advocating a reduction of NATO's total military strength, although we hope that this may become possible, but a readjustment of commitments among NATO members.
It follows, and our defence review has made it clear, that a Canadian military presence in Europe is not important so much on the grounds that we fulfill a military role as we do a political role. We contribute in some measure to the "resolve" of the organization; to the will of the Alliance to respond to any aggression. This being the case, the Canadian military function in NATO may be seen to be a manifestation of our political policy.
This is consistent with one of the important roles of NATO, which is political-the accommodation with the Warsaw Pact countries of the outstanding differences between the two alliances and agreement on arms controls and arms limitation.
It is this search for detente which is one of the compelling reasons for remaining a member of NATO. Quite apart from any military
April 23, 1969



COMMON DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
role, there is, we believe, an important political role for NATO and for Canada within NATO in this attempt to remove or reduce the underlying political causes of potential conflict through steps toward political reconciliation and settlement.
The govemment'si NATO decision is based on the belief that, during the forthcoming years, there are better uses of the Canadian forces, and that there are better political means of pursuing our foreign policy than through a continued military presence in Europe of the present size. For this reason we propose a planned and phased reduction.
[Stage Direction]
The maintenance, Mr. Speaker, of the five conditions that I mentioned a few moments ago remains our objective: nuclear stability, resolution of conflicts, peacekeeping, disarmament, and economic assistance. It is in an attempt to further these conditions in a rational and effective fashion that the government has taken its first decisions' in the defence policy area. We have undertaken the development of a defence policy based on Canada's interests and place in the world, a policy which will at the same time be supported by Canadians generally and accepted by our friends and allies.
Those aforesaid decisions I have already announced. They appear as an appendix to Hansard for Friday, April 18. They mean that this government is willing to state that the efforts expended in search of a secure Canada and a peaceful world in the last 25 years are in some ways inappropriate for the next 25 years. And they mean that following the same careful type of study and with the same resolve that launched Canada in 1945 into a then new and effective role in the world, we believe Canada is now on the threshold of another new role. This does not mean, however, that our present posture or our present attitude must necessarily be totally changed.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It is obvious from the foregoing that the government has rejected, for example, any suggestion that Canada assume a non-aligned or neutral role in the world. To do so would have meant the withdrawal by Canada from its present alliances and the termination of all co-operative military arrangements with other countries. That would be wrong; it is necessary and wise to continue to participate in an appropriate way in collective security arrangements with other states in the interests
[Stage Direction]
of Canada's national security and in defence of the values we share with our friends.
The precise military role which we shall endeavour to assume in these collective arrangements will be a matter for discussion and consultation with our allies and will depend in part on the role assigned to Canadian forces in the defence of North America in co-operation with the United States. They will be consistent as well with our belief that, as a responsible member of the international community, we must continue to make forces available for peacekeeping roles.
I wish to pause at this point, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that the government's decision should not in any sense be construed as a criticism of the personnel of the Canadian forces. We are all here aware, and take justifiable pride, in the high degree of professional ability which these forces demonstrate in their NATO roles in Europe and on the North Atlantic ocean.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The air division, the mechanized brigade, and our maritime force are first-class formations and carry out their respective NATO missions superbly. They set a standard of performance which other NATO forces find difficult to match.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government has not the slightest doubt that this same high standard of performance will continue to be observed by the Canadian forces in the new roles which will be assigned to them.

Measured in terms of nuclear weapons and destructive capacity, Mr. Speaker, the threat to the continued existence of mankind is incomparably greater today than it was in the nineteen forties. In the early days of NATO it was said that the West could not wait for political settlements, but had to tackle first the security issue.
That remains true. Equally true, however, is the statement that we cannot wait for solutions of the security issue without at the same time accelerating our efforts toward political settlement, and particularly arms control.
In all history, arms by themselves have never guaranteed security for long. And just as there is no single cause of conflict, so is there no single technique of arms control. The present balance of deterrents is an absurdly

April 23, 1969

unsatisfactory substitute for real security. A more stable alternative is necessary.
Coincidental with the search for a solution to this military problem is the necessity that nations recognize the social pressures now building up around the world. We cannot ignore the forces of history now on the move in Asia, Africa, and South America. It is the sorry record of mankind that, through history, there has always been recurring resistance to arms control and the avoidance of violence as a means of change; and of the failure to recognize promptly social elements which cry out for relief.
Our goal must be one of an international world community which controls conflict but which at the same time permits elements in the community to satisfy their need for change and progress as circumstances require. A balance must be struck between the demands of nations and the needs of the world community. In order to ensure opportunity for such a balance, we must imaginatively and resolutely seek arms control and disarmament agreements.
Canada's record at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Conference is an outstanding one. The contribution made by General E.L.M. Burns is likely unsurpassed by that of any other single person. It is the intention of this government that our foreign policy should provide for a growing investment of intellectual resources in this important area, and that one of the most important foreign relations tasks in which Canada is engaged is that which is directed to arms limitations and disarmament.
We think that our defence policy decisions are consistent with this scheme of priorities. We believe that a careful evaluation of Canada's present NATO military commitment, including the tactical nuclear role now assigned to our forces is a necessary first step. Our acts must not be shown to be inconsistent with our aims. Underway at the moment is an examination of the means by which our new defence policy will be instituted in order to meet these aims.

The world, Mr. Speaker, is embarked upon a revolutionary period which dwarfs by comparison the changes of the past centuries. Our era combines a technological revolution with a revolution of rising expectations of billions of persons who for the first time in history are projecting themselves to the forefront of our consciences as they seek their proper place in the international community. This is

the excitement, this is the challenge, recognized by so many of our youth. This is the need which tens of thousands of young persons in Ottawa and Hull alone recognized last Saturday as they participated in the "Miles for Millions" march.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We as Canadians would not be fulfilling our potential for good if we remained aloof from these events. This government intends to reorganize our resources and our energies to play a role in the world as it is, not to dream of things as they were. Those in this house and elsewhere who say that our defence policy represents a turn toward isolationism are proclaiming only that, in their fixation on old wars and on old problems, they are isolated-isolated from the world of now and the world of the future.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You
wouldn't know.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Canada has the opportunity to play a role in the world of today, Mr. Speaker, a role which, hopefully, will act as an incentive to other like-minded states, a role which will emphasize the need to devote energies to the reduction of tension and the reversal of the arms race-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -a role which will acknowledge that humanity is increasingly subject to perils from sources in addition to an east-west conflict centred in Europe, and which will permit us to make the intellectual and resource investments necessary to do our part to meet those perils. This is why we are insisting that our defence policy be directed by our foreign policy, and not vice-versa. This is why we are placing emphasis on imaginative concepts of assistance to developing countries. This is why we are insisting that our defence policy be rational and not a rationalization.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The government, Mr. Speaker, recognizes that the challenge of future world social and political events will not be met by a stagnant, cautious attitude. We must anticipate, not react; we must think, not conform; we must have courage to discard conventional wisdom in our quest for a secure and peaceful world. If this requires change, so be it.


David Lewis: Amen.
April 23, 1369


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To those who will tell me that this is not the time for change-tomorrow perhaps but not now-to them I refer to the nostalgic lyrics of the popular song "Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end." They did end, Mr. Speaker. In the history of mankind, many days have ended and those who have been unprepared to adapt to new forces have ended with them. We do not propose that fate for Canada and our civilization. We on this side are saying to Canadians: "These are the days, my friend".


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might begin by suggesting that this is not one of the Prime Minister's better days. We have heard a lot of general discussion this afternoon and a lot of high-flown sentiment, most of which I suggest really has nothing to do with the motion before the house. The motion asks us to support continued Canadian participation in NATO, which we do. It also asks us to support the intention of the government, in consultation with our allies, to take early steps to bring about a planned and phased reduction of the size of Canadian forces in Europe. Those words could mean that only 12 servicemen will be left in Europe, that only 12 servicemen will be brought home from Europe, or anything in between. That is exactly what this resolution was designed to do, to mean anything anybody wants it to mean.
Is this the way honest men in government, to use the Prime Minister's self-portrait in Calgary, state their policy? Is this the way a responsible leader of government tells Canada and the world what is the intent in respect of Canada's foreign and defence policy, by making statements deliberately intended to mean different things to different people? This tactic would only be justified, sir, if it confused our enemies as much as it confuses the people of Canada.
Some people say that this technique is extremely clever, that it is cute and is smart politics, but I thought this was the age of meaningful dialogue between the government and the people. I thought this was to be a participatory democracy and that people were going to be plugged into the political process and the process of decision-making. I thought the dominant characteristics of the just society in the relationship between the government and the people was to have been a rigorous, intellectual honesty. Some intellect and some honesty, Mr. Speaker! Not even 29180-498

Mackenzie King at his most devious, or Jack Pickersgill with his bag of tricks, would have tried to mislead and confuse the country to the extent now being attempted by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It is just not credible, it is just not believable, that the government has formulated a policy of making a planned and phased reduction of our forces in Europe without having come to some decision as to how big a reduction will be made, what kind of a reduction is likely and what the timing will be. Even the Liberal backbenchers do not believe that. They have to pretend they believe it, but we do not.
The Prime Minister says the government has not decided on how big a reduction, what kind of reduction or what the timing will be. Then what are we being asked to vote on in this motion? It is a nothing motion designed, as I said, to mean anything anybody wants it to mean. I feel sure it means something different to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) than it does to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). I do not know why the Prime Minister bothers to dissemble in the way he does. He would not have any trouble with this cabinet. If he were to decide to join the Warsaw Pact I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs would rationalize that decision for him. These cabinet members are as docile a bunch of kittens as one could find anywhere, and when the Prime Minister puts his tongue in his cheek at his press conference and told how "strong men have strong opinions", you could have heard them purr.
As to the timing of the reduction and the method of bringing it about, of course the statements of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have been contradictory. Both of them have contradicted the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister has contradicted both of them. Now the Prime Minister has contradicted himself. On April 3, at his press conference, the Prime Minister said:
The Canadian force commitment for deployment with NATO in Europe beyond this period will be discussed with our allies at the meeting of the defence planning committee of NATO in May.
He meant beyond the year 1969. Later at the same conference the Prime Minister said in reply to a question:
We intend to go to the alliance in May and say that this is what we want to do with our forces.
A week later the Secretary of State for External Affairs was in Washington and at a

April 23, 1969

press briefing given by the minister at the Canadian embassy he was asked when the Canadian government was going to tell NATO what is proposed by way of reduction and, quoting from the transcript, he replied:


Mitchell William Sharp: The Prime Minister announced that at the meeting of the defence planning committee that the plans of the Canadian government would be laid before the defence ministers.
Question: So the decision is going to be taken before the meeting?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, obviously.
Then we come back to the House of Commons and on April 14 the Prime Minister said, no, that is not right, the decision will be taken before, and the final decision will be made in August of this year. Just two days later the Minister of National Defence said the discussion would go on until December of this year before there was any final decision.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The Prime Minister succeeded in further shrouding the whole subject in mystery in his Calgary speech when he said:
And that is why we will not say, until our foreign policy has been determined and presented to parliament, and presented to the country-we will not say, in a final way, what forces we will put into NATO and what forces we will draw out of NATO.
That sounds like one of the statements on bank deposits by a former minister of finance. But unfortunately it does not enlighten us very much on the question of defending Canada or the free world. The Prime Minister explained that this process of policy review would be a long one. If we have to wait until it terminates, and if it is as long as he indicated in Calgary it would be, the Nato allies will not get any firm proposition from the government and we will not be told about it in May or August and probably not in December.
We all know that the Prime Minister went out west to ski, but some of us have the impression that he did some pretty fancy skating while he was in Calgary. The point is, how can anybody in Canada or in the world at large now have the slightest confidence in anything these gentlemen say about their plans in this respect?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Having allowed for the
attempt to confuse people, including his own colleagues, as to what the policy actually is, and leaving aside the very obvious ignorance of his own responsible ministers as to what

this policy is and when it is to be determined, what do we have as a basis for judging the policy intentions and policy directions of this government? Principally, we have the Prime Minister's statement of April 3, his Calgary speech of April 12, and what I would call his non-speech of today in terms of further enlightening us on this matter.
I mean no offence to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Minister of National Defence when I say that their utterances on this subject are of minimal importance, because like the rest of us they have to study the Prime Minister's speeches and then read Anthony Westell's column to get an idea of what the policy is going to be. The Prime Minister said in Calgary:
X think the people in the armed forces have a right to know where we are going.
That is one sentiment we can all heartily endorse. When they find out, let us hope they will tell the rest of us. The Prime Minister, no doubt after long reflection, has concluded that foreign policy comes before defence policy, that defence policy must flow from foreign policy. This, of course, is a vast oversimplification; the two obviously must be interrelated. It would be virtually just as foolish to develop a foreign policy without regard to defence policy as it would be to try to develop a defence policy without regard to foreign policy. They must be interrelated. The Prime Minister pronounced a geometric theorem in Calgary, and I quote him again. I hope he is flattered by all the careful attention I have given to his comments there. The Prime Minister said:
-NATO had in reality determined all of our defence policy. We had no defence policy, so to speak, except that of NATO. And our defence policy had determined all of our foreign policy. And we had no foreign policy of any importance except that which flowed from NATO.
It reads almost like the Old Testament, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Euclid himself could not have evolved a theorem more clearly designed to demonstrate the incompetence of previous Liberal administrations in this country. When the Prime Minister of Canada says that we had no foreign policy of any importance except that which flowed from NATO, I say to him that is not so. I say to him that is a slander on the man he attempted to praise here today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
April 23, 1969


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a slander on the many and varied constructive roles that the Canadian people and Canadian governments have played in world affairs and in furthering world peace in the last 20 years. The Prime Minister says our foreign policy is under review; it is not yet determined and it will not be determined for a long time. He is going to be very careful about it. Foreign policy, says the Prime Minister, must determine defence policy. But foreign policy is not yet decided. Therefore anyone as naive as I am would assume that defence policy will not be decided until foreign policy has been decided.
But in the same speech in Calgary the Prime Minister indicated that he and his government had settled upon four priorities of a new defence policy. They had not settled their foreign policy but they had settled the four basic priorities of a new defence policy. The emphasis was to be put, first, on the defence of Canadian sovereignty. I do not know what that means, but "sovereignty" seems to be a word that fascinates the Prime Minister. The emphasis was to be, second, on the defence of Canadian territory and continental defence; third, on our association with NATO and, fourth, on U.N. peacekeeping. These were the four priorities of a new defence policy announced by the Prime Minister.
The government has decided to redeploy, not reduce, troops to give effect to the new order of priorities, to this change in emphasis in our defence policy. I emphasize that at the press conference the Prime Minister, referring to NATO and NORAD, said that the total number of troops committed to these two alliances is not being reduced by virtue of Canada's present action. Do not let anybody misunderstand what we are talking about. We are not talking about reducing military expenditures and making that money available for other purposes. We are talking about a redeployment of the defence forces which are to be maintained. We are not talking about anything more than that at the present time.
The change is from emphasis on a wider defensive alliance to emphasis on continental or territorial defence. What other interpretation can be placed upon the priorities outlined by the Prime Minister in his statement of April 3 and repeated in his speech of April 12? Having made this decision, having changed the priorities of defence policy, having changed the emphasis of our defence effort and our military alliances, where does this leave the Prime Minister's declaration
29180-498J

that defence policy flows from foreign policy and that foreign policy is still under review? Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made nonsense of his own statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister has announced that we will reduce our defence participation in Europe and increase our participation in North America. How has this change in defence policy come about? From what new foreign policy does it flow? What changes have there been in our foreign policy that dictate this change in our defence policy? The only change in our foreign policy of which I know is that there has been talk of exchanging representatives with the Vatican. I do not know what redeployment of defence forces this would involve. I know also that initiatives are being taken to establish diplomatic relations with Peking. Does this mean that the Minister of National Defence is going to blast his way in to Peking or, failing that, into the Vatican?
There is not the slightest connection between this new defence policy and the new foreign policy that has been indicated. The Prime Minister is just playing with words. He has not been able to demonstrate that a Canadian soldier on Canadian soil will make a more effective contribution to the security of Canada than a Canadian soldier now with NATO in Europe. The Prime Minister has not been able to demonstrate that increasing our participation in continental defence in partnership with the United States will contribute more to world peace, world security and Canadian security than our broader and wider partnership including European countries. Surely these questions go to the very heart and soul of Canadian foreign policy.
What are the new considerations in foreign policy that have led to this change in emphasis in our defence policy? We do not know. The Prime Minister has not told us about the changes in foreign policy, if there are any. He has criticized past methods of developing foreign policy. He says that they were dictated by the defence decisions made by the governments of the day. I presume the truths announced by the Prime Minister are not only eternal but apply to himself as well. Yet here we have the Prime Minister of Canada today determining a new defence policy before he has determined his foreign policy.

April 23, 1969

Are we to assume that the new foreign policy will flow from the new defence policy which he is working out before he has worked out his new foreign policy? How are we to judge the worth of this new defence policy? The burden of proof is certainly on the government. Surely they have to demonstrate, or at least present some semblance of an argument, that we can make a better contribution to Canadian security and world peace by reducing our role in Europe at this time, on the one hand, and increasing our role in North America, which is the other side of the coin presented by the Prime Minister. After all, this is really what he was saying in his statement of April 3 and in his speech of April 12. There is no indication at all that the purpose of the change is to reduce the defence budget or to reduce our defence forces. Indeed, may I remind the house again that the Prime Minister specifically denied that this was the purpose of what he was announcing, although my good friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, tried to say the opposite when he was in Washington, pretending that the reason for the NATO reduction was that we needed the money for national development.
I have to say regretfully that this is another instance of the sort of double-talk that is going on which creates confusion among ourselves and distrust among people we have always regarded as our friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What we are talking about then is the redeployment of defence forces, a shift in our defence commitments. It has nothing to do with Canada's economic problems, with foreign aid or with national development, and I would like someone on the other side of the house to tell me how the announcement made by the Prime Minister will contribute in any way to the establishment of the five necessary conditions to peace. In what way will this country be any better off in making a contribution toward these five points by simply shifting troops from a broader based alliance to our own territory within the framework of North American security?
What can be said for a redeployment of our defence forces a shift in our defence commitments? First of all, it does not flow from any new foreign policy. Second, it has not been demonstrated that it will make a better contribution to the peace of the world or the security of Canada to reduce our participation in Europe and increase our participation in

North America. The Prime Minister also announced:
-to the extent that it is feasible we shall endeavour to have those activities within Canada which are essential to North American defence performed by Canadian forces.
If this is going to have any meaningful significance, including the provision of what the Prime Minister has called "an effective multi-purpose maritime coastal shield", the cost will be many million dollars more than our present expenditures on NATO.
The Prime Minister has not disclosed any new considerations of foreign policy that would justify this change. I ask every member of this house very seriously: How can Canada make a better contribution by drawing farther away from a more broadly based alliance including European countries and closer to defence integration with the United States? The Prime Minister spoke in Washington of what it is like to sleep with an elephant. It is clear he would not enjoy sleeping with an- elephant.


An hon. Member:: Would you?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I cannot imagine why he would, want to marry the elephant.
What is Canada trying to prove by this unilateral decision? What contribution does this decision make to the alliance of which we have been a part and to the peace of the world in general? This year is the 20th anniversary of NATO, and the countries of NATO are discussing among themselves the over-all structure and strategy and the objectives1 of NATO. From this kind of discussion might well flow logically a discussion of how each member can best make a contribution in the future to NATO's agreed objectives. Certainly there is room for improvement in NATO, a full realization of its broad purposes in addition to its military role, the achievement of social and economic purposes. Certainly we on this side of the house are just as interested in a detente as my hon. friends opposite, but we do not think that we improve our chances of achieving a detente by weakening our position. I suggest that Canada will not have a very meaningful role to play in the kind of discussions now going on in NATO because the government of Canada has already decided to reduce its contribution and to demote NATO on its list of priorities.
There has been some discussion of a detente between the east and the west, some hope of a mutal de-escalation of forces on the part of the Warsaw Pact countries and the
April 23, 1969

NATO countries. I suggest that the Prime Minister has weakened the prospect and perhaps postponed the detente by embarrassing NATO and by placing it in a position where it would have a somewhat weaker negotiating hand if it entered now into discussions with the Warsaw Pact countries.
I am not merely talking of the troops we are withdrawing, which are perhaps marginal in the over-all picture. I am also talking of the psychological damage done to the alliance. Six years ago the right hon. Mr. Pearson put it in this way:
Today, defence policy is based more on the interdependence, than the independence, of nations. No country can defend itself alone. The only security, especially for a country like Canada, lies in collective action through a defensive alliance such as NATO, which rests, or should rest, in so far as its military side is concerned, on a pooling of strength.
Canada . . . must do nothing to weaken continental or NATO collective policy and action, while insisting that this requires full and continuous consultation between partners. Otherwise the defence coalition will not survive and the defence policies of its members will go their separate ways, along with their foreign policies.
To the extent that the alliance to which we belong is broadly based, there is somewhat less risk of a unilateral confrontation between the two major powers.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It is surely in the interest of Canada to strengthen the NATO alliance rather than increase emphasis on some concept of preserving Canadian sovereignty in a system of North American defence. Analogies are dangerous, of course, but I suggest we should be delighted, if we were not so dependent on the United States economy to have involved with us in an act of alliance a number of countries so that we would not be in bed alone with that big elephant the Prime Minister does not enjoy sleeping with. These and other advantages of NATO justify the continued expenditure of Canadian funds to maintain this Canadian commitment.
I suggest that no alternative 'the Prime Minister has put forward is credible. No alternative which he put forward in connection with the five goals he has established is credible. We know a committee of the House of Commons found that the role of Canada in NATO ought to be maintained. Certainly there is always room for discussion and improvement. NATO is not perfect; I do not know of any perfect institution in the world, Mr. Speaker, not even the Liberal party.
We could be neutral of course, and unaligned. The Prime Minister has properly

rejected neutrality as a policy for Canada. But if we choose, as the Prime Minister says we have chosen, to reject neutralism and belong to alliances, why does the right hon. gentleman wish to downgrade the broader alliance and bring us into more intimate association with a continental partnership, and to do so probably at a greater financial cost and at the cost of some influence in a broader sphere? At this point we come face to face with the truth about the Prime Minister's philosophy in this regard. His concept is that of a "fortress America". It contains two ideas which most Canadians long ago rejected-isolationism and continentalism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: During the election campaign the Prime Minister spoke grandly of abolishing concepts of foreign policy which were 20 years old. He returned to the same theme today. Who would have thought he would try to replace those 20,-year old concepts with concepts which are 40 years old or more?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To younger people especially, who expected imagination and creative new leardership from the Prime Minister, the disappointment is nowhere greater than- in the area of foreign policy. The right hon. gentleman uttered a monotonous series of legalisms to avoid any effective role in- assisting in connection with Biafra. At the Commonwealth Conference, Canada played the most insignificant role it ever has in- the history of that organization. Now, in the words of Professor Peyton Lyon, the Prime Minister and I quote:
-has repudiated the best in our diplomatic tradition and revived the most shortsighted and shabby. His invocation to worship at the shrine of national sovereignty is nothing less than a call to return to the self-centred and ultimately disastrous isolationism of the inter-war period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I remember that period, Mr. Speaker, and so does the Prime Minister. This is a philosophy which is illiberal and reactionary and therefore, seconded by my friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "the Government's policy of," and by deleting everything after the word "and", and adding the following:
"strongly condemns the retreat from internationalism to isolationism contained in the Prime Minister's statement of April 3 and his speech of April 12."

April 23, 1969


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, today the house is being asked) to place its stamp of approval on the NATO policy statement which was made by the Prime Minister on April 3 last and which he repeated with some embellishment today.
I think it is significant that the statement the Prime Minister made on April 3 was made on the day after parliament recessed. The Prime Minister seems to have adopted the de Gaulle technique of bypassing the elected representatives and facing the television cameras which are not capable of answering back. The statement the Prime Minister made on that occasion and the statement he has made today are in reality statements of no policy. He says, first of all, that the government proposes that Canada should remain in the NATO alliance. That constitutes no change. He says, in the second place, that in consultation with our allies there is to be a planned and phased reduction of our NATO forces in Europe. But when the Prime Minister was asked in the television interview which followed his statement when this would take place, he replied that he could not say. He was asked about the extent to which our forces would be reduced, and again' he replied that he could not say. This was phase one, he explained, and we would have to wait for phase two. Mr. Speaker, how can we judge phase one if we know nothing about phase two?
I have been watching the Prime Minister for the last 12 months while he has been in office and I have been impressed by the extent to which he has reminded me of the late William Lyon Mackenzie King who once com ducted a referendum in this country on the question, "conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription." The Prime Minister's policy now is "reduction if necessary, but not necessarily reduction"-referring, of course, to our forces in NATO.
When we consider the statement the Prime Minister made today, discounting all its meaningless banalities and tired cliches, we find that the government really proposes no major change either in foreign policy or in defence policy. The Prime Minister tosses off phrases- such as "We must think and not conform" or "the time has come for change, we must not fear change", but what change do we find here? To what change has the government actually committed itself? Absolutely none. The Prime Minister's decision means that we will remain in NATO and that at
[Mr. Stanfield.)
some indeterminate time there will be, possibly, some indeterminate reduction of Canada's forces in Europe. Surely this is not the kind of challenging, adventuresome policy the Prime Minister was talking about one year ago.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister once again put the cart before the horse in his statement. When speaking in Calgary on April 12 he said that "it is a false perspective to have a military alliance determine your foreign policy." But this is precisely what the government is doing. While it professes to be waiting for a review of foreign policy it has committed itself to NATO and NORAD, thereby limiting its ability to deal effectively with its other obligations and opportunities in the field of foreign policy.
The Prime Minister has given us the usual list of vague generalities which are supposed to pass for a Liberal foreign policy. He has talked about nuclear imbalance, co-operation in settling international conflicts, an international peacekeeping force, arms limitation and foreign aid. These are precisely the goals set out by his predecessor six years ago. They are precisely the kinds of things Liberal spokesmen have been talking about for 20 years.


An hon. Member:: What about Cyprus?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But policies and programs so vaguely outlined in general terms have not been followed up. There has been no carry-through.
The Prime Minister said we must do the right things in the right places. Having committed himself now to NATO and to retaining Canadian troops in Europe, to what extent has he been limited and restricted? Has his ability to do the right thing in the right place not been restricted?
As the first N.D.P. spokesman this afternoon I propose to advance three basic propositions. First, Canada should withdraw all its military forces from Europe. Second, Canada should insist on a reassessment of NATO's role in world affairs. Third, Canada should place its major emphasis on promoting and strengthening those international organizations and agencies most likely to foster world peace and security. At the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I propose to move a subamendment to inculcate the three basic propositions I now propose to argue.
April 23, 1969



First, I say that the time has come for a complete withdrawal of Canadian troops from Europe. It should be remembered that when Canada signed the NATO agreement in 1949 that did not impose any obligation on us whatsoever to maintain armed forces in Europe. As a matter of fact, not until the Korean War broke out in 1950 was the question of sending Canadian troops to Europe raised. Although we had signed the NATO agreement, our defence expenditures in 1950 were still in the neighbourhood of $300 million. They have now risen to about $1,800 million.
When Canadian forces were sent to Europe they were sent there to meet an emergency situation. No government spokesman suggested at that time that what was being done constituted a permanent obligation on the part of Canada to continue maintaining armed forces in Europe. There was a good argument for sending Canadian troops to Europe in 1950 and 1951. They were sent there to strengthen NATO ground forces, and their presence lent military support to NATO. That situation has altered radically in the last 20 years. I submit that what made sense in 1949 does not necessarily make sense today. In 1949 there was a great, monolithic Communist empire stretching throughout a great part of the world. Today that Communist monolith has been fragmented. There is a split between the Soviet Union and Mainland China. Eastern European satellites are no longer as responsive to Kremlin orders as they were at one time. Yugoslavia has broken away; Rumania and Czechoslovakia have been seeking closer ties with the west. There is greater demand on the part of eastern European countries for a detente than there was 20 years ago.
Some argue that the action of the Soviet Union last August shows that there is still a great threat of Communist aggression. I think the invasion of Czechoslovakia was not a sign of Russian strength but of Russian weakness. The fact that the Russians had to display their hand and the fact that they had to keep their satellite in line by the use of force indicates that this great structure of World Communism is no longer as united or monolithic as it once was.
It should also be remembered that western Europe is no longer prostrate and defenceless as it was 20 years ago. I visited Germany in 1945, in 1948 and again in 1951. I flew there with a group of parliamentarians. As a matter of fact, I visited Berlin during the blockade

and the R.A.F. flew us in. Without doubt Germany at that time was open to any aggressor and there was a need to strengthen NATO forces in Europe. That concept made good sense and we supported it. Today West Germany is the third most powerful military nation in the world. As the Prime Minister himself admitted, the populations of the NATO countries in Europe number some 300 million people with an annual gross product of $500 billion. It is therefore farcical to say that one Canadian brigade and six Canadian fighter squadrons are essential for the safety of western Europe.
The fact that France, which has been invaded three times in the last 100 years, has withdrawn its troops from NATO command shows that the situation in Europe is not what it was 20 years ago. Canada is neither a European nation nor a great power. I feel that we are going along with NATO because of our ingrained habit of tagging along behind the United States or Great Britain, or both. We have developed this habit of paying our dues so that we can belong to the NATO club. I suggest these are expensive dues and the money could be used in more meaningful ways to promote peace and security throughout the world.
It should be remembered that conventional forces are far less important now than they were when NATO was formed. Nuclear missiles have now produced what Sir Winston Churchill called the balance of terror. The two great superpowers have the ultimate weapons of destruction. These will largely be the deciding factor in determining the future of mankind. In this nuclear confrontation the United States, as the leader of the western powers, has an advantage in strategic weapons of four to one and in tactical nuclear weapons of seven to one.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that every argument that has been put forward by the Prime Minister for a phased and planned reduction of our forces in Europe argues logically and rationally for a withdrawal of our forces from Europe. The Prime Minister himself has stated that we do not have a military but a political role. If we have no military role and mainly a political role, why then should we continue to maintain a force in Europe which is no longer required under the present circumstances? The money to support such a force might better be used in other fields of international affairs.

April 23, 1969

The second point I want to argue is that Canada should insist on a reassessment of NATO's role in world affairs. NATO has become solely a military alliance. From time to time gestures are made in the direction of Article II dealing with economic programs, but nothing is done. We have allowed NATO to be permeated almost exclusively by military thinking. The time has come to reassess its political role in bringing about a detente and military disengagement in Europe.
I suggest as far as NATO is concerned that we have developed a Maginot line complex. We have reached a stalemate in which the only solution is to pile up more arms and more military forces or to find some way out of the dilemma. It takes one back to the pre-1914 days when the triple entente and triple alliance faced each other in Europe, each building bigger and better battleships and each recruiting larger armies, always with the assurance to the public that the construction of more arms was the best guarantee that the arms would never be used. This is exactly what we are doing today. Our thinking has been completely dominated by those who are interested in preserving the kind of stalemate that provides jobs for generals and contracts for military armament manufacturers.
In the New Democratic party at our successive conventions we have supported retaining our membership in NATO in the hope that Canada might be able to exercise sufficient influence so that NATO would be used as the political vehicle by which a rapprochement might be affected between east and west in Europe. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I personally am becoming increasingly sceptical about the ability of NATO to fulfil this role. Recently they have turned a cold shoulder on the proposal for a conference made by the Warsaw Pact Countries at their meeting in Budapest last month. In answer to a question from my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said on Monday that the NATO powers had not really turned it down. The fact is, if one reads the record that, Pietro Nenni of Italy and Willy Brandt of Germany were sympathetic to it.


Mitchell William Sharp: They were at the meeting and concurred.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly. They were sympathetic to the idea of a conference.


Mitchell William Sharp: So were we.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Others were not. We have yet to hear whether Canada was sympathetic or not. Let me point out what Canada agreed to and what was finally issued as part of the communique. They resolved:
-to explore with the Soviet Union and the other countries of Eastern Europe which concrete issues best lend themselves to fruitful negotiation and an early resolution.
If that is not turning the cold shoulder on a forthright offer to hold a conference between the Warsaw Pact and NATO nations, I don't know what it is. Some will argue that the Warsaw Pact nations are just bluffing and are not sincere. That may be true, but the only way we will find out will be by going to the conference table. One has the strong suspicion that there are those who are not at all keen about going to the conference table. We will make no progress toward a settlement in Europe if we continue to accept the concept that the "enemy" must always be opposed and ignored because an ultimate military confrontation is inevitable. In my opinion, if we cannot get a reassessment by NATO of its role in the world, then I think Canada has to reconsider seriously whether its membership in NATO fulfils any useful purpose.
I believe NATO has lost sight of its basic political objectives, among which is a commitment by each signatory to strengthen and safeguard its democratic institutions. Has Greece been safeguarding its democratic institutions? Has Portugal, waging a colonial war in Angola, been safeguarding and strengthening democratic institutions? The council of ministers has been silent on this question. Our Secretary of State for External Affairs has been silent on this question. I believe the time has come when Canada must say to the NATO council of minister that if countries like Greece and Portugal are going to continue their policy of repressing democracy and freedom and are in NATO, we are out.
The third proposition I want to argue is that Canada should place its major emphasis on promoting and strengthening those international organizations and agencies most likely to foster world peace and security. Of course we must be concerned about our defence, but this must be part of our defence program and strategy. One has the uncomfortable feeling when the Prime Minister talks about Canada's defence that it is increasingly being integrated into the defence program of the United States, that we are
April 23. 1969

now not only an economic colony of the United States but are rapidly becoming a military satellite of that country. This is in spite of the promise of the Liberal government last year given by the former prime minister and former secretary of state for external affairs that nothing would be done about renewing the NORAD agreement until this house had an opportunity to debate it. The present Prime Minister did renew NORAD and it has not been debated in the house. There has been no opportunity to debate it.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
According to reports we are getting from Washington we are now being tied up with the airborne warning control system, about which we have been told nothing. The statements of Defence Secretary Laird indicate that consultation has been going on about the A.B.M. system, about which we have been told nothing. More and more we are being tied into the American military juggernaut.
The Bomarc missile bases, about which the Prime Minister railed in 1963 and bitterly criticized his predecessor, are still there. If the Prime Minister, instead of the glowing phrases that he used today about peace and security, wants to prove to this house that he is sincere, he will start by carrying out his own proposition that the nuclear Bomarc missiles be removed from Canadian soil.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's major contribution, in addition to its defence of its own territory, lies in two areas of international activity. The first is that we ought to take a much more active role in the work of the United Nations, because with all its structural weaknesses, its emergence as a world arbiter offers the only real hope for lasting peace and the rule of law in the world. Canada should assume an active role by joining with other middle powers in bringing conflicts to this world organization for resolution. We should have brought the question of Biafra to the United Nations long before this, and also the question of Viet Nam. We should be pressing the United Nations for the admission of Mainland China to that body.
I am glad the government is now going to try to seek diplomatic relations with Mainland China. It is going to be hard to recover the 20 years that the locusts have eaten and to explain to the Chinese why we opposed again and again their admission to the United Nations. We could prove our good faith by heading the forces in the United Nations that

are seeking to give Mainland China the right to sit in that important body.
Of course we should always be ready to supply peacekeeping forces because we in Canada are in the position that our forces would be acceptable in many parts of the world, particularly in new, developing countries, whereas peacekeeping forces from some of the great powers with colonial backgrounds would not be acceptable. That is the kind of role Canada should be playing rather than trying to imitate some of the great military powers, which we do so poorly.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think our second contribution in the realm of international affairs should be to help cope with the growing gap between the wealthy nations and the two-thirds of the world where people live in the direst poverty. The greatest threat to the peace of the world today lies in the widening disparity between the "have" nations and the "have-not" nations. The greatest threat to the peace of the world lies in the poverty, ignorance and disease which are all too prevalent in two-thirds of the world. Some of the billions of dollars spent on armaments over the last 20 years would have gone a long way to resolve this problem.
Today the Prime Minister almost brought tears to my eyes when he talked about the need to help the underdeveloped areas of the world. But talk is cheap. Paying lip service to helping the hungry people does not cost very much. People are judged by their deeds. By their fruits ye shall know them. That is how we judge men and that is how we will judge the government. The government pledged itself to increase its foreign aid to one per cent of our gross national product by 1970. Now that target has been pushed back until 1975. The government has not even spent the full amount appropriated by parliament each year to help underdeveloped areas.
As Mr. Escott Reid pointed out in an article recently, there are two deterrents in the world. One is a military deterrent to stop aggression and the other is a deterrent against anarchy by helping to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and lift up the fallen, but we spend six times as much on the military deterrent as we do on foreign aid. Mr. Escott Reid pleaded, and I share his views, that the time should come in Canada when our total deterrent costs ought to be in the neighbourhood of $3 billion. We ought to be able to reduce our military commitments to $1 billion and spend $2 billion on aid to help fight disease, ignorance and poverty wherever

April 23, 1969

they are found throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if anything stands out as one studies the history of mankind it is that in the long run bigger armaments and more power blocs do not lead to peace, that in the long run love is stronger than hate, that kindness is better than cruelty, that the outstretched hand will do more than the clenched fist. A country like Canada, bursting with food supplies, some of which we cannot get rid of, with our great productive capacity, with our technological knowhow to help underdeveloped countries to help themselves, with a generation of young people who will go to the four corners of the earth to help people as teachers, doctors, nurses, farmers and artisans, could play a major role in helping to remove what in the final analysis is the basic cause of war, man's frustration arising out of his difficulties in trying to survive.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis):
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word "condemns" and by substituting therefor the following words:
"the failure of the government to announce the withdrawal of the Canadian forces from Europe, its failure to demand, as a condition of Canada's continuing membership in the Alliance, that NATO change its role from concentration on military measures to one of energetic pursuit of detente in Europe, and also its failure to propose a substantial reduction in defence expenditures and a large increase in assistance to developing nations."
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, an amendment moved by the Conservatives and a sub-amendment moved by the New Democratic party are now before the house.
The Conservatives are vigorously protesting against the shift from internationalism to iso-lationalism reflected in the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 3 and 12.
However, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) forgot to make concrete proposals as to the part that Canada must play within NATO. The sub-amendment moved by the New Democratic party sets forth three reasons why the government is to blame. I quote: -the withdrawal of the Canadian forces from Europe, its failure to demand, as a condition of Canada's continuing membership in the Alliance, that NATO change its role from concentration on military measures to one of energetic pursuit of 
detente in Europe, and also its failure to propose a substantial reduction in defence expenditures and a large increase in assistance to developing nations.
Mr. Speaker, we are not bringing in any amendment because we are prohibited from doing so under standing orders, but nevertheless we want to express our opinion on Canada's role within NATO since its inception in 1949.
A brief look at the history of NATO reveals immediately why it was instituted. In fact, the second world war lasted from 1939 to 1945, when the Russians were our allies. The allied forces won the war in June 1945.
When hostilities ended in Berlin and the Russians were not yet occupying that city, the Americans, the English and the Canadians were asked to postpone their triumphal entry into Berlin so that the Russians could take that part of the city which they are now occupying. This agreement was reached with the consent of all the countries that were members of the Alliance during the war.
However, following that memorable victory, the Russians wanted more than just a victory. They wanted to spread their economic theories, through international communism, in as many countries as possible. And this is when came the idea of uniting the North Atlantic countries into an alliance, which was to become NATO and of which Canada was to become a member, so as to ward off any possible attack from the Russians against any of the countries concerned, whether the United States, Canada or any other member country of the Alliance.

The North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on April 4,	1949 by the foreign ministers of
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States was ratified by the legislatures of the member countries within five months after signing. It came into force on August 24, 1949. Greece and Turkey joined the alliance on February 18, 1952 and the Federal Republic of Germany on May 9, 1955.

On May 9, 1955, that is about six years after the formation of NATO, the Federal Republic of Germany, where our forces are stationed at the present time, became a member of NATO.
Mr. Speaker, the avowed aims of the Organization, when it was created, were the following, and I quote:

from the threat or use of force "In any manner Inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations"-

Now, at the time of the foundation of that Organization, the U.S.S.R. strongly opposed the initiative and exerted all possible pressures to disrupt it, but this could only strengthen its hope of winning over some countries signatories to the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, now, in 1969, the U.S.S.R. seems to be reaching its goal, by means of trade agreements or as a result of the attitude of the member states, and it is succeeding, little by little, in getting various countries to withdraw their forces.
For instance, France, which is directly involved, as a neighbour of West Germany, where the troops are stationed, has withdrawn its own forces. It remains a member of NATO, but has almost no men outside its territory.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that Canada, at the present time, is facing a stalemate. We are asked to withdraw our troops from Germany in order to meet the wish of the U.S.S.R.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
On the other hand, the United States contend that forces must be kept in West Germany, in case of aggression. The core of the problem lies in the fact that several European countries are afraid to see the reunification of Germany.
We were told that in Russia, in 1964, when a Canadian parliamentary delegation had accepted an invitation from the Kremlin. They have a deadly fear of the reunification of Germany. France feels the same way.
In Canada, we do not know what to think about our role in NATO. As the leader of the New Democratic party, Mr. Douglas, was saying a moment ago, the Prime Minister tells us: perhaps we will withdraw our forces, and again pei'haps we will not withdraw them.


David Lewis: Reduce our forces.


David Réal Caouette: Reduce them, but eventually withdraw them. That is the objective that the government is trying to achieve.


David Lewis: No.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, they want to reduce our forces, but in what sense? The Leader of the Opposition, I believe, asked whether we were to withdraw 12 men from our NATO force.
29180-499J

Mr. Speaker, one thing is sure: Russia wants us to reduce our forces as much as possible and the United States are against it. That is the situation where the Canadian government finds itself.
The Prime Minister does not want to displease anybody, therefore, he says today that we will do something, that we should adapt ourselves to present conditions; that our foreign policy should no longer be directed by our military policy, but vice-versa.
In the past, the army brass used to tell departments, the government, how they should act, and the government obediently followed those suggestions and dictates.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister just said, we must revise our policy of participation in NATO. The Prime Minister tells us that from now on the objectives of Canada must be peace and justice in the world.
I for one wonder whether we really need to keep forces in Germany and in all NATO's member countries in Europe. I know that some countries wish their troops to remain over there. They are not interested in bringing them home. In Germany, our soldiers are actually on vacation, which costs a great deal of money to Canadian taxpayers.
I know why those soldiers do not want to come back to Canada. They are wondering what will happen to them here. "Will we become veterans? Will we have to learn a new trade? We have been in the army for the last 10, 12 or perhaps 20 years, and we have been living in Europe for five years. What are we going to do back in Canada?" Those are question they are asking themselves.
There is one fact, however, and that is that once they are back in Canada, we shall not be able to throw them on the street. We shall have to continue to pay them. As far as the Department of Defence is concerned, it will not be able to save a cent. However, the Prime Minister will be able to say that we have reduced our forces overseas.
Canada alone could not, even with its armaments and its forces overseas, maintain peace in case of aggression. With their peashooters and their sling-shots, I do not think that our forces are very efficient. In my opinion, peace and justice are commendable purposes, but before preaching them up to the world, we should see to it that they prevail in our own country, and set an example for the rest of the world.
U.S.S.R. is not seeking to gain ground by means of weapons, but rather by its ideology. When we visited Russia, we saw a subway

April 23, 1969

being constructed, but the Soviet government did not have, to carry out its projects, to appeal to the Washington market for funds.
We also visited house building projects, but we did not hear the minister say that there was no money for housing. Work or tools are not provided to build houses, because the subway, the transportation system, in short, everything belongs to the government.
We are against such a government control and we wonder why, in a world which we consider as free and developed, which has huge opportunities and unparalleled resources, we could not do, with all our freedom, what the Soviets are able to do, despite their communist ideology.
Let us station as many soldiers as we want in western Germany, let us go to Europe with the 20 million Canadians to safeguard peace in case of aggression, and let us kill, if it suits us, as many Communists as we can, we will realize that it is not with guns, cannons or shells that we will destroy the communist ideal.
We can check the rise of communism in the world by fighting it, not with weapons, or boxers, or soldiers, but with a superior idea, a philosophy of life which will allow the human being to develop normally. Only then, Mr. Speaker, will we be able to fight international or national communism effectively.
We make feeble attempts to establish peace and justice in the world, but we cannot even manage that here in Canada. There is talk of withdrawing our troops from NATO. What good will that do? We actually spend more than $1.5 billion for national defence. We build war installations which may never be used, at the rate technological changes are happening. That is why I spoke of peashooters a while ago.
Mr. Speaker, of course everybody wants peace and justice, but we will get it only if we take the steps capable of helping us reach those objectives.
We have been a member of NATO for 20 years, and for 10 years there has been talk of a review of our commitment to this organization. And now the Prime minister tells us that we must review our positions, so that NATO will serve for purposes other than military.
A while ago, I heard the leader of the NDP say that we should help the low income people first, in order to fight subversion or economic policies that do not respect the rights of the individual. That is what we should do. However, we have to think first about ourselves.
I just got back from western Canada. The farmers there are in a terrible situation. Several members are unaware of what is going on there. One may see, in some farms, that last year's crop is rotting after remaining all winter under snow, because it could not be stored. Those farmers will never be able to see their wheat. Right now, they have to obtain substantial loans from chartered banks, credit unions, credit co-ops and finance companies, in order to start their spring sowing. They should have another crop next fall and there is still no possibility in sight of selling last year's production.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that there are under-developped countries, but the situation in Canada is far from perfect, and the government does not seem to care. It aknowledges the situation and says it is unfortunate.
The Prime Minister, who tells us we should strive to establish peace and justice in the world, went to western Canada some ten days ago and told the farmers: If you have wheat, get out and sell it. Sell it yourselves. That is the domestic policy of this government.
However, we should call the attention of the Canadian people to the underprivileged of this world. Let us withdraw our troops from NATO, totally or partially. Let us reduce our forces and become the promoters of peace and justice all over the world. Mr. Speaker, there are fine promoters for you!
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This morning we read in a paper that four million Canadians are underfed at present! They represent 20 per cent of the population of a rich country, teeming with all kinds of things, and the Prime Minister wants us to be the promoters of peace and justice in the world.
Mr. Speaker, there is an inconsistency somewhere. There is a lack of responsibility, of sincerity and of frankness. International problems are discussed in order to divert the attention of the needy in Canada.
Let us reduce our forcees to save money! The Prime Minister is fully aware that no savings will be made. However, we are allowed to help under-developped countries.
Mr. Speaker, we have also heard what our responsible government should have done in connection with Biafra, South Africa, the recognition of Red China, etc.
Mr. Speaker, of course we should contribute to and participate in the establishment in the world of a system enabling every human being to live a full life. However, we should
[Mr. Caouette.l
April 23, 1369

establish that system in our own country, thus setting an eaxmple for other countries. Above all, let us not abandon our people in trying to set an example for others, because that would not be fair.
We hear all kinds of complaints in this house. All hon. members have good intentions. Those of the Prime Minister are excellent. However, Mr. Speaker, hell is paved with good intentions. That does not solve the problem but the implementation of efficient measures would. With a specific program and our good will, we could solve the problems.
When the New Democratic party demands that Canadian forces be withdrawn from Europe, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, agree with it, because we are in favour of withdrawing Canadian forces from wherever they are. If we do not have the money to enable our people to live, then we do not have any either to keep in foreign countries people who do not build anything.
First of all, if we had an economic system guaranteeing security and freedom to everyone, then the threat of war would disappear, understanding would prevail as well as cooperation between individuals; fraternizing between human beings would be made easier than when shortages are allowed to exist throughout the world.
We are in favour of helping needy countries such as India, Turkey, Greece, Iran, which could benefit from our help, but we must not, for all that, neglect our own citizens.
An old proverb says: Charity begins at home. We should therefore start with ourselves, not through selfishness, no, but to set an example for the others. Other countries must be helped, not only by giving them goods but by going over to show them how to do things, as Canadians do.
Yet, even here in Canada, we have any number of Canadians who know how to do many things, but who are not able to do them. Our unemployed, for instance, do not ask to live on unemployment insurance or on welfare.
When you consider that in Montreal alone you have 80,000 unemployed, and 30,000 or 35,000 families on social welfare, it seems as if it were high time to correct the situation. We should change living conditions while wishing the same for other peoples.
As for the Russians, as I said earlier, they do not so much try to win with the help of their guns than through their marxist philosophy.

To counteract this philosophy, we must have one of our own which should be extremely clear and able to ensure the freedom of the individual. That is what the Ralliement Creditiste has been putting forward in Canada, for the past 30 or 35 years but government and businessmen alike laugh at us when we ask that the public sector of our economy be financed through the Bank of Canada, without interest, as we finance other countries. Businessmen simply laugh at us for they would not make any profit out of that.
Those businessmen, however, are the same who control the economy of all the so-called free countries because all of them, without any exception, come and drink from the financial wealth of Washington.
A year ago, France, a member of NATO and economically, the strongest country in the world, was obliged by her great "General" to bow the knee to the World Bank, in other to salvage the franc.
This year, it was Western Germany that was supposed to be, economically speaking, the strongest country in the world, for businessmen had so decided. If, next year, the same businessmen decide to bring Western Germany down on her knees in front of the same powers, she will be declared an outcast and her monetary system will be on the rocks as was that of France a few months ago.
England has been through that, kneeling to ten finance controllers, to borrow $3 billion. And all those countries are members of NATO.
And there is only bickering and squabbling and destitution more than ever. Why? It is very simple. It is because our system is a debt system. When we borrow $1,000, we have to pay back $2,000, which is practically a mathematical impossibility.
I gave previously the official figures concerning the cost of the famous Jacques-Car-tier bridge in Montreal. The original cost was $18 million; the interest has reached to date $20 million and we still owe $14 million on that bridge. Such a system discourages enterprise, discourages a country and drowns it in unpayable debts.
Our position in Canada is not much better. We benefit by the nearness of the United States, but we come under their direct influence. When a crisis develops in the United States, Canada feels its after-effects. If there is an economic boom there, there is also one in this country. If a war breaks out, we are also in it. If we withdraw troops, the United States say no.

April 23, 1969

But agreements of some kind are reached, perhaps for diplomatic reasons, under which Canada is asked to serve as a go-between, for instance between Communist China and the United States or between the U.S.S.R. and the United States. That is what is going to happen and it seems that hon. members do not realize it.
The Prime Minister knows very well why he is advocating his present participation policy towards peace and justice in the world.
Mr. Speaker, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, feel that too much money is spent on armaments. One and a half billion a year is too much. Parasites benefit from these expenditures, contractors and financial party backers in particular. The government is aware of the situation while the citizens should be served and respected by parliament.
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to withdraw some of our troops from Germany, it is not for the same reasons. If he does not want to offend Russia and at the same time not to offend the United States too much, he should agree to our proposal and use available funds for the economic development of our country, to provide our people with security along with personal freedom.
However, we do not want security at the expense of freedom. We do not want the freedom of the individual to be dependent upon the good will of the state. We consider the individual as the most important element in a well organized economy. We maintain that a government must serve the individual and not enslave him and that all available resources must be used in the interest of the human beings and not for destruction purposes.
This is why we do not object to a reduction in our military establishments but we regret that the Prime Minister and the government take no concrete action to establish in Canada a system which would show the whole world, including Russia and Communist China, that men fully free-and not slaves of finance companies-can fight efficiently those who would like to hamper the freedom of the world.
The individual is the most important factor in a society. Let us legislate on the basis of the individual and Canada not only will have set an example but will also have provided the social, economic and political balance of the Canadian nation.

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Ian Wahn (SI. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, the subject raised by this resolution is not a subject on which to be partisan or deliberately controversial. Nevertheless, I should observe that if we have any difficulty answering the criticisms of members of the opposition it is simply because the criticisms are contradictory. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) declared that we were making a fundamental and disastrous change in our defence and foreign policies. The Leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas), on the other hand, complained bitterly because we were making no change at all. As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere between these two extremes; in other words, our policy is probably just about right, and that naturally annoys members of the opposition.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, to loud cheers from his supporters, also claimed that he was very confused. With that I think we can all agree. But in order to lessen his confusion perhaps we should try to avoid oratorical flourishes and instead examine the problem before us quietly and rationally.
It is entirely right that Canada should review its NATO obligations and decide its future military role at this particular time. Canada was one of the founders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization over 20 years ago. At that time western Europe was poor and weak. Its economy had been disrupted by war and it possessed very little effective military strength. The western European' countries lived in fear of Soviet aggression and had no effective defence against it. Military and financial help from North America was essential. Through NATO it was made available in>
generous measure, and the fear of aggression from the east was removed. Since that time, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, the western European countries have made a remarkable recovery, until today they rival the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact not only in population but in wealth, productivity and potential power.


Robert Norman Thompson: Everything except military strength.


Ian Grant Wahn: It is important to realize that the North Atlantic Treaty did not impose any specific military obligations on its members. Its members agreed that aggression against
April 23, 1969

one was to be considered aggression against all, but the type and amount of assistance to be rendered were left entirely to the discretion of each member state. In time, however, a joint command was established and member countries in effect put their national forces under this joint command.
At the present time, as hon. members know, Canada has its first air division of about 4,000 men stationed in south Germany and its mechanized infantry brigade of about 6,000 men in north Germany. In addition, certain maritime and ground forces in Canada are allocated to NATO.
The North Atlantic Treaty was binding for 20 years, after which any member could withdraw on one year's notice. The 20-year period expires in August this year, so this is indeed an appropriate time to review our NATO commitment.
As hon. members know, the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence presented its report to this house on March 26. This followed extensive hearings in Canada and a two-week tour of the countries of western Europe. It is fair to say that in the course of this review it became clear that for every argument in favour of continuing our NATO commitments there was a counter argument, and vice-versa. Many of these arguments involved intangibles which are very difficult to assess. It is a subject on which the opinions of honest and sincere men may and do differ greatly.
Briefly, the committee report recommended that Canada continue its present NATO commitments until the mid-1970's when the main items of equipment for our air division and our mechanized brigade would require replacement.
However, the report specifically recognized the vital importance of making decisions with regard to future roles in NATO. Moreover, these decisions must be made promptly because of the time required to negotiate changes with our allies, to acquire new equipment, and to retrain our forces. However, the committee decided not to make specific recommendations on this subject until it could obtain more information with regard to alternative roles.
The cabinet's decision to remain in NATO but to make a planned reduction in our European forces went one step farther. With the air division in south Germany, in effect under U.S. command, the mechanized infantry brigade in north Germany, in effect under British command, and with neither of these two

Canadian forces being related to each other or to anything we are doing in Canada, members of the committee had doubts about the continued value of these roles. But the committee said in effect: We want more evidence before we make recommendations as to new military roles. The cabinet, which had been working on the problem for many months before the committee commenced its work, said in effect: We have sufficient evidence to satisfy us that our present roles in Europe are not right; our forces in Europe must be reduced, but we will work out the necessary changes, which will be phase two, in consultation with our allies. Personally, I welcome that decision and I think it is right.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This decision marks a vital change in Canada's defence and foreign policy. The Prime Minister declared emphatically that Canada's defence roles must depend upon Canada's foreign policy, upon the foreign policy of this country, not upon the foreign policy of the United Kingdom, the United States or any other country.
I think it is the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to understand the significance of this statement which has led to a great deal of his confusion with regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister and by members of the cabinet. In the past we have not always placed as high a priority on our own interests as we should have done. In the past Canada's foreign policy has too often been a policy of dependency. For years Canada relied upon the British fleet for its protection and Canada's foreign policy was determined by Great Britain. More recently Canada has depended upon the American nuclear deterrent and our foreign policy has been determined largely by the United States.
I choose to construe the Prime Minister's announcement, therefore, as a declaration of independence, a declaration that in the future Canada will have a more independent and self-reliant foreign policy than in the past. The Leader of the Opposition obviously wishes to continue the policy of dependency to which I have referred-dependency upon the United Kingdom, the United States or other countries. He argued in favour of dependency by condemning what we want to do as being a policy of isolationism. We reject this. We do want an independent foreign policy but we do not consider that this involves a policy of isolationism.

April 23, 1969

Adoption of an independent foreign policy has many consequences. First and most important, it involves the acceptance of the principle that Canada's independence, not just political independence but economic independence as well, is not negotiable. Here we must think particularly of our American neighbour. In all our relations with the United States it must be made entirely clear that, while we are willing and anxious to enter into co-operative arrangements in many fields, these arrangements must be on terms which will preserve our sovereignty and basic independence and leave us free to make our own decisions.
I repeat that such an independent policy is not a policy of isolation. It recognizes that our most basic requirement is peace and that peace must be based on collective security. Specifically, it recognizes our continued interest in relations with western Europe and the Atlantic area. But it emphasizes, too, that we are also a Pacific power and have a vital interest in developing relations with the countries in the Pacific area. It recognizes that we have vast resources in the north and in the Arctic area to protect and develop and vital interests in the vast, rich, continental shelf extending many miles from our shores. It also recognizes that while regional alliances such as NATO may continue to be necessary for many years, they are not enough, and that Canada's vital interest in the maintenance of peace can only be achieved through the continued evolution and strengthening of a world organization such as the United Nations.
Some of the military consequences of the adoption of this independent foreign policy are now being worked out by the cabinet. One can only speculate as to the result of this review. However, it is possible that it may lead to a decision to emphasize a multi-purpose mobile force based in Canada which would be available for Canada's own needs, in protecting its own territories and coastal waters, in assisting its allies, and for United Nations peacekeeping operations.
The Prime Minister has been careful not to promise that the changes would result in cutting military forces or expenditures. However, if a multi-purpose force were adopted, such a decision could conceivably lead over a period of years to a substantial reduction in our armed forces and a similar reduction in our military expenditures. This would be a target worth shooting for. Certainly, if we do not reduce troop strength, military expenditures will increase rapidly simply because of

the ever-increasing cost of equipment and services.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, our military expenditures amounted to approximately $1.8 billion. In the war years our annual average expenditure was $1.5 billion. I realize that today the dollar is worth less than two-thirds as much as it was during the war. Nevertheless, I was surprised to find that last year, in peacetime, our military budget was almost as high as our average military budget during the last great war, and I would hope it can be reduced very substantially if our forces are reorganized along the lines I have suggested.
As I have said, I interpret the Prime Minister's declaration as being a declaration of independence in foreign policy, a statement that henceforth we shall determine our foreign policy, in consultation with our allies and friends, basically in the light of our own national interests. The time has passed when we could rely on other countries to make these decisions for us. In future we must make our own decisions. Our policies may sometimes be right; they may sometimes be wrong. But the important thing, to my mind, is that they will be made in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. W. B. Nesbift (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I was surprised that the previous speaker, like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), should have followed the line of making some unflattering observations concerning the conduct of our foreign policy by the former prime minister and, indeed, by the former secretary of state for external affairs. However, I suppose these are matters of opinion.
I believe there is one thing upon which we all agree, namely, that peace in the world is the object and purpose of our foreign policy, first, in order that we may develop our own great resources and, second, because Canadians are morally opposed to the use of war to solve world problems. Another consideration, and perhaps the most important of all, is that we should all be destroyed in the event of a nuclear war breaking out between the two great powers in the world today, the Soviet Union and the United States.
One should be cautious, however, about assuming that all other nations share these foreign policy objectives or act from the same motives. I would point out that the Soviet Union has seized by force some 13 of its neighbours since 1939. We should not make the mistake of assuming that because
April 23, 1969



we favour peace in the world everybody else does. This is certainly not the case. The difference of opinion which exists in this country seems to arise as to the way in which Canada can best achieve its objective, namely, world peace. In this regard, Canada can follow policies of a long range, short range or medium term nature. Those who offer opinions on foreign policy sometimes tend to make no distinction between the short and the long run; I believe it is essential to make such a distinction. Our policies, long or short run, have always been carried out in concert with others. It is often said that Canada has four cornerstones of foreign policy-our relations with the United Nations, our relations with the Commonwealth, our special relationship with the United States, and our membership in NATO. Of course, we also co-operate in maintaining world stability through other bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I agree, of course with the proposition of an old friend and former colleague, Mr. Escott Reid. About one year ago he enunciated a well known proposition, namely, that the two major problems facing us for the remainder of the century will probably be the development of the underdeveloped part of the world and the prevention of starvation and poverty in that underdeveloped part of the world, and the normalization of relations between the People's Republic of China and the so-called western world. I agree with Mr. Reid and with many others who hold this viewpoint. These policies are essentially long-run policies, as it were. They are essential, and there is little argument about that. But no one will say that long-term policies like these are necessarily in conflict with what may be very essential short-term policies. The two are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary.
Without doubt the immediate short-term policy we must follow is that of preventing immediate conflicts in the world. There have always been conflicts and threats of conflicts in the world around us. We have a very upset sort of world where force has become more and more important in the settling of disputes. We find this attitude reflected in our own country where people accept violence as a means of solving problems. I am sorry to say that in some cases people belonging to a generation younger than my own have promoted violence, although sometimes the idea of violence is promoted by people belonging

to the older generation who have no good in mind.
To return to the subject of whether conflicts are likely to take place, we must remember that we face the possibility of conflict today in the Middle East. Many such potential conflicts could escalate into world war III. In the last few years Canada has done much more than her share in trying to contain those conflicts, some of which might be called bush-fire wars. Of course, many of them are larger than that. Probably we would have continued to carry out this duty in the Near East if our troops had not been dismissed a few years ago by Colonel Nasser. I also refer to the Congo, and to our present role in Cyprus. We have done a great deal to contain these smaller wars, some of which might have escalated into world war III if they had not been contained.
I agree with hon. members on the other side of the house who say that we should continue with this sort of work. I think it is very valuable. However, the one and only major threat to Canada at present is the threat of conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. I am referring, of course, to a conflict that escalates into nuclear war. The reasons for my statement are too obvious, and I need not elaborate on them. We are the "ham in the sandwich". We are between the two major powers and if nuclear war were to break out there is no doubt that Canada as we know it would be destroyed. There is little argument about that. The immediate objective of our foreign policy should be to do everything we can to prevent this kind of war from taking place. This is not a long-run objective. This is an immediate, short-run, essential matter we must attend to now. We should do everything we can to prevent such a war. I do not say that we must not allow for some kind of defence of our "sovereignty" but, frankly, I do not know against whom we are to defend ourselves. The Prime Minister did not mention that. But if nuclear war were to break out between the major powers any number of troops we would muster would be of very little use indeed.
We must try to use our influence to prevent such a war from taking place. Can this be done by diplomacy alone, Mr. Speaker? I do not think so. We are not big enough nor powerful enough by ourselves to force a detente between the two giants. Only by acting with others can we exert any influence we may have.
Some say that perhaps we should let the United States defend us and then we could

April 23, 1969

use our resources for some long-range projects such as those suggested by Mr. Keid. They refer to the increased development of the underdeveloped part of the world or the "third world", as some call it. We could do this and I suppose some say it would be much better if we did. But it has been suggested by some, and I agree with them, that if we did that sort of thing we would lose a great deal of our influence in the third world. We would very likely come to be regarded as a military province of the United States. Our money would be none too welcome because some might think strings were attached to it- strings going all the way back to Washington. If we offered any troops for peacekeeping purposes they would be regarded with suspicion. If we were to follow this policy our excellent record in peacekeeping would not be maintained.
Also, Mr. Speaker, most Canadians object to the idea of a free ride. Most Canadians have ethics. I think most Canadians-I did not say all-feel that we ought to carry our weight and that we ought to carry our part of the load in the matter of defence.
Where in the world is a conflict now, or in the immediate future likely to break out between the Soviet Union and the United States? There is the Near East of course; that is a distinct possibility. But the greatest danger is in Europe. The greatest danger spot is Germany. This is where vital spheres of influence of the United States and the Soviet Union overlap. Here is the place where in future as in the past we must contribute to peacekeeping operations. There is no doubt in the world that that is the most important peacekeeping operation. NATO, Mr. Speaker, is the world's most important peacekeeping operation today. I think it is generally agreed that NATO for the past 20 years has kept the peace by preventing Soviet expansion. But is this now necessary? Even the Prime Minister says yes by implication.
From 1963 to 1968 nearly everyone thought the Soviet Union had given up force as a means of obtaining her political objectives. However, Czechoslovakia proved them wrong. The motives of the Soviet Union are different from our motives. I referred to this before. We must not make the mistake of thinking that their motives are the same as ours. At present the Soviet Union is greatly increasing her conventional military capability. It is my understanding that at present the Soviet Union has nearly three times the number of
IMr. Nesbitt.]
tanks that NATO has in central Europe, as well as larger numbers of aircraft and considerably greater numbers of men. If the military principle of having a ratio in forces of two and a half to one is followed, it is clear that the Soviet forces are equipped not for defence. If they are not equipped for defence what is their purpose, particularly if they consist of large conventional forces equipped with increasing numbers of conventional weapons?
We are not told that existing NATO forces are capable of holding a Soviet thrust in Germany or Denmark. It is generally thought that neither side wants to start a nuclear war. It is hoped at the present that if the Soviet Union starts- some misguided military adventure, Soviet forces can be held up until negotiations start. Of course, we know that the danger areas are Berlin or the Baltic.
It appears that President Nixon is not making a determined effort to settle political problems in Europe with the Soviet Union. If this works it is thought that troops can be reduced on both sides. But until this is done NATO forces must be kept at least at present levels. All NATO countries, and also Sweden, think NATO should continue. Bearing that in mind we must ask, is Canada's continued presence in NATO the best way or a good way even of carrying out our objective of doing what we can to prevent a war between the Soviet Union and the United States? First of all, it is futile to stay in NATO without supplying troops to NATO. It is like the old rhyme:
Mother, may I go out to swim?
Yes, my darling daughter.
Hang your clothes on a hickory limb,
But don't go near the water.
I do not think anyone will pay much attention to us unless we supply troops to NATO. Conversely, if we do not supply troops we will not wield much influence. Who pays attention to those giving gratuitous advice? Who will pay attention to us if we will not put our money where our mouth is? If we want to exert much influence in NATO we must at least keep up our present troop strength. After all, our NATO forces constitute only 10 per cent of our total armed strength. We are said to have about 100,000 men in our armed forces. Only Denmark spends a smaller percentage of her gross national product on defence than does Canada. She spends 2.6 per cent and we spend 2.7 per cent of our G.N.P. on defence.
April 23, 1969

[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We can exert influence because of: our membership in NATO. We would not be a member of the 18-nation disarmament commission of the United Nations if we were not a NATO member. If we want to have any influence on the terms of any detente which the United States is trying to work out with Russia, we will not do it by withdrawing our troops. I have had some slight association with the Russians. You cannot deal with the Soviet Union from weakness. This is something they do not understand.
Canadians are well thought of and reliable. Our opinion is highly regarded abroad. The influence we can exert in NATO would be highly respected. If we reduce our forces in NATO there is a great danger they will be replaced by German forces. The Germans make no secret of this. We are told the Soviet Union would be greatly alarmed by even a moderate German rearmament. This might provoke the Soviet Union into some misguided military venture. We do not want to be responsible for increasing the dangers of war.
A troop reduction at the present time could be infectious. Other countries may decide to do the same thing. This would play into Soviet hands. The Soviets are trying to hold up NATO as some kind of a force run by the United States and Germany.
Finally, if we are to have military forces, where can 10 per cent of them be better employed than by peace-keeping at the principal friction point between the only two great powers at present? A war between them could destroy Canada. We can well use 85 per cent of our other forces for U.N. peacekeeping and protecting the Arctic, against whom I am not sure, and other places.
We have heard a lot of vague generalities murky thinking, and platitudes from the Prime Minister and other government spokesmen. We have not yet heard any real reason why we should reduce our forces at present in NATO.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has agreed to the amendment made by the House of Commons to Bill S-28, an act to amend the Co-operative Credit Association Act, without any amendment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That this house supports the government's policy of continued Canadian participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the intention of the government, in consultation with Canada's allies, to take early steps to bring about a planned and phased reduction of the size of Canadian forces in Europe.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, like several others who have taken part or will take part in this debate, I have returned from a visit to Europe by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I would like to preface my contribution by stating that wherever we went we were assured that Canadian forces, whether on NATO assignments or on peacekeeping roles, were a great credit to Canada. I want to make it clear that although I propose a radically altered role for the Canadian forces, I believe that the Canadian armed services can make, properly directed, a decisively important contribution to the security of Canada and the world.
The basic problem of defence is to use the available resources to make the maximum contribution to the security of Canada and of the world. The security of Canada is tied up with the security of the world; it cannot be separated from it. We cannot buy security by piling up forces in a continental North American fortress if there is chaos and insecurity in the rest of the world.
It is our complaint that the government's current policy, so far as one can guess at it from the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) elsewhere and in this debate, is directed at the wrong threats and therefore adopts the wrong priorities. The greatest threat to the world today does not lie in a likelihood of a massive nuclear attack on North America, or indeed of any sort of military attack on North America. With the massive invulnerable power of nuclear retaliation possessed by the United States, any such attack would be madness. To attribute madness to potential opponents is itself folly, which leads inevitably to colossal waste. Nor is the threat of an all-out attack by Soviet

April 23, 1989

forces in Europe any longer a major threat. To concentrate a large part of our military resources in Europe would be a misdirection of effort, a slavery to mental attitudes appropriate to the past when western Europe may have lain open to possible attack.
Today the allied forces have 7,000 tactical nuclear weapons, a small fraction of which could devastate all of Europe. It is estimated that the Soviets have at least 1,000 such weapons. Any attack which might trigger a tactical nuclear exchange, let alone escalation to the use of strategical nuclear weapons, would again be madness. But in the rest of the world the instability caused by the gap between the rising expectation of newly independent people and their actual crushing poverty has caused conflicts and will cause more. The real danger lies in the fact that these conflicts may spread. It is not in Europe but in Asia that the tragic Viet Nam war has sapped the strength and strained the resources of the world's richest and most powerful country. It is in Africa that today an almost forgotten war goes on in which millions are threatened with extinction. Many conflicts in these areas are made additionally grave by racial hatreds.
Priority should therefore be directed to building a world community by putting the emphasis on the United Nations. This is low in the priorities of the Prime Minister but it has top priority with this party. In our view priority should be given to maintaining a highly mobile force, available for peacekeeping duties assigned by the United Nations. I know it is fashionable at the present time to downgrade the opportunities of such forces. In my judgment ample opportunities for valuable contribution in this field will inevitably recur. A mobile conventional contribution would be the most useful contribution that Canada could possibly make in Europe.
However, the major thrust of my remarks today is to make a plea to the government to clarify its stand on the proposal of the U.S.A. to deploy the A.B.M. system. This is primarily, of course, a United States decision. It is nevertheless one of vital importance to the world as a whole. Canada, as an ally, surely has the right to be heard in the debate which is going on in the United States and upon which so much depends. I would urge the government to make it clear that Canada wishes no part under NORAD or otherwise in such an A.B.M. system.

My reason for this is not because I do not believe that Canada should not be willing to contribute to United States security as part of the security of North America. It is rather because of my conviction that the proposed system contributes absolutely nothing to the security of North America or the world. Precisely the reverse is the case. It is my submission that the proposed A.B.M. system, whether in its thin or heavy form, as the jargon goes, whether a Sentinel system as proposed by the Johnson administration or the modified Safeguard system as proposed by the Nixon administration, represents a new step in what Mr. MacNamara described as "the mad momentum intrinsic to the development of all new nuclear weaponry."
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
What, briefly, is the nature of this proposed system? I will confine myself to the modified Safeguard system. It is estimated to cost between $6 billion and $7 billion. It is designed to protect the land-based retaliatory forces of the U.S.A. against a direct Soviet attack, to provide area defence to the United States against possible Chinese attack, and to protect against accidental launchings.
Phase one-they have phases in their American jargon dealing with these matters- will cover two large missile sites located in Montana and North Dakota. These are expected to be completed, if approved by Congress, in 1973. These bases will consist of 400 to 600 long-range Spartan missiles and short-range Spring defensive missiles.
There are a number of reasons why this system should be regarded as a colossal waste of money. The first is the question of whether it can be effective to protect either the American strategic missile sites or, second, American cities and the American population against nuclear attack.
It should be emphasized that neither President Nixon nor anyone else has ever suggested that the system, no matter how much it is expanded, can possibly afford any protection to cities or population against a Soviet attack. So far as protection of the missile sites is concerned, the fact is that the American offensive deterrent is so massive and so dispersed that it needs no such protection, and aside from the two Minutemen bases which contain 350 missiles will not receive any such protection.
The American strategic deterrent-and I am sure the Minister of National Defence
April 23, 1969

(Mr. Cadieux) can confirm this-is composed of 646 Polaris and Poseidon missiles on submarines and long-range bombers. These, combined with over 1,000 Minutemen I.C.B.M. and thousands of shorter range missiles in Europe and elsewhere, provide an arsenal of deterrents which gains nothing of significance from the proposed A.B.M. system.
Perhaps it is not necessary here to discuss the cost of the proposed system. The Americans may think they can afford billions of dollars for this purpose, though I doubt it, but that is their business. Opponents of the system have pointed out the inevitable tendency of such programs to expand. The thin system is a compromise and no more. It is almost certainly not the last word. They could go on to expand the system until, as reasonable opponents of the proposal have said, the cost could go up to $70 billion. The system will have the effect of aggravating the arms race and making it difficult to bring the nonproliferation treaty into effect.
I suggest that what is desperately needed is an effort not only to prevent proliferation to other countries not now possessing nuclear weapons but also to cut down the existing stockpiles of destructive weapons, and here I mention the development of multiple re-entry vehicles and other new and horrendous methods of destruction which are being vastly expanded at the present time. We in Canada have approved, as has the United States, a non-proliferation treaty. This pledges us to take measures toward the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. I say that this proposed A.B.M. system would be contrary to the intent and the spirit of that treaty.
The pretence is that the system has been designed to defend against a Chinese nuclear attack. That is still given as part of the rationale for its deployment, but even Senator Russell of the United States has said that there is nothing in this argument and that "the Chinese are not," as he says, "completely crazy." To base the system on defence against China, as being necessary against China, is not only unreal but is a contribution to that attitude of mind which perpetuates the isolation of the Chinese people to the great danger of the world as a whole.
It may be said that none of these arguments has any weight if the A.B.M. system can make a contribution to the national security of the United States or the continental security of North America. The answer is that the

system would probably make it less secure. Escalation of the arms race would result. There would be bound to be over-response on the part of the U.S.S.R. if past history is any guide, and at the end of colossal expenditures and vast and staggering costs there would be no real gain in security.
Why, then, does the American government plan to proceed with this expensive and probably useless system? I think that Janies Res-ton and other distinguished Americans have given us the clue. He has said that the antiballistic missile is really aimed not at all at the Chinese but at the military-industrial complex and its Congressional spokesmen. The decision made is a political compromise. Such a charge is difficult to prove, but it has been made by responsible Americans. Surely Canada can take an independent line on the basis of the merits of the matter. What is the use of talking about independence if we do not have independence of mind, if we are going to be dragged into systems- of this sort for no good reason but simply as part of the on-going mad momentum of which Mr. McNamara has spoken?
I have not got time, Mr. Speaker, to go into the NORAD situation in full. But I call on the Minister of National Defence, if he is to take part in this debate, to give us an assurance that we will not proceed with vast new systems, such as AW ACS, or the replenishment of systems of interceptors probably against non-existent threats of manned bombers, or get involved in any contributions to anti-ballistic systems without giving the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence a full opportunity to investigate whether there is any real threat and whether the proposed methods are necessary to the security of this country and of the United States.
I see it is almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I want to end my remarks by asking a number of questions and by saying that what is really at stake in this debate is whether we are going to have an independent Canadian foreign policy. It can only be independent if we take our decisions for ourselves.
The next thing I want to know is, are we going to contribute, directly or indirectly, to the escalating arms race? Are we going to devote our defence policies to useless hardware or to building a world community, without which we shall all perish?
We in this party call on the government to fill in the blanks. So far it has presented us with a policy almost entirely blank. Even

April 23. 1969

with the greatest of good will it is impossible for us to judge whether it is a step forward or a step backward. We call on the government to fill in the blanks, to make it clear where the government stands and to let us know what is the policy of Canada. We in this party, if the policy is an independent one directed to the future and to the real needs of this country, will be the first to support the
government. But to date we have no knowledge at all and cannot even guess where the government really stands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 24, 1969


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in English and in French-Mr. Fernand-E. Leblanc (Laurier).
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Ovide Laflam-me (Montmorency).
[Editor's Note: The text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]