1969-03-19

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-156, an act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, without any amendment.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief statement with regard to the business for today and tomorrow. As I indicated yesterday, we will be calling as the first item of business today the government reorganization bill, with the understanding that we will deal with all parts of that bill which have not yet been passed in committee, except that with respect to regional economic expansion.
It is the intention tomorrow,-and this is where there is a change in the announced business,-to call the government reorganization bill and if agreeable to carry it through to completion by the adjournment tomorrow night. I confirm that the Maritime Freight Rates1 Act amendment, for which concurrence of the house will be asked for first reading today, will not be called as the first item of business tomorrow, but rather that bill will be called for second reading and further stages on Monday of next week.
As I indicated, I will be seeking a special order of the house on motions tomorrow for the purpose of providing a procedure whereby the government reorganization bill can be brought to completion by the adjournment hour tomorrow.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Would the government house leader clear up a question on the business of the house? I understand he is not asking at this time for an order to complete the reorganization bill tomorrow evening.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will be asking for that on motions tomorrow.


Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to confirm there have been discussions along the lines suggested by the President of the Privy Council. It is our understanding that no order is now being asked for tomorrow, but that there will be tomorrow an endeavour to reach the kind of agreement which will make it possible to finish the government reorganization bill by tomorrow night.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
Fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in French and in English-Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle).
[Editors' Note: Text of foregoing reports appear in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies, in the two official languages of the country, of the federal-provincial agreement signed on March 7 last, in Charlottetown, by the premier of Prince Edward Island and myself, to promote economic expansion and social development in the island.



MARITIME FREIGHT RATES


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I ask the house for unanimous consent to waive the provisions of Standing Order 48 in order that

March 19, 1969
Questions
the bill to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act could be given first reading today, and therefore be before hon. members.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, that is acceptable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-182, respecting Maritime Freight Rates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since July 1968, how many employees have been assigned to the Department of Communications from (a) the Post Office Department (b) the Department of Transport (c) from other government departments (d) from outside the Public Service?
2.	In addition to that occupied on July 31, 1968, by the Post Office Department and the branches of other departments designated for transfer to the Department of Communications, how much office space does the government intend to allocate to the Department of Communications and, how much of this space is to be acquired (a) by purchase (b) by rental (c) by construction and, in each case, at what cost?
3.	To date, how much has been expended by the government in connection with the proposed establishment of the Department of Communications?
4.	To date, how much has been expended (by all departments of government) in the development of the proposed communications satellite programme, specifically, how much has been spent (a) on preparation of the white paper A Domestic Satellite Communication System for Canada (b) by the Planning Group for Communications (including the cost of the Task Force to autumn 1968 investigating European capabilities for production of component parts (c) in the preparation of the Macintosh Report (d) in the drafting of the technical reports by RCA Victor and Northern Electric?
5.	When is it intended to table the Macintosh Report?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: 1. (a)
None; (b) 760; (c) 547; (d) None.

2.	The Department of Public Works, in consultation with the Department of Communications, estimates that there will be an additional requirement for approximately 45,300 sq. ft. of office space that is likely to be provided in leased premises at an approximate rental cost of $207,600 per annum, and an additional requirement for approximately 11,865 sq. ft. of office space that will probably be available in existing Crown-owned buildings at a cost of about $56,360. No additional office space will be provided for the Department of Communications by purchase.
3.	$6,400.
4.	(a) $19,170; (b) $133,500. In addition to
(a)	and (b), in 1966/67 the Department of Transport commissioned preliminary studies at a cost of $156,970. (c) $8,391; (d) Expenditures as of Jan. 14/69 on a study respecting the design, development and supply of a Domestic Satellite Communication System for Canada by: (i) RCA Victor are, $175,000; (ii) Northern Electric are, $184,000.
5.	In the course of developing its policy concerning satellite communications, the government has had a number of confidential memoranda and papers prepared. The government will determine in due course which of these it is in the public interest to publish.


HUDSON BAY OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Mr. Fortin: Does the government intend to concur in the agreement between the Provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec respecting the boundaries of offshore resources in Hudson's Bay?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: The boundaries of the Provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec with respect to Hudson Bay have been defined by the Boundaries Extension Acts of 1912. These acts define each boundary as "Following the shore of the said Bay". No amendment to these acts is at present under consideration.


INDIAN MONEYS IN SUSPENSE ACCOUNTS
Mr. Simpson: 1.	As of January 1, 1969, how much money was held by the Canadian Government in suspense accounts (a) on behalf of individual Indians (b) on behalf of Indian bands?
2.	How much of the money held in suspense accounts (a) on behalf of individual Indians (b) on behalf of Indian bands accumulated interest?
3.	What rate of interest was paid?
March 19, 1969

4.	Is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development planning revisions in the administration of these suspense accounts?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Amount of money held in Suspense at January 1, 1969: (a) On behalf of individual Indians: Indian Compensation, $43,292.82; Rental Suspense, nil; (b) On behalf of Indian bands: Indian Compensation, $169,166.05; Rental Suspense, $617,815.47.
2.	(a) Indian Compensation, $43,239.98; Rental Suspense, nil; (b) Indian Compensation, $162,454.71; Rental Suspense, nil.
3.	5 per cent.
4.	Not at this time.


MONCTON, N.B.-FRENCH LANGUAGE PROGRAMS
Mr. Corbin: 1.	How many French-language (a) radio, and (b) television programmes were produced in the studios of Stations CBAF and CBAFT, Moncton, in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?
2.	How many such programmes were produced in the studios of the private station, CKCW-TV, Moncton, during these four years?
3.	How many radio programmes, produced in Moncton, were broadcast by Station CJEM, Ed-mundston, for the same years (a) general news programmes (b) programmes of a political nature (c) variety programmes?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. (a) Approximate number of radio programs produced in CBAF studios, based on representative weeks during the years in question: 1965, 3,600; 1966, 3,900; 1967, 4,200; 1968, 4,400.
(b)	CBAFT had no TV program production studios during the years 1965 to 1968.
I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 2. 1965, Nil; 1966, Nil; 1967, Nil; 1968, CKCW-TV originated four half-hour free-time telecasts for CBAFT during the 1968 Federal Election Campaign.
3.	The number of radio programs produced in Moncton and aired by CJEM were as follows:
General Programs of a Variety News pro- Political Pro-
grams	Nature	grams1965	372	20	41966	372	20	61967	372	20	321968	363	20	40
Questions


ESQUIMALT-SOOKE-COWICHAN LAKE-COWICHAN BAY RAILWAY SERVICE
Mr. Anderson: Are any railway bridges on the Esquimalt-Sooke-Cowichan Lake-Cowichan Bay Canadian National Railway lines closed for safety reasons?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Two bridges on the Cowichan Subdivision are impassable and out of service. However, service over the subdivision is being maintained by way of Victoria and Youbou.


SASKATCHEWAN-HOMES ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many homes have been constructed on Indian Reservations in Saskatchewan during 1968?
2.	What was the cost of these homes?
3.	How many of these homes were within the Mackenzie constituency?
4.	How many homes does the Department expect to construct in 1969?
5.	How many of these homes will be within the Mackenzie constituency?
6.	How many homes were built on Indian Reservations across Canada?
7.	What was the total cost of these homes?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. During the fiscal year 1967-68, 410 homes were constructed on Indian reserves in Saskatchewan.
2.	$2,701,259.
3.	64.
4. During the fiscal year 1968-69, it is expected that 1927 homes will be constructed.
5.	64.
6. During the fiscal year 1967-68, 2005 homes were constructed on Indian reserves in Canada.
7.	$16,251,886.


METIS HOMES IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many homes were constructed for Metis in Saskatchewan which involved federal participation or financing in 1968?
2.	What was the cost to the federal government?
3.	At what locations were these homes constructed?
4.	In what other provinces were homes for Metis financed under any federal program?

March 19, 1969
Questions
5.	How many homes were constructed in each province?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The below listed answer applies in so far as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned. 1. Under a 30'0-house program being financed through the Federal-Provincial cost sharing provisions of Section 35A of the National Housing Act, the Province of Saskatchewan constructed 35 houses for sale to Metis and Enfranchised Indians in remote communities in 1968.
2.	Under the arrangement, costs are shared 75 per cent by the Federal Government and 25 per cent by the Province. The Federal Government's 75 per cent share of the capital cost of the 34 houses is estimated at $138,560. Purchaser's monthly payments are based on family income and deficits representing the difference between monthly payments and the amount required to repay capital costs and pay taxes are shared annually on the same 75 per cent and 25 per cent basis.
3.	The houses were constructed in LaRonge, Pine House, Cumberland House and Pelican Narrows.
4.	and 5. Recently the Federal Government approved a similar arrangement with the Province of Manitoba under the provisions of Section 35A of the National Housing Act. Under the arrangement the Province is to construct 100 houses for Metis and Enfranchised Indians in remote areas of the Province. As in the case of the Saskatchewan program the Federal Government will bear 75 per cent of the costs. The arrangement was approved in November 1968 and no houses have yet been built.


LINGUISTIC QUALIFICATIONS OF PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	What is the total number of persons employed by the Public Service Commission of Canada as (a) Clerk 1 or equivalent (b) Clerk 2 or equivalent (c) Clerk 3 or equivalent (d) Clerk 4 or equivalent?
2.	Of that number, and for each of the above categories, how many speak only (a) English (b) French (e) both languages?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. (a) Clerical and Regulatory, Level 1 or equivalent, 47; (b) Clerical and Regulatory, Level 2 or equivalent, 100;
(c)	Clerical and Regulatory, Level 3 or equivalent, 139; (d) Clerical and Regulatory, Level 4 or equivalent, 130.

2.	(a) English: Clerical and Regulatory, Level 1 or equivalent, 15; Clerical and Regulatory, Level 2 or equivalent, 46; Clerical and Regulatory, Level 3 or equivalent, 70; Clerical and Regulatory, Level 4 or equivalent, 86; (b) French: Clerical and Regulatory, Level 1 or equivalent, 10; Clerical and Regulatory, Level 2 or equivalent, 4; Clerical and Regulatory, Level 3 or equivalent, 13; Clerical and Regulatory, Level 4 or equivalent, 1; (c) Both languages: Clerical and Regulatory, Level 1 or equivalent, 22; Clerical and Regulatory, Level 2 or equivalent, 50; Clerical and Regulatory, Level 3 or equivalent, 56; Clerical and Regulatory, Level 4 or equivalent, 43.


BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATES
Mr. Lafulippe: Is the Bank of Canada authorized to increase its interest rates without consulting the government and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) what are the powers of the Directors of the Bank in
this regard?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Section 5 of the Bank of Canada Act provides that the Bank shall be under the management of its Board of Directors. Section 8(1) of the Act states that the Governor of the Bank is the chief executive officer of the Bank and on behalf of the Board has the direction and control of the business of the Bank with authority to act in connection with the conduct of the business of the Bank in all matters that are not by this Act or by the by-laws of the Bank specifically reserved to be done by the Board or by the Executive Committee. Section 14 of the Act requires that the Minister and the Governor shall consult regularly on monetary policy and on its relation to general economic policy. It also provides, in the event of a difference of opinion between the Minister and the Bank concerning the monetary policy to be followed, that the Min-iser may, after consultation with the Governor and with the approval of the Governor in Council, give to the Governor a written directive concerning monetary policy which shall be published forthwith and that the Bank shall comply with such directive.


MISSIONS FROM COMOX AIR BASE
Mr. Anderson: 1.	What percentage of search and rescue missions from Comox Air Force Base are under (a) visual flight conditions (b) instrument flight conditions?
2.	What are the minimum safe altitudes for an aircraft under instrument flight conditions, travelling from Comox Air Force Base to the North
March 19, 1969

(Prince Rupert), the South (Victoria), the West (Tofino) and the East (Prince George) ?
3.	Can the Grumman Albatross HU 16 B be used safely in its present configuration under instrument flight conditions on search and rescue missions from Comox Air Force Base in any direction considering the possibility of engine failure?
4.	Can the Grumman Albatross HU 16 B take off with only one engine operative?
5.	What is the average cost to bring an aircraft back to flying status after an engine failure?
6.	In terms of dollars, what did the malfunction of a Grumman Albatross HU 16 B at Cold Fish Lake in 1968 cost the taxpayer?
7.	How much of the low operational readiness figure of 53.2% for this aircraft is contributed to by (a) engine, accessory or propeller malfunction (b) airframe malfunction?
8.	How many hours contour search are carried out annually by Comox Air Force Base search and rescue aircraft?
9.	Can contour search in high elevation valleys be carried out without risking the loss of the aircraft in the event of an engine failure?
10.	For how long can the maximum 190 feet per minute rate of climb on one engine be maintained?
11.	What is the maximum permissible period for full power settings (a) on two engines (b) on one engine?
12.	For how long can the aircraft maintain 5,900 feet on one engine without jettisoning exterior fuel tanks or other equipment?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. All actual searches are performed under visual flight conditions. However, it is sometimes necessary to perform mercy flights and to fly to search areas under instrument flight conditions. Taking these factors into consideration it is estimated that 32% of the total flying time performed by Canadian Forces Base Comox Search and Rescue aircraft is done under instrument flight conditions.
2.	Prince Rupert, 7,100 feet; Victoria, 5,500 feet; Tofino, 8,000 feet; Prince George, 9,000 feet.
3.	The Canadian Forces do not operate the Grumman Albatross HU16B. The HU16B is a United States Coast Guard designation for a version of the Albatross which has different engines and propellers from that of the Canadian Forces Albatross SA16B. The safeness of each operation would depend on variables of flight planning, weather and pay load.
4.	No.
5.	An engine failure can occur for a variety of reasons ranging from minor to major component malfunctions. Assuming the worst case, which would be an engine change, the estimated maximum cost would be $504 for
Questions
labour. If the failure involves a complete repair and overhaul this may entail an additional $10,000.
6.	There was no Grumman Albatross HU16B at Cold Fish Lake in 1968. However, the cost to repair the Canadian Forces SA16B was $9,773.
7.	Because the operational readiness figure of 53.2% was arrived at as a function of crew availability, logistic support, scheduled depot level maintenance and unscheduled unserviceabilities for the Canadian version of the Albatross, it is not possible to correlate this figure with individual component malfunctions without undertaking a costly study.
8.	In 1968, 565 hours.
9.	Yes.
10.	One minute.
11.	(a) Five minutes; (b) five minutes.
12.	Five minutes.


CITIZENSHIP WAITING PERIOD
Mr. Aiken: 1.	For what reason has a period of five years been established as the length of time potential citizens of Canada must wait before being allowed to apply for Canadian citizenship?
2.	Is it intended to change the length of this period and, if so, in what way?
3.	Is it intended to change the procedures for applying for and securing Canadian citizenship in any other way?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	A five year period of residential qualification was first introduced in Canada by the "British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914" which was re-enacted mutatis mutandis in this country. It is said to have been enacted to guard against the cases of persons becoming naturalized in a country requiring little or no previous residence, and then returning to their own country, or settling in some foreign country, with a claim to nationality and protection to which they had not become entitled according to recognized principles of international law by a bona fide change of domicile.
2.	All the provisions of the Canadian Citizenship Act are now the subject of review which has not yet been completed. It is not possible therefore to say what changes are intended.
3.	See 2 above.

March 19, 1969
Questions


YARMOUTH, N.S., FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Comeau: Is the ferry, presently under construction for Lion Ferry AB at Bremerhaven, designed for stern loading and, if so, what steps are planned at Yarmouth to make suitable facilities available for this type of ferry and will they be completed in time for the opening of the new ferry services?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Investigation is presently proceeding on the probable requirements for a bow loading vessel at Yarmouth and the costs involved in providing such facilities. Any decision on federal participation in this project must await the evaluation of the results of these investigations.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT PRESS RELEASES
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Department of Transport issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	Yes, 69.
2.	(a) $158.70; (b) $270.00; (c) $389.06; (d) $873.08; (e) $3,105.00.
3.	(a) No. 7 Bond, 40M; (b) 219,600 sheets at a cost of $433.81.
4.	1,371 hours.


BELL CANADA RATES
Mr. Gilbert: Has the Government of Canada requested data from Bell Canada in relation to their recent application to the Canadian Transport Commission for increase in telephone rates as stated by the Postmaster General on December 16 last and, if so, what specific data has been requested?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: In so far as the Communications Department is concerned: No request has been made to Bell Canada for information relative to their application for an increase in telephone rates.

While the application is before the Canadian Transport Commission, the department does not plan to initiate action in this regard. However, as stated on December 16, 1968, the Department of Communications is intent on gathering information on the telecommunications industry so as to be in a position to make rational decisions on such problems.


MONTREAL-SITE OF INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Has the Department of Transport selected a new site for the Montreal International Airport?
2.	Have any lands been purchased at this time?
3.	When will construction commence on the new airport?
4.	What is the anticipated opening date for the new airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	The Department of Transport has evaluated alternative sites but a final decision has not yet been made.
2.	No.
3.	Present planning is that initial construction will commence in approximately 18 months.
4.	Departmental plans are predicated upon the new airport being operational by 1974.


ATHABASCA, ALTA., POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many post offices have been closed in the Athabasca constituency in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?
2.	How many post offices will be closed in the Athabasca constituency in 1969?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. 1965, 2; 1966, none; 1967, 9; 1968, 7.
2. The Frains, Alberta, Post Office is to be closed in the near future.
Note: Further studies are being conducted with a view to closing additional Post Offices within the closing program criteria but no decision has been made on any case as yet.


LONG LINER FISHING VESSEL TENDERS
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recently call tenders in the Atlantic Provinces for a long liner type fishing vessel?
March 19, 1969

2.	What are the names of the firms bidding on this work, the amount of their bids and the name of the successful contractor?
3.	For what purpose will this ship be used by the Department?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2.
Name and Address Sparton Construction Ltd.,	Amount of Bid $
Alberton, P.E.I. Gordon & Clyde Shears, Rocky Harbour	18,978
St. Barbe, Newfoundland. R. & L. Grandy Limited,	21,300
Fortune, Newfoundland. Lewisporte Shipyard,	26,630
Lewisporte, Newfoundland. Carpenters Shipyards Ltd.,	26,870
Fort Union, Newfoundland. Newfoundland Shipyards Ltd.,	27,764
St. Johns, Newfoundland. The International Grenfell Association,	32,400
Ottawa, Ontario. Pelley Enterprises Ltd.,	32,400
Springdale, Newfoundland. Harley S. Cox & Sons Ltd.,	38,500
Sherburne, N.S.	45,405
The successful contractor	was Sparton
Construction Ltd.
3.	The vessel is being purchased under the Esquimo Small Boats Assistance Plan for Mr. Celestino Makpah of Whale Cove who will use it for fishing.


QUEBEC PARTICIPATION IN STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM
Mr. Matte: Does the Province of Quebec receive from the federal government any compensation in connection with the Canada Students' Loan Program and, if so, by what means?


Edgar John Benson: Section 12 of the Canada Student Loans Act provides for an alternative payment to a nonparticipating province which operates its own student loans plan. This payment is related to actual statutory expenditures incurred during a loan year by the federal government (e.g. interest payments and loss claims) and is calculated on the basis of the 18-24 year population in a non-participating province relative to that in the participating provinces. Quebec qualifies for payments under this provision, and the following such payments have been made to date; 1965, $74,262.05; 1966,
Questions
$757,447.99; 1967, $1,230,572.14; 1968, $2,402,552.55.


CHARLOTTETOWN AIRPORT
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Is the Charlottetown Airport at present capable of accommodating DC-9 aircraft in regular commercial use?
2 If not, what facilities or additional length of runway is required to make this possible?
3.	When will the Charlottetown Airport be brought up to standard to allow the commercial use of DC-9 aircraft, if this is not already the case?
4.	What program of improvement is contemplated for Charlottetown Airport for the next three years?
5.	Has this program been delayed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	Yes.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	The following items are programmed for the Charlottetown Airport: (a) installation of a non-directional radio beacon, programmed for fiscal year 1970-71; (b) installation of an instrument landing system, programmed for fiscal year 1971-72.
5.	No.


P.E.I.-VOCATIONAL TRAINING EXPENDITURES
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What was the amount spent under the Vocational Training Program in the Province of Prince Edward Island for each of the fiscal years from 1964-65 to 1968-69 inclusive?
2.	What is the amount, if any, to be spent in that Province under the Vocational Training Program in the fiscal year 1969-70?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Amounts spent on technical and vocational training in the Province of Prince Edward Island are the following:
Federal Expenditures in the Province of Prince Edward Island under
Adult Occupa-TVT Assistance tional Training
	Act1	Act
	$	$
1964-65	419,753	
1965-66	271,485	
1966-67	202,800	
1967-68	1,170,774	905,3951968-69	279,456	1,618,00021 inclusive	of contributions	to capital <
penditures 2 estimated

March 19, 1969
Questions
2. The amount to be spent in that Province during the fiscal year 1969-70 has not been estimated yet.


SATURDAY POSTAGE STAMP PURCHASES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	During what hours on Saturday may stamps be purchased at the wickets of Post Offices?
2.	Are Canadian quarters (twenty-five cent pieces) of the type minted since August 1968 useable in the stamp vending machines of the Canadian Post Office Department?
3.	If not, is it the intention to convert the existing machines or order new ones in which such coins may usefully be inserted?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. At Staff Post Offices with Letter Carrier Service, postage stamps may not be purchased at the wickets on Saturdays, but stamp vending machines are available.
At Staff Post Offices without Letter Carrier Delivery, postage stamps may be purchased during a 4 hour period on Saturdays. Hours of service are determined by the time of receipt of mail.
At Semi-Staff Post Offices, postage stamps may be purchased during a 4 hour period on Saturdays. Hours of service are determined by the time of receipt of mail.
At Revenue Post Offices there has been no change in service. Stamps may be purchased during hours office is open on Saturdays.
At Sub Post Offices, postage stamps may be purchased on Saturdays during the hours observed by such establishments.
2.	Yes; these coins are being accepted in approximately one half of the post office stamp vending machines in service.
3.	Yes; conversion of the remainder is presently in progress.


&quot;WHEAT EXPORTS
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What were the total wheat exports for the following periods; October 1967-October 1968, November 1967-November 1968, December 1967-December 1968 and January 1968-January 1969?
2.	What was the total of demurrage charges paid and/or to be paid by the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of the producers of Canada to shipowners and others for the months of October, November and December 1968 and January 1969 in reference to those ships that were held in
[Mr. MacEachen.)
the Port of Vancouver waiting to be loaded with grain for export?


Yves Forest: 1.
Wheat exports in millions of bushels by month in the October 1968 to January 1969 period with exports in the same month of the previous year in brackets were as follows: October 26.0 (19.9), November 23.3 (22.0), December 16.1 (12.9), January 18.8 (19.3).
2. It is not the policy of the Canadian Wheat Board to divulge information in respect to its current operations but the information will be made available through the board's annual report when crop accounts have been finalized. In any event only a few claims have already been submitted and it will be a matter of months before all claims are submitted and settlements finalized.


UNCLAIMED POST OFFICE SAVINGS
Mr. Maiher: 1.	What is the approximate amount in dollars of unclaimed Post Office Savings as of January 31, 1969?
2.	What will be the disposition of these unclaimed
savings?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. $9,760,000.
2. After 31st December 1969, any account with a balance of less than $25, which has been inactive for thirty years or more, will be credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the depositor will have no further claim in respect of such deposit. Any account with a balance of $25 or more may be claimed by a depositor or his legal representative at any time, except that interest will not be earned after 31st December 1969.


PLUGGING OF OFFSHORE OIL WELLS
Mr. Anderson: 1.	What regulations govern the plugging of offshore oil wells drilled by Shell of Canada's SEDCO 135F drilling rig and other rigs off the West Coast of Vancouver Island?
2.	How many wells have been plugged in Canadian waters by this company's rig and other rigs since drilling operations began?
3.	Do all earlier plugs meet present federal standards?


Hon. Olto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. The plugging
March 19, 1969

Questions
of the wells drilled by Shell Canada Limited off the west coast is governed by the Canada Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Regulations. Under the authority of these Regulations, when a well has reached total depth the Company must obtain prior approval from the responsible officers of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for the proposed plugging program. The final design of the program is the result of consultation between Company and Departmental officers. Upon completion of the plugging program, the Company must submit a confirmatory detailed report to the Department.
2.	To date, twelve exploratory wells have been plugged and abandoned off the west coast. All of these have been drilled by Shell Canada Limited.
3.	Yes.


PILOTAGE RECOMMENDATION 39
Mr. Stanfield: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to implement Recommendation 39 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Pilotage, especially with respect to its application to the District of Halifax?
2.	When is it anticipated that necessary legislation will be introduced?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. The government has not yet made a decision on whether to implement Recommendation 39 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Pilotage.
2. It is anticipated that revised legislation to replace the present provisions of Part VI of the Canada Shipping Act will be introduced late in 1969 or early in 1970.


LAUZON, QUE., POSTAL STATION
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the Post Office Department rented accommodation for the opening of a postal station at Lauzon, Quebec (a) if so, what is the annual rental rate (b) who is the lessor and what is his address (c) when will the Department occupy the accommodation?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: The Department of Public Works has not rented accommodation for the Post Office Department at Lauzon, Quebec, (a), (b), and (c) Not applicable.


COST OF ARMED FORCES UNIFORMS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What will be the cost for each new uniform being provided for the Armed Forces?
2.	What will be the estimated total expenditure for (a) uniforms in the year 1969 (b) replacements or second additional uniforms during the years 1969 and 1970?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. The price of one uniform consisting of one cap, one jacket, one pair of trousers, one shirt and one tie is $48.00; however each individual will receive a uniform kit consisting of the following new items, the estimated value of which is $170.00: 1 cap, 2 jackets, 2 pair of trousers, 4 shirts, 2 ties, 1 overcoat and scarf, 1 raincoat regular, 1 raincoat lightweight.
2. See Hansard dated 15 January, 1969, page 4307. Estimated expenditures for new uniforms are as follows: 1968-69, $2,500,000; 196970, $11,500,000; 1970-71, $8,000,000; 1971-72, $3,000,000.


MICHAEL GODFREY, COLLEGE MILITAIRE ROYAL
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has Mr. Michael Godfrey of College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean been denied continuance of his teaching engagement by the Director of Studies, Mr. Benoit?
2.	If the answer is in the affirmative, was the real reason the fact that he had given favourable evidence to Mr. David Price when called as a witness before the Cohen Commission?
3.	Will the Minister of National Defence give reconsideration to the decision made by said Director?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that the term appointment of Mr. Michael Godfrey of College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean terminates on August 15, 1969 and will not be renewed.
The answer to the second part is no.
The following is the answer to the third part of the question: The decision of the Director, College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, has been the subject of a grievance by Mr. Godfrey which was heard at the deputy minister level and the decision was to deny the grievance. The griever or his representative may challenge the stand taken by the department by seeking a hearing before an adjudicator as prescribed by the Public Service

March 19, 1969
Questions
Staff Relations Act. Since a remedy exists within the framework of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, I have refrained from interfering in the normal process.


BRANDON, MAN.-USE OF E.M.O. TO BREAK STRIKE
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Did the Minister of National Defence approve the use of E.M.O. as a method of breaking a strike of transit workers in Brandon, Manitoba?
2.	Has the Minister approved expenditures of E.M.O. money for strike breaking tactics?
3.	Has the Minister indicated the position of his Department as to the use of the name, E.M.O., by municipal authorities, when they are contemplating strike breaking procedure?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	No.


GRANTS IN 1968-69 UNDER INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Burton: For the fiscal year 1968-69 to date, how many grants were made to plants in Saskatchewan under the Area Development Incentive Program (a) what is the name of each plant receiving a grant (b) what amount of grant was received by each plant?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: (a) Name
Lloydminster and District Agricultural Co operative Association Ltd. (Lloydminster) Northern Wood Preservers (Sask.) Ltd. (Prince Albert)
Prince Albert Pulp Co. Ltd. (Prince Albert) Melfort Co-operative Association Ltd. (Melfort)
Crawfords Foods Ltd. (Wynyard)
Shellbrook Chronicle (Shelbrook)
Canora Concrete Products (Canora)
United Grain Growers Ltd. (Wilkie)
Leon's Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Yorkton)
Webber Homes Ltd. (Yorkton)
Yorkton Milling Co. (Yorkton)
Total-11
(b) Amount $
14,910.60
34,237.99
3,000,000.00
20,220.00
11,283.33
3,083.60
3,971.24
19,516.72
7,566.91
14,227.13
43,829.18
ARDA AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES Quetion No. 1,702-Mr. Burton:
1.	With what provinces does the federal government have ARDA agreements?
2.	When do these agreements expire?
3.	Is it the intention of the federal government to renew any of these agreements and, if so, which ones?
4.	Are negotiations being carried on with any provinces for the renewal of any ARDA agreements and, if so, which ones?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. All ten provinces.
2.	March 31, 1970.
3.	There will be discussions with the provinces before intentions are formulated.
4.	No.


GRANTS IN 1966-67 UNDER INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Burton: For the fiscal year 1966-67, how many grants were made to plants in Saskatchewan under the Area Development Incentive Program (a) what is the name of each plant receiving a grant (b) what amount of grant was received by each plant?


Russell Clayton Honey: (a) Name	(b) Amount

Inter-Ocean Grain Co. Ltd.	62,649.00
-(Moosomin)
Producers Feeds (Sask.) Co.	21,959.19
-Ltd. (Melville)
Total-2
March 19, 1969


COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	How many times did the Privy Council Committee on Scientific and Industrial Research meet lor each of the following years: 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968?
2.	What was the specific subject under consideration for each of the Committee's meetings for the above years?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1 and 2. The arrangements made by the Cabinet for the discharge of the Business for which it is collectively responsible are matters for the Cabinet itself and are not customarily disclosed.


COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX
Mr. Beaudoin: In view of the federal government's decision to take the necessary steps to obtain income tax returns from the 7,117 Canadians who have failed to file such returns, what steps does the government intend to take to ensure that the law is enforced?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: It is presumed this question relates to the reply given to question No. 1,524 in which it was stated that 7,117 taxpayers were prosecuted for failure to file 1967 income tax returns. If this is the group to which the query relates, the law has been enforced, the delinquent taxpayers have been fined by the courts and the returns have been filed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard (Skeena): X. What is the policy of the government with respect to employment in the service of the Government of Canada for Native Indian and Eskimo people in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories?
2.	In each of the years 1950, 1955, 1960, 1966, 1967 and 1968, what number of people, and what percentage of the total number of people employed in the government service in (a) the Yukon Territory, and (b) the Northwest Territories were (i) Native Indian people, and (ii) Eskimo people?
3.	With respect to the information asked for in part 2, what was the situation with respect to employment by private businesses or corporations?
4.	What is the forecast of the number and percentage of (a) Native Indian people, and (b) Eskimo people that will be employed in the service of the Government of Canada for each of
Questions
the years 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977 in (i) the Yukon Territory, and (ii) the Northwest Territories?
5.	What (a) recommendations (b) proposals, and (c) agreements have been made with or to (i) federal government departments (ii) provincial governments and specify which ones (iii) Crown Corporations (iv) territorial governments and specify which ones (v) private businesses and corporations and specify which ones, regarding the subject of employment of Native Indian people and Eskimo people in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories?
6.	Have any research or studies been made of the question of employment of Native Indian people and Eskimo people in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories and, if so, what is the name of each such research project or study and will it be made public?
7.	What specific educational and training programs have been provided for Native Indian people and Eskimo people in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories, and what prospects exist for employment with (a) the federal government (b) the respective Territorial Governments (c) private businesses or corporations in the fields vocations and professions for which such programs are designed?
8.	What is the location of each school within which programs referred to in part 7 are provided and, how many (a) Native Indian people, and (b) Eskimo people are students in each such school?
Return tabled.


NEWFOUNDLAND-C.N.R. SHIPS UNDER CHARTER
Mr. McGrath: 1.	How many ships does the C.N.R. have under charter in Newfoundland?
2. What are the names of the ships that are under charter, and who are the owners of the ships?
3.	What ships have been chartered by the C.N.R. in the last five years for use in Newfoundland?
4.	What are the names of the ships and who are the owners of the ships?
5.	What is the port of registry of these ships?
6.	How many C.N.R. ships have been taken out of service in the last five years?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each proprietary Crown corporation, what is the government's investment as (a) share capital (b) long-term loans (c) medium-term loans (d) short-term loans?
2.	What is the interest rate for each category of loans?
3.	For the last three years, has the government granted loans under section 82 of the Financial

March 19, 1969
Questions
Administration Act and, if so, to whom were these loans granted, and what was the term and interest rate of each?
Return tabled.


B.C.M.P. STRENGTH
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What is the strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in each province?
2.	What was the Force's strength for each year from 1960 to 1968 inclusive and for the same period, what was its strength in each province?
3.	What criteria are used to accept or refuse applicants for the RCMP?
4.	How many RCMP officers are (a) bilingual (b) speak only English (c) speak only French?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many appointments were made in the Public Service from January 1, 1968, to date in the general salary range $14,000 to $16,000?
2.	What are the names of the appointees to such positions and to what positions were each of them appointed?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration 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?
Return tabled.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS EXECUTIVES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What are the names of the eleven individuals classified as Executive under the "Manpower Allocation" of the Department of External Affairs, what is the salary of each individual in the present fiscal year and what was his salary in the last fiscal year?
2.	For what reason has the number of the Executive increased from eight to eleven?
3.	What are the names of the 41 individuals classified as Scientific and Professonal under "Manpower Allocation" of the Department of External Affairs, what is the salary of each individual in the present fiscal year and what was his salary in the last fiscal year?
4.	For what reason has the number of the Scientific and Professional increased from 20 to 41?
Return tabled.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Transport 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?
Return tabled.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 NATIONAL DEFENCE FIRING OF A.B.M. WARHEADS OVER CANADIAN TERRITORY-MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER STANDING ORDER 26
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave,
seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring, urgent consideration, namely the urgent situation revealed by the United States defence department that the United States is now seeking Canadian approval to fire anti-ballistic missiles with large thermonuclear warheads over Canadian territory. It is quite clear from the Prime Minister's statements in the house on Monday and statements by Canadian embassy officials in Washington that the United States in deciding to construct this new A.B.M. system did not seek or obtain the Canadian government's permission for such thermonuclear missile flights over Canada, which means that interception would take place over Canadian territory causing extensive nuclear fallout.
Given this fact, plus the broader world danger implications that the construction of this A.B.M. system will further escalate the nuclear arms race, and given the fact that the Prime Minister will be meeting the President of the United States on Monday and Tuesday of this coming week, it is extremely important and vitally urgent that there be a full and comprehensive discussion in the House of Commons prior to this visit in order to evaluate Canada's position in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration
March 19. 1969

under Standing Order 26, the Speaker is required to have regard to a number of factors. These are specified in sections 5 and 16 of the relevant rule. In particular the matter proposed for discussion must be one which calls for immediate and urgent consideration. The Chair must also have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the house within reasonable time by other means.
In this instance the proposal is that the house be given an opportunity to debate a question of undoubted national interest on an urgent basis because the right hon. Prime Minister will be engaged in discussions with the President of the United States on Monday next. The business announced for the rest of the week would not provide an opportunity for such a debate.
It seems to me on reflection that this might well be the type of situation where the standing order should operate, so as to permit debate on a national issue in advance of anticipated events. I am therefore prepared to put the motion to the house: Has the hon. member leave to move a motion for the purpose of discussing the matter stated by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The debate on the proposed motion will stand over until 8 o'clock p.m. this day.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notice of motion No. 76?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING BILINGUAL COMMISSIONAIRES IN NATIONAL MUSEUM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 76-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of (a) the letter from the Clerk of the Privy Council dated October 17, 1968, sent to departmental heads and dealing with the implementation of Clause 9 of the Official Languages Bill (b) the correspondence from Mr. Andr6 29180-43H
Motions for Papers
Ouellette, Executive Assistant to the Secretary of State, relating to the matter of bilingual Commissionaires (c) the quarterly report of the General Secretary * of the National Museums of Canada, Mr. C. J. MacKenzie to the January meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Museums Corporation.
Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this motion calls for the tabling of three documents.
The first part involves a letter sent by the Clerk of the Privy Council to all departmental heads.
The second part deals with correspondence originating from my own office.
The third part is in connection with a confidential report by the General Secretary of the National Museums of Canada to the Board of Trustees of the Museums Corporation.,
I understand that it has always been a practice of this house to consider documents of this nature as confidential. Consequently, it would not be advisable for me to agree to the proposed motion. Under these circumstances, I must ask the hon. member to be kind enough to withdraw his motion.
At any rate, I would like to suggest that this is a matter of principle which has nothing to do with the contents of the documents concerned.
{English]


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have permission to have this matter transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it shall be
transferred for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


DISCONTINUANCE OF CHURCH AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters received by the Postmaster General from churches, professional organizations, trade unions, co-operatives, credit unions and private organizations, indicating that as a result of the increase in postal rates they intend to discontinue or curtail their publications.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the government perhaps this motion might stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 19, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question, the answer to which might provide some information in respect of the discussion to take place tonight. Has the United States sought the approval of Canada to fire anti-ballistic missile warheads over Canadian territory in the event of an enemy attack?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be
permitted to answer this question I should like to say that the matter of permission has never been raised with Canada by the government of the United States.


Mr. Fairweather:: What's going on at the embassy?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there have been indications of discussions on a number of aspects of this matter between Canada and the United States. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether these discussions were exclusively on an official or military level, on the one hand, or on a political level on the other hand with the minister himself?


Mitchell William Sharp: The statement made by the departments of state and defence in the United States set out the position quite accurately. This was included in an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning, which reads in part as follows:
''We discuss matters such as these with the Canadians on a continuing basis. A number of aerospace matters pertaining to ABM are under discussions with the Canadians. Since these matters are being discussed, it would not be appropriate to deal in specifics at this time."
That was the only statement made by the United States government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the statement made not only by the United States defence and state departments but also by Canadian embassy officials in Washington, that such discussions are going on, I should like to ask the minister when these discussions began and if they commenced prior to the time President Nixon announced his government's intention of going ahead with an A.B.M. system?


Mitchell William Sharp: These discussions have been going on for years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that a moment ago he moved a motion to adjourn the business of the house for the purpose of discussing the matter about which he is now asking questions. In view of the fact there is to be a debate this evening I suggest we should not accept questions on this subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order that Your
Honour has raised-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not raise a point of order, I made a ruling.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could he tell us if he intends to recommend, as he suggested it himself, that the Montreal harbour be closed for a year as a means of settling the dispute between the dockers and their employer?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, what I said specifically was that if the effects of closing the port of Montreal were limited to the unions and the Shipping Federation, perhaps the closing of this port for a year would bring both parties to their senses. I went on to say that an equally important segment of Canadian society that should be represented at the bargaining table are the importers, exporters and the Canadian people in general who have the right to see that the port of Montreal remains free of labour unrest, and open, for the good of the general economy.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
To do that, is the minister considering a year's extension of the terms of reference of the commission set up to study the possibility of reaching an agreement?
March 19, 1969


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, a lot of people would like to know what the Minister of Labour intends to do after March 31. They will have to wait.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct an additional question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious situation at the Montreal harbour, I would like the minister to inform the house and the people what measures he intends to take to see that the port is open, and to settle the present conflict at the earliest possible moment.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the labour negotiations are proceeding daily before Judge Gold, one of the finest judges charged with industrial relations in this country. The conciliation board is meeting daily, and it would certainly be inappropriate for the Minister of Labour to prejudge the findings of the judge's report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question, having in mind the fact that General Motors Corporation has recalled an additional one million automobiles in the United States and Canada for possible defects. My question is this: Can the minister say what progress is being made in setting up in-plant safety standard checks in Canada, as was recommended last year?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I really have nothing to add to the answer I gave on February 28, when I indicated that we would be introducing legislation, hopefully next session, in respect of safety standards in Canada, and that at that time the possibility of plant inspection would be considered'. In the meantime I might repeat what I indicated then, that is, that in some cases, in fact in most of these cases that are now being reported and where large numbers of recalls are involved, the defects would not have shown up at the time of manufacture even if there had been inspectors in the plant. They are defects which became apparent only after considerable testing in the field.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Transport inform us whether the owners of these cars have to assume that they can go to any dealer and have these corrections made, or must they wait for a formal invitation to attend at certain places for the corrections?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot say what the procedure would be in every case, but certainly in the more serious cases I have been informed that the owners will be notified by registered mail and an indication given as to where they should report to have remedial measures taken.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that a number of these vehicles are school buses, does the minister not feel he should take immediate action in connection with these particular vehicles?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, immediate action is being taken by the manufacturers.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence I direct it to the acting minister or the Prime Minister. In view of some divergence of views on the medical manpower situation, the apparent jungle of indecision and the extreme urgency of this problem if medical schools are to operate during the summer months, would the minister state whether he has discussed this urgent problem with the ministers concerned in the provincial governments?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice and call the minister's attention to it.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I should like to ask him whether his department has under-
March 19, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry taken a systematic investigation of the complaints and allegations that the automobile manufacturers are over-pricing in what they are charging for the installation of safety devices in automobiles.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he advise the house when he expects to be in a position to table the report of the Woods committee studying labour relations.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is my intention to table the Woods report in English and in French no later than next Wednesday in order that all hon. members may have the opportunity to study it over the Easter recess.



TEMPORARY CURTAILMENT OF LOG SHIPMENTS TO JAPAN

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry with reference to a question he answered last week to the effect that the principal exporters of logs in British Columbia had voluntarily agreed to withhold any exports for at least six months in order to meet domestic requirements. I should like to ask the minister whether the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or any other department of the government is concerned with this voluntary arrangement, or does the minister's own department intend to supervise this matter?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: My
own department is following this matter together with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which has an official in Vancouver who grants exports permits and keeps a very close tab on the export of logs from B.C. This movement of logs to Japan is being carefully reviewed at all times.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the house, in the event that the voluntary commitments are not kept, that export licences will be withheld?


John (Jack) Davis: We will keep the situation under review and take appropriate action if that occasion arises.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MEDICARE-DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PREMIER OF ALBERTA

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house what results are expected from the discussions he had yesterday with the premier of Alberta, Mr. Strom, on medicare? Does he expect some changes to suit that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Premier Strom and myself were agreed to disclose the subject, but not the detail, of our discussions. I believe Premier Strom has already indicated that we talked about oil, wheat and medicare; however, it would be inappropriate for me, since he asked me to meet him, to divulge more than was agreed between us.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As Premier Strom indicated that he is going to table in the Alberta legislature on Thursday a report of his meeting with the Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister give the House of Commons the same report that is being tabled in the Alberta legislature?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was shown a report on the oil policy by Premier Strom for my consideration. What he wants to do with it is of course his choice. If he decides to make it public and he has no objection to my doing so I will gladly make it public. I do not know if the house would be interested in having copies tabled and I am not sure it would be the regular procedure for us to table provincial documents. However, if this is what the house desires and if Premier Strom has no objection, I will certainly table the report. However, I wonder how long it will take Premier Strom to have it translated into French.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Further to the Prime Minister's reply regarding Medicare, does he expect the provincial Minister of Health to meet the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to ascertain if an agreement is possible?
March 19, 1969	COMMONS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Such meetings have already begun and I believe they are in progress at the present time. This is one of the reasons why the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in the house just now. Premier Strom and myself are aware of the two ministers' meeting and may I repeat that it is going on right now.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the previous question and to a statement made yesterday by the premier of the province of Quebec, could the Prime Minister tell us whether the province of Quebec has been consulted about those negotiations with the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are no negotiations with the provinces. It is for those who wish to take advantage of the federal legislation to negotiate the terms with us as well as the date of its coming into force. On behalf of the government, I am willing to say publicly to Premier Bertrand that the more he will hasten to discuss with us the coming into operation of medicare in the province of Quebec, the more we will be pleased.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell the house if the province of Quebec has officially refused to participate or if it is willing to discuss the matter with the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to reiterate to the house that before the legislation was passed, the province of Quebec had expressed through its government its intention to participate in the medicare plan. The federal government passed the law as a result of those consultations. Of course, the province is free to change its mind but the federal legislation remains in the statute books and in force.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can tell us how the negotiations are going on in Sweden between Communist China and Canada's representatives with respect to the recognition of Communist China, and whether he might tell us something of the peek-a-boo performance that took place there the other day when the Canadians were required to
DEBATES	6817
Inquiries of the Ministry demean themselves because the Communists were not sure they were entitled to credibility.


Mitchell William Sharp: The only part of the question to which I can give an answer is the first part, that is that negotiations are going slowly.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the second question because I wanted to join the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens). Did the minister read the other day that the hon. member for York West complained that, when we want to get information, the way to get it is not in parliament but outside in front of the TV cameras?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from the authorization given by the Minister of Public Works on Tuesday, February 25 that restitution be made by Argo Incorporated, general contractors on the Bath-Millhaven federal prison contract for n.s.f. cheques issued for labour by the now extinct subcontractor, D. Leblanc Incorporated.
Since there are also some n.s.f. cheques from the same firm now held locally for services to the personnel of this company, will not the minister also recognize these for restitution?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a submission which he has to assume will be taken into account. If he feels the matter should be discussed further, he might have a second try at putting the question, in view of the fact that it has already been discussed at the time of adjournment, a few weeks ago.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I will bring it up again at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Did the minister attend a meeting with the attorneys general of the three
6818	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry prairie provinces on Monday in Winnipeg to consider the implications of the Batten report on prairie retail food prices, as he indicated he would be doing in his reply to my question of last Thursday? If so, can he give the house some indication of what action his department may be directed to take as a result of the discussions?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, actually it was not the three attorneys general whom I met, but rather the three provincial ministers responsible for consumer affairs: The attorney general from Saskatchewan, the minister of industry and tourism from Alberta and the minister of consumer and corporate affairs from Manitoba. I had a most useful meeting with the three ministers1, all of whom seemed to approve entirely the action that I was taking.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the support given by all parties in the house to Bill C-15 which would protect the source of information of news reporters, will the Minister of Justice consider the recent sentencing in Montreal of John Smith, by a fire commissioner, for refusing to reveal the source of his information, with the view to granting of a full pardon?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that that matter falls within provincial jurisdiction, under provincial statute. However, certainly the principles involved in that inquiry interest me a great deal. The hon. member will appreciate that since this case is currently before a board I can say nothing more at the present time.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent-Essex):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Since Canadian producers will be in a position in a very few days to provide top quality tomatoes for the domestic market, can the minister say whether the government plans to initiate any action to stabilize the Canadian price, now abnormally depressed because of considerable quantities of low priced imports of this commodity?

DEBATES	March 19, 1969


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: We are aware of significant changes in the price of imported tomatoes and we have this problem under active consideration. However, I am not prepared today to announce any specific steps to deal with it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Some days ago, Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was in two parts. The first was:
Are there any provisions in Canada's collective alliance agreements which prohibit Canada's harbouring deserters from nations associated with Canada in such alliances?
The second part was:
Have any discussions been held on this question between the authorities of the United States and Canada?
I wonder whether the minister has a reply to make to these questions today.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The answer to the first part of the question is that the only relevant provision in Canadian collective alliance agreements is that contained in the NATO status of forces agreement. However this agreement is limited in its application to NATO forces on official duty in receiving states, in this case Canada. The answer to the second part of the question is that there have been no recent discussions on the subject between the authorities of our two countries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, who no doubt is fully familiar by now with the substantial tax increases announced in the legislature of New Brunswick last evening, including a 10 per cent surtax and a wide range of increases in sales taxes, whether in these circumstances he would reconsider his refusal to discuss priorities in spending with this and other provinces, in a meaningful way.


Edgar John Benson: We have at all times been willing to discuss priorities. When the hon. gentleman indicates
March 19, 1969

he is willing to give additional revenue by way of tax abatement to the provinces, which is what he is really talking about, is he willing to support further increases in federal taxation, considering he is in favour of balancing the budget?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sure the minister's attention has been drawn to the very serious criticisms of his financial policy contained in the budget of the New Brunswick government, accusing the federal government of inconsistency, lack of	willingness to
co-operate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This subject is on the agenda of federal-provincial conferences and we discuss these matters there.. I have heard the same criticism from the hon. gentleman, with about as much justification.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that officials from both the hon. gentleman's department and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are representing Canada at the meeting of the International Grain Arrangement prices review committee in London, may I ask whether the minister is now in a position to report to the house on the progress of this meeting?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I expect we shall have a report soon.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask the minister what instructions were given to Canadian officials putting forward representations in London.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce pointed out the other day, this is a routine meeting of the kind held from time to time to review prices and other matters respecting the agreement. I do not think it would be prudent for us to make public any discussions which representatives may have had with their ministers.
Inquiries of the Ministry [*Translation]



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house whether or not, when he goes to the White House on March 23 and 24, the matter of extraditing Hal Banks from the United States to Canada will be brought up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe there will be much more important matters to discuss with the President of the United States than the particular case of Hal Banks.


George Harris Hees: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Since the latest reports from Washington indicate that the government of the United States would now be willing to extradite Hal Banks, if the Canadian government were to make a new application, can the hon. gentleman tell us whether the government has any intention of making such an application?


John Napier Turner: The law has not changed since the election, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Is the reluctance of the government to move in this matter the consequence of some debt or obligation which it feels it owes to Mr. Banks? Yes or no?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As he is not in the house, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
The Quebec Minister of Tourism stated on March 13 that a proposal made last January to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the financing of organized leisure was left unanswered; in view of that statement, could the Prime Minister tell us whether his government has made a decision and, if so, what it is?
March 19, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I shall have to inquire about this and, when the minister is in the house, I shall ask him to answer the question.
IEnglish]



CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: This question is directed to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great public concern with respect to Commonwealth Trust, is1 the minister willing to propose to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation that correspondence with Commonwealth Trust be made available to any provincial commission of inquiry, judicial or legislative?


Edgar John Benson: would have to take this matter under consideration and discuss it with the Superintendent of Insurance. However I should like to make it quite clear that the matter of Commonwealth Trust is being kept under constant review by the C.D.I.C. Moreover it was not the federal government which recommended that the government of British Columbia put money into the company.



FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
SEALS-POSSIBILITY OF RE-OPENING HUNT Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl): 1 have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, related to questions raised in the house in the last two or three days. Did the minister receive a communication this morning from representatives of those involved in the seal hunt to the effect that there is in fact a large resource of seals' in the gulf north of Prince Edward Island? If so, is the minister taking steps to ascertain whether this information is correct, and possibly to reopen the hunt until the quota has been reached?
John (Jack) Davis: We
have rechecked the situation and found that the number of seals in the gulf is very small, roughly one quarter of what it has been in previous years.



SEALS-ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN SHIPS DURING CESSATION OF CANADIAN OPERATIONS

James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the department taken any action as yet 

against the five Norwegian vessels which were found in Canadian territorial waters as reported to the house yesterday?


John (Jack) Davis: There are presently four vessels inside our territorial waters; they are stuck in the ice. They are not taking seals. Canadian vessels are taking seals in the same area.



TRANSPORT


Stanley James Korchinski: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman received a request from the Hudson Bay Route Association to meet with him, and will he indicate the nature of his reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did receive a request from the association, and because the subject matter concerned the Minister of Transport rather than myself I asked my colleague to meet with them. He intends to do so, soon. This does not preclude a meeting which I may have with them later; I hope to have one this summer, and I have begun to make plans to that effect. But the immediate problem is one which will be dealt with by the Minister of Transport.


Stanley James Korchinski: Did the Prime Minister's decision hinge upon a report which was prepared last fall for the Department of Transport dealing with a possible extension of the season next year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. My desire to see people does not hinge on such things as that.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the unemployment situation and with representations made by the Association of Canadian Reeves and Mayors. Has the government any alternative program to recommend in place of the winter works program, which was cancelled unilaterally, in order that municipalities may be assisted in various capital projects in the fields of housing and pollution control?
March 19, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister to make a statement, which I suggest cannot be done at this time.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour ruled a similar question out of order on March 12. The question was posted to be debated on the adjournment debate of March 17. I raised the matter then but received no reply. I raised the matter again yesterday by way of a question of privilege and received no reply then. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, may I again transfer this question to the adjournment debate, in the hope that it will be debated as soon as possible and that 1 shall receive a satisfactory answer at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I assure the hon. member that his question will be considered carefully and will be put on the agenda of questions to be considered at the time of adjournment as quickly as possible.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since in the Quebec City and Montreal areas immigrant workers are subsidized to learn English, can the French Canadians of those areas expect to receive the same advantages soon?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question.
I am surprised that it has been asked in that form, but I will take it as notice and the minister will answer it when he is here.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Will he say whether, in its negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Treasury Board is demanding complete freedom to require employees to work any schedule of hours or shift. Also, is Treasury Board demanding the
Inquiries of the Ministry right to make unilateral changes in present, standard working conditions not covered by a contract, without any negotiations being entered into?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member ought to place that question on the order paper.



WHEAT-DISCUSSIONS WITH ALBERTA PREMIER

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can he say whether he or his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), held any discussions with Premier Strom of Alberta during his current visit to Ottawa respecting the serious situation facing Canadian wheat farmers. If so, what determination if any was made?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is that I do not believe private conversations should be made public.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he, along with his officials, studied carefully or shown any interest at all in the proposal made last evening by the Soviet Union that there be reciprocal reductions in troop strengths on the part of Warsaw pact and NATO countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope this news is correct, because the NATO powers made similar proposals many months ago.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the Congress on Agriculture will begin its meetings on Monday, will the minister agree to announcing the government's 1969-70 dairy policy this week, so that it may be considered at the congress?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, dairy policy will be considered

March 19, 1989
Inquiries of the Ministry at the congress. Indeed, a paper on the dairy industry prepared by the task force has now been circulated. However, I cannot give an undertaking that the specific requirements for the 1969-70 dairy year will be ready by Monday. We hope it will be available before the year begins on April 1. I ought to point out that consideration of these kinds of policies by the agricultural congress are not considerations of day to day operations. Instead, they seek to set down guidelines for the future.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister who will be responsible for regional economic development. Has he received a request from the Minister of Agriculture of Nova Scotia to make public the study on the nine eastern counties of Nova Scotia. If so, what decision has he reached on the matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have received such a letter.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What decision has the minister come to on the question of making the study public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I received the letter yesterday and I indicated that we do not think in my department that we should publish those reports. We shall ask for the opinion of the Nova Scotia Minister of Agriculture on this point. If his opinion is in the affirmative, we shall come to a final decision then.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he investigate the activities of Air Canada with a view to upgrading meals served on flights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, as I have been waiting since the very beginning to put my question, I forgot it through impatience.



CABINET OF THE PRIME MINISTER


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether he agrees with one of his first lieutenants, Mr. Pierre Levas-seur, who is responsible for establishing the regional desks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as put is out of order. The hon. member is aware that he cannot ask whether a minister agrees with a statement, an expression or an opinion coming from an official.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that a certain statement made by one of the Prime Minister's first lieutenants was an insult to hon. members of this house. In fact, he stated that 90 per cent of the hon. members' work in the house could be done by business machines. So, I would like to know if the Prime Minister approves that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question could perhaps be a point of privilege, but I do not think his question is in order at this time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On this same question-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Prime Minister rising on a point of privilege?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Somebody raised a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If Your Honour will not permit the discussion to continue, I accept your judgment, but I want to rectify-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggested to the hon. member for Shefford that the question as asked is out of order.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister-to-be of regional and economic development, the present Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Will he carry out the final recommendations of the Atlantic Development Board to the effect that existing programs, including highway programs, ought not to be allowed to grind to a halt this year while the new department is getting under way in its work?
March 19. 1989


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are presently studying those questions, and as soon >as the new department is established, we will take decisions on that matter.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the department also make public any plans it has for various sectors of responsibility based on recommendations of the Atlantic Development Board, in order that the work of the new department may be effectively evaluated?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, those projects have already been drawn to the department's attention. We will study them and decide what to do about them as soon as the department is established.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he state at this time, or on motions later, what position Canada has taken on the apparent invasion of the island of Anguilla by Britain?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have taken no position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is the usual position.


Edgar John Benson: The usual position of the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. On Thursday of last week I asked him if he could say when the regulations under the Canada Labour (Safety) Code for the railway industry would be promulgated? Since it was not possible for him to reply on Monday I trust he is in a position to reply today.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the answer will satisfy the hon. member. As
Inquiries of the Ministry a result of his question I asked the department to give me a complete report. It is so complete that it runs to seven pages, and tc read it I should have to ask unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions. I assure the hon. gentleman that rapid progress is being made in this field. I have asked the department to discuss the possibility of expanding staff in order that we may proceed more effectively. We anticipate that the entire regulations of the code will be completed within the year.



BANKRUPTCY


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, of which I have already given notice.
In view of the large increase in the number of failures in the commercial field, which also cause many failures in industry, involving small and average businesses mostly, would the hon. minister consider establishing a shared-cost insurance plan similar to crop insurance for farmers, to protect industry and the governments?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. The provisions of the Bankruptcy Act are now being studied by a special advisory committee. I hope to have their report this year at which time we will be introducing a revision of the Bankruptcy Act. I doubt that the committee will recommend a creditor's insurance scheme similar to crop insurance.



FISHERIES


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the considerable disagreement which seems to exist regarding the actual number of seals in the northern area close to Prince Edward Island and the loss of income to fishermen in that area, is the minister prepared to make a statement to the house tomorrow indicating in some detail the exact reasons for which the hunt has been cancelled? Would he also provide the exact number of seals located in that area?
March 19, 1969

Government Organization


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to communicate with the hon. member in this connection.


James Aloysius McGrath: 1
rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from the reply I received today from the Minister of Fisheries, which is similar to his reply to my question yesterday. It is completely and totally at variance with the reply given by his parliamentary secretary in the house on Monday, March 17, which can be found at page 6687 of Hansard. It is also completely and totally at variance with information I have received from Canadian sealing skippers off the Labrador coast. According to the custom of this house, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister owes hon. members an explanation; otherwise he stands accused of misleading the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East, one of the difficulties is that a good deal of information has been communicated at different times to different people outside the house, which has resulted in considerable confusion. It is important that the house have a very full and complete statement from the minister tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 13, consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
The Chairman:: House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-173. When the committee rose on the morning of March 14 clause 54 had been called, clauses 20 to 40 and 55 to 70 having been allowed to stand. Shall clause 54 carry?
On clause 54-Definitions.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on this clause. The discovery and transformation of knowledge into viable technologies has clearly made
IMr. MacDonald (Egmont).]
possible enormous gains in human welfare and living standards in all the developed countries of the world. The way in which advances in knowledge and technology bear on the process of economic growth and the rate of increase in productivity is becoming more widely recognized.
What are the factors which determine the economic process? Generally speaking, a person works with an idea which becomes a fact. The fact becomes an invention and from that you have a tool and from that you go on to production. Until the 1920's there was very little research or discovery in Canada. The first major breakthrough medically was the discovery of insulin by Doctors Banting and Best. This is something of which Canadians can be very proud. I refer to it because it establishes a fundamental fact, that we in Canada with our universities and schools are quite capable of taking our place in the research field. There are those who doubt the wisdom of this or tend to copy research done in other countries. I have in mind the drug bill, C-102, which we have been discussing; a great deal of the research may be done in countries other than Canada. Yet one need only look back over the last 25 years to see the drugs that have been developed. One can recall another Canadian discovery, parathyroid extract by Dr. Collip. Those years were a brilliant page in medical discoveries through research.
Some people feel that research is too expensive for a country such as Canada. 1 say to such people that drug research has risen from zero to the point where approximately $12 million per year is now being spent. In our medical research we are spending $25 million. A great deal of the teaching in universities is done by people carrying on research. If opportunities for research are not available, the universities simply will not be able to get teachers. The capable, qualified men are not interested in teaching alone.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
When we look to our neighbour to the south, whence comes most of our competition in manufacturing and other fields, we discover that the number of university graduates in almost any given field in the United States is almost double that in Canada. As long as this situation continues we will be drawers of water and hewers of wood. We must develop and encourage research. Better economic standards are derived from research. We should remember the good that research has
March 19, 1969	COMMONS
achieved in Canada. We should remember the drugs that have been developed in Canada and the lives that have been saved because of research. Economics are tied in with research-the economics of sickness.
Up to 20 years ago about 30 per cent of all the people who developed pneumonia died of it. Many of them were in the 25 to 40 age group. Those of us who practised medicine in those days remember how we waited five to nine days for the crisis to come indicating that the patient had overcome his infection. But even if a patient did recover he sometimes ended up with pus in his pleural cavity and had to be hospitalized to have an operation to remove a rib and drain the pus. Today the pneumonia mortality rate has dropped from 30 per cent to 5 per cent and the morbidity rate has dropped even lower. In a matter of days we can have a patient back at work looking after his own business, and without the necessity of going on welfare. The economics of this are self-evident. This is what we have to consider. We should not be penny-wise and pound foolish.
Our future economic development depends to a great degree on the development of lifesaving drugs, not only in the cancer field where the death rate is one out of seven afflicted but in the field of virology. There is also the economic loss due to mental disease. Just the other day an outstanding medical authority made the statement that in Canada 50 per cent of the people are mentally ill to some degree at one time or another.
Today, because of the lack of research and sufficient medical schools, we face a medical manpower shortage. I feel that parliament is becoming callous about this problem, and even some of the people who work in medical practice are becoming callous about it. People are dying in Canada today who would not lose their lives if adequate medical care were provided for them. I will go further on this matter, and I point out that I am not being politically critical. This government passed medicare without due consultation with the medical people across Canada.
I have here a brief report by the Canadian Medical Association which states:
Following our annual meeting in June our president wrote to the Minister of Health asking that greater flexibility be provided in the federal proposals to allow provincial governments more latitude in the use of private insurance carriers. We also asked the minister to reconsider the universal coverage requirement in his proposed program-
DEBATES	6825
Government Organization Following the announcement of the legislation on July 12, a meeting of our divisional representatives was held and a draft of our comments on the bill was sent to our executive committee, C.M.A. divisions and to the Minister of Health and his deputy. We were concerned because some sections of the bill were ambiguous and required clarification. Also our officials determined from a meeting with the Deputy Minister that the method of government administration was much more rigid than we expected.
The legislation was passed without any meaningful amendment... On November 10,	1967, our
president wrote the following letter to the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, then Minister of Finance:
"We are aware that you are meeting with the provincial treasurers next week and that the financial aspects of the proposed medicare program will likely be one of the subjects under discussion. Our provincial divisions have informed us about the economic problems of their governments in financing such a large undertaking in view of their other pressing priorities."
The Canadian Medical Association made certain suggestions. The minister knows them as well as I do. One of them was that the Canada Assistance Plan be used to provide for some of those people-


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? First, dealing with medicare, I would like a ruling from the Chair. I do not know what particular relevance it has to the Medical Research Council, but if you rule it is in order and does have some relevance then I would like to ask the hon. member a question concerning it.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am in the hands of the committee. My suggestion would be that under Part VIII, Medical Research Council, a discussion of medicare should not come up. On the other hand, there was agreement that on the first clause of each part a wide-ranging debate should be allowed. In my opinion this puts the Chair in a rather difficult position to make a ruling. I would simply suggest that we try to avoid a detailed debate on medicare.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On the point of order raised by the minister, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the hon. member was ranging into the question of medicare except as it is related to the Medical Research Council. I did not understand him to be undertaking a debate on medicare, and I think he should at least be able to refer to it.


James Hugh Faulkner: I think that would be a fair compromise.


John Carr Munro: Then could I ask the hon. member a question? I know he is well able to take care of himself in these matters. If this
6826	COMMONS
Government Organization
matter is in order I would ask the hon. member this question. He referred to medicare. My understanding is that he has asked questions in the house indicating that he is desirous of having its coverage extended, and I believe that he and his party supported the measure when it came before the house. Unless I am wrong I understand he supports medicare. Is that correct?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see the minister get up and state what he stated because he referred in his Hamilton speech, if I remember correctly, to this point. He knows where I stand on that question as well as I do. He also knows what I am getting at. Coming back to what I was saying, I point out that the suggestion was that the Canada Assistance Plan be used to pay the premiums for those 28 per cent to 30 per cent who find it very difficult to meet their medical needs. As the Canadian Medical Association points out:
The governments of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta have demonstrated a realistic workable approach to the provision of medical care insurance.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It continues:
Mr. Trudeau assumed the leadership of the Liberal Party in April, 1968, and since that time has said very little about medicare. During the election campaign he stated that ''medicare was the law of the land".
Farther on we find this:
On July 1, 1968, two provinces-British Columbia and Newfoundland-joined medicare. Eight provinces did not. Four of these indicated that they would initiate medicare programs in 1969, but the remaining four

including the two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec-made no commitment and the Prime Ministers and the Ministers of Finance of Ontario and Quebec have indicated on a number of occasions that medicare is far down their list of priorities.
They just cannot afford it. Then it says:
We have never been able to meet with the Prime Minister to discuss with him essential matters of policy-
These are the men with whom the government must work. They are the men who will have to put up with medicare and make it work. I think there will be problems no matter how hard the medical men try to make it successful, but nevertheless the co-operation of that group is essential. They say they have never been able to meet with the Prime Minister. Then they go on to say:
In recent weeks our Association has been greatly concerned with statements in the public press, attributed to federal and provincial government
[Mr. Munro.l
DEBATES	March 19, 1969
leaders as well as business leaders, relating to the cost of medical services insurance. We think it is time the Canadian Medical Association had an opportunity of discussing the problems and solutions of medical care insurance with you and your ministers.
We would like to refute such public statements as that made by your Minister of Finance who stated: ''We need medicare because private enterprise, which serves the country best in so many fields, cannot bring comprehensive coverage at reasonable cost to the bulk of the population." He also implied that the increase in doctors' fees has been the main reason for the rising cost of health care.
There are many reasons for the rising costs of medical care, the chief one of which is the increasing utilization of medical services generated largely by the public, but to some extent by the medical profession. This has been well demonstrated in the United Kingdom and in Saskatchewan. On the other hand, the increases in medical fees have not been greater than increases in the wages and salaries of other Canadians.
We would also like to point out the problems of delivering medical care to the people of Canada, under the universal program your government is advocating, when the supply of the presently overburdened doctors-
I want the minister to take careful note of this.
-will remain constant for some time. It would be much less costly and more to the point to assist those people who are now not covered with medical care insurance because of the lack of funds or other reasons.
I hope you will give us the opportunity, in the near future, to meet with you and your appropriate ministers in order that our Association may present to you the problems of providing medical care to the people of Canada, and some practical solutions to your medical care program.


John Carr Munro: All right, you have put it on the record.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I continue:
To date we have received no indication that the Prime Minister intends to meet with us.
This is not an old publication I am reading. It is dated March 8, 1969.
We believe that our desire to meet with him and senior members of his cabinet is a reasonable request. These are the persons who collectively establish governmental policy on a wide range of matters which are extremely important to the profession-manpower, allocation of funds for hospitals, medical research-
Here we are at medical research.


John Carr Munro: You finally got there.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I continue:
As the voice of organized medicine in Canada we believe that we have a responsibility to present to the Prime Minister and his cabinet the views of the profession on these important matters.
March 19, 1969

There has been a flat refusal by the Prime Minister to meet with the very men who will be working under medicare. I think even the minister agrees that this is wrong. I see him smiling.
I should also like to say that I read with a great deal of interest the speech the minister made the other night in Hamilton. While it started off as a mythical story there were some points in it that were worth considering, as well as some errors. For instance, he referred to the 1,200-I believe that is the figure, and he can correct me if I am wrong-immigrant doctors. He conveniently forgot, however, to state how many of those doctors are permitted to practise in Canada. He did not mention how many of them have qualifications which are high enough to permit them to practise in the Dominion of Canada. The minister forgot to mention that. He forgot to tell us how many of these doctors have added to the medical manpower of Canada.
I should also like to ask the minister whether he thinks it is fair that we should be educating and training only about two-thirds the number of doctors that are sufficient to look after the people of Canada. I might also ask him whether he thinks it is fair that we should draw doctors from the have-not countries. I should like him to answer this question because it bothers me a great deal. Why we should draw doctors from countries like India and Pakistan where the standard of living is low and where in India, for instance, there is only one doctor for every 7,000 people.
I believe our medical schools are among the best in the world. I do not think we need take second place to any country. I admit there is a very high standard in the medical schools in the United States, but I think our standard is exceptionally good. If we are to admit students from other countries who do not have the necessary qualifications and then turn them loose here to practice, we might ask ourselves, what are we doing to the quality of medicine in this country and what will the end result be? These are the questions to which I should like to have some answers.
The minister went on to state, and I agree with him, that expertise has risen very rapidly. This is a very good statement because it is a statement of fact. About the time of the second world war the number of doctors who were specialists was 20 per cent. I believe the minister stated in his Hamilton speech that the figure is now 50 per cent in respect of
Government Organization those who enter the specialty field. He also mentioned superspecials and so on. It is my hope that the minister will meet with the health ministers of the provinces and the officials of the medical schools so that the cards may be laid on the table. Someone should say that if we are overpopulated with specialists we will do something about it because it is the Canadian people who largely are paying the shot with regard to the cost of operating medical schools. I agree with this, but I also believe the minister should meet with the proper officials and say that there is a problem in respect of medical care which must be met.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


James Hugh Faulkner: Does the hon. member have the permission of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: May I include a rider that the hon. member talk about the Medical Research Council for a few minutes.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Philip Bernard Rynard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The whole crux of this matter is involved in the area of research, and it is in this regard I wish to conclude my remarks. It is medical research and associated efforts that result in trained doctors. The minister has allowed a cut-back in the health resources fund which provides the resources for the training of those doctors we so badly need.
I commenced my speech by referring to the finished product. This is what medical research is doing in respect of training doctors. The minister and the government have said in effect that we have enough doctors. This must be their opinion or they would not have brought in medicare.
I was in this house when we created the medical research fund. It was our intention at that time to provide assistance to the university complexes across the country. The hon. member for Nanimo-Cowichan-The Islands was in the house at that time and I recall, if my memory serves me right, that the minister stated the health resources fund would provide the facilities to train the doctors. This was a recommendation of the Hall commission report. We are not training enough doctors and we do not have enough doctors,
6828	COMMONS
Government Organization regardless of what the minister says. Obviously he has not met with the Canadian Medical Association because the members of that body know very well there are not sufficient doctors. Compare the results with countries like Sweden, the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., etc.
As I said before, many people in this country are losing their lives because they are not able to get necessary medical care in an emergency. We have heard a lot of talk about paramedical services. I was happy to hear the minister admit that we should continue a program along these lines. He discussed this matter when he was in Hamilton recently and I am sure that he and I feel the same way about the need for increased paramedical services.
However, nothing can take the place of a well trained doctor. No matter how well trained an immigrant doctor is he cannot be expected immediately to meet our high standards and way of life. These doctors do not have the background in many cases or the training we have in our medical centres. Our Canadian population is entitled to the best medical care we can give them. It is a fraud and a fallacy to bring in a medicare plan that does not provide the medical care the people are paying for under the plan. There is not one university with a medical faculty not aware of the fact that there are not enough medical men in Canada at the present time. They all realize that our medical manpower is deficient.
The health resources fund was cut back by $37 million in Ontario alone. Buildings have been left uncompleted, plans have been derailed and hospital construction is almost stopped because this government is not prepared to go ahead with its plans to provide money for medical research and the training of teachers necessary to staff our medical schools in order to provide the medical manpower so necessary to the success of the medicare plan.


Mr. Skoberg:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Will the hon. member indicate whether he is of the opinion that there is a shortage of doctors in Saskatchewan at this time?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I think there is a shortage of doctors throughout Canada, in almost every province.


John Leroy Skoberg: Would the hon. member answer the specific question in respect of the province of Saskatchewan which provided the

DEBATES	March 19, 1969
first complete medicare coverage in North America?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking of Canada as a whole. I do not profess to know the situation in the province of Saskatchewan. I should not be expected to know what the situation is there, or whether there are three doctors in Estevan or only one or none. I was speaking of the broad picture across Canada. I expect that there may be a shortage of doctors in Saskatchewan. But let me point out to the hon. member that if my memory serves me correctly, half of the doctors in Saskatchewan were not born in Canada. If there is not a shortage there, perhaps this fact is the explanation.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the lead-off speaker for the Official Opposition, the hon. member for Simcoe North, instead of discussing the Medical Research Council and problems in respect of medical research in this country, discussed the question of medicare. That is not the matter before the committee today. I do not intend to spend my time discussing the differences I have with the hon. member in respect of medicare. I do want to make one or two short comments about a specific matter referred to by him because I have some personal interest. I have in mind the question of immigrant doctors.
The hon. member said there are 1,500 immigrant doctors in Canada. He implied that their training and qualifications are not as good as doctors trained in Canada. I am not an expert on this subject, but the fact is that the bulk of these doctors work very hard in Canadian hospitals and provide excellent service. Many of our hospitals in urban centres such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg could not operate in the efficient way in which they have or provide service without these 1,500 immigrant doctors.
The hon. member for Simcoe North did a disservice to these doctors and these hospitals by the remarks he made. If he does not, he certainly should know that it is not the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare who decides whether their qualifications and training are sufficient or adequate to permit them to practise in any particular province. It is the college of physicians and surgeons in each province that makes this decision. That college in the province of Ontario is very tough. As I have said outside the house, that college has not only been tough but in my opinion it has been prejudiced.
March 19, 1969	COMMONS
I should like to spend my time discussing the subject before us today, medical research and, under the clause of the bill now before us, the Medical Research Council. The bill gives the council a good deal more independence than it has had up to now, and it also makes permanent the change we made last year in that the Medical Research council reports and is responsible to the Minister of National Health and Welfare rather than to the scientific and industrial research council.
Members of this party have for some years taken the position that not only are we spending too little money on all forms of scientific research but we are making a basic mistake in not establishing a system of priorities. I intend to spend some time discussing our shortcomings in the field of medical research, which are the fault of the government, the cabinet and parliament itself because the government reports to parliament.
The secretary of the Treasury Board recently reported to the Senate committee on science that the amount we are spending on scientific research is too little. I think I would have to agree with him. We have had in recent years the HARP project at McGill university. This project was partially funded at first by the federal government but then those funds were completely withdrawn. The project has been moved to the United States. It is obtaining substantially more money there for its operation than it was receiving in Canada from all sources. The project seems to be going ahead at full speed.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
There was the proposal to build an observatory in British Columbia. Suddenly that project was scrapped. There was the proposal to build an intense neutron generator, the ING project. I know there was a good deal of controversy in the scientific community about that project, but it had been recommended by the government. Suddenly it is out. Was there any evaluation by the scientific community of the value of that project compared with others? If there was, there has been no report at all to the scientific community or parliament.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced some time ago that Canada was embarking upon an extensive and expensive oceanographic survey. I said then and I repeat that it is probably a very good scientific research project. But how does its value compare with that of other projects which have been turned down? We do not
DEBATES	6829
Government Organization know. Nobody has been given the task of evaluating these projects. Nobody has been given the task of establishing a system of priorities. I suggest to the minister and the government that to have the Medical Research Council report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, while other projects report to the President of the Privy Council, is a retrograde step.
I want to deal with the problem of medical research. I am sure the President of the Privy Council knows better than I how many detailed technical surveys have been made by various royal commissions and special committees which have reported to the government. I can think of the work done by the Royal Commission on Health Services, the Farquharson report. We had a report early in 1966 prepared by Wood, Gundy and Company Limited and endorsed by over 100 of our most prominent medical researchers, deans of medical colleges and heads of various departments of medical colleges all across the country. All these people have stressed the very serious short-fall in the amount of money and effort we have put into medical research.
Let me read just a couple of sentences from the Wood, Gundy report. The minister can find this passage on page 3. It reads as follows:
Although financial support has been increasing, medical research in Canada today is being conducted on an inadequate scale. As the Royal Commission on Health Services commented: "available funds lag behind the amounts needed for the support of research."
We were moving in the right direction until this year. We have been increasing in recent years the amount of money made available to the Medical Research Council for distribution to various medical research projects across the country. We have been increasing the amount by 30 per cent a year. That was a very substantial increase. However, it was not as good as it sounds because, while the amount of money given to the Medical Research Council was increased by 30 per cent a year, other research funds which had been available through the Defence Research Board and the Department of National Health and Welfare were reduced.
I have been told by people expert in the field of medical research that had the increase of 30 per cent a year been continued it is likely that in the next three or four years we would have been approaching the amount that is required in this country. But what do
March 19, 1969

Government Organization we find this year? We find that instead of the 30 per cent increase we have had in recent years the increase has been reduced to 14 per cent. Last year the Medical Research Council received $27 million; this year it is to receive only $31 million.
The decision to reduce the amount of increase was not made because the scientific community, the people conversant with the needs of medical research, reported to the government that they were attaining the position which ought to be attained, one where people carrying out useful medical research were having their needs met; it was made for narrow, purely budgetary reasons because of the government's decision to try to hold the line. This means that research funds which have been available in large amounts from the United States for medical research in almost every medical college in Canada are being reduced to the point where in the very near future they will be almost non-existent. The government of Canada is cutting back very drastically on the increases which obviously it had come to the conclusion would have to be made at the same time.
I was told only this morning by one of the top medical researchers at McGill University that this year the Medical Research Council is approving only about 55 per cent of the applications it is receiving for research grants. I do not say that 45 per cent of the applications are being rejected completely, but where applications are not being rejected the amounts requested are being cut very seriously. This is a disaster and an invitation to qualified people, trained in this country at great expense, to leave Canada and go to the United States where medical research has between 400 per cent and 500 per cent more money available to it than it has in Canada.
I can and will put on the record today some of the conclusions of the Wood, Gundy report which I mentioned earlier. But first I want to give the minister three examples of what this cut-back in the projected funds for research means. I received this information this morning through three telephone calls. I am sure that if I had stayed on the telephone for another couple of hours and called medical colleges across the country I could have cited not three but 30 or 300 similar examples. Let me put on the record some of the things I was told this morning.
I refer to the Department of Pharmacology at McGill University, and Professor Lowen-thal, one of the top experts in anti-coagulants. [Mr. Orlikow.l
The hon. member for Simcoe North can correct me if I am wrong, but X was told last week that about 50 per cent of the people who die do so as a result of heart or blood vessel failure. The use of anti-coagulant drugs is extremely important in saving the lives of people. Professor Lowenthal was persuaded to move from Queen's University to McGill where he is a full professor in biochemistry.
At Queen's University he was receiving grants from the Medical Research Council and the Ontario Heart Foundation. At McGill, where I am sure Professor Lowenthal expected to have at least the amount of money with which to carry out his research that he had received at Queen's University, he finds that while he is still getting the money which he received at Queen's University from the Medical Research Council, the 50 per cent of his research fund which he formerly received from the Ontario Heart Foundation is not available. As a result of the shortage of funds Professor Lowenthal, one of the top people in his field in the country, will be working next year with one arm tied behind his back, thanks to the niggardly policy of the federal government.
I spoke this morning to Dr. Selye at the University of Montreal, a world famous medical researcher. Dr. Selye tells me that of the $800,000 which his department expends only $80,000 comes from the Medical Research Council. Dr. Selye told me about a case which would be ludicrous if it were not so tragic.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
At the time of the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia the government of Canada, with the approval of, I would say, 95 per cent of the people of Canada, agreed to encourage as many Czech refugees as possible to come to Canada. Some of them were doctors and some medical researchers. The Medical Research Council made funds available for some of these medical scientists to do work in Canada. Four of them are working with Dr. Selye at the University of Montreal. The funds with which they are working will be expended in June of this year and the Medical Research Council has told Dr. Selye that they are very sorry but no money will be available for them next year. I do not know what the Minister of National Health and Welfare suggests that these four people should do. Perhaps they should go to the United States where their scientific knowledge and technical abilities will obviously be much more
March 19, 1969

appreciated than they are in Canada. What was the good of bringing them here if we cannot find the funds to let them do the work which they are qualified to do, work which will contribute to the better health and wellbeing of the people of Canada?
The Department of Psychiatry at the University of Manitoba has a highly qualified psychiatrist who would like to spend his time doing clinical research in the field of mental health. No money is available for that purpose from the Medical Research Council. So one of two things is going to happen: Either that highly trained, highly skilful psychiatrist is not going to do what he wants but is going to stay in Winnipeg at the University of Manitoba teaching part time and, I suppose, practising part time, or he is going to go somewhere where he can do research work which will help the people of the world understand better what causes mental illness and what can be done to help the 10 per cent of our population who are likely to be mentally or emotionally fill. We are inviting him to go to the United States where funds and facilities will be available for him to do the work which he would like to do. I suggest to the minister that what he is doing is certainly a disservice to the people of Canada, if not a disaster.
At the same time that the minister and the government are cutting back on the amount of money available to the Medical Research Council, the minister has announced that the $500 million health resources fund which is to be used to provide the facilities so that we can educate and train more doctors in Canada and which was to be expended in 15 years is to be stretched out over a longer period of time. The minister shakes his head but I am certain he made that announcement, and certainly that is what was understood by the provinces. I say that the provinces, which have the major responsibility for training doctors and for the provision of funds to expand the existing medical colleges and to build new ones such as the one that is being built, I understand, in the minister's own city of Hamilton, expected that the federal government would live up to its commitments. I suggest to the minister that the provinces, in making their plans to expand medical colleges, whether at the University of Toronto, in Manitoba or in British Columbia, and to build new medical colleges such as are being built at McMaster University in Hamilton or at the University of Sherbrooke, had a right to expect the federal government to live up
Government Organization to its commitments. I say that the government and the minister had no right to welsh on their commitments and to shortchange the provinces as they have done.
If I may, I would like to go back for a few minutes to the problem of medical research because we are facing a crisis which will affect not only medical research but the whole program of health services. I am sure I am less of an expert in these matters than the minister, but I have yet to meet anybody knowledgeable about the medical profession or about medical education who does not believe that without sufficient trained and qualified personnel at the medical colleges we cannot turn out enough doctors of the quality needed and who does not agree that we cannot get the necessary personnel for the medical colleges unless we are prepared to pay sufficient salaries to personnel with the ability to do the work which they want to do, namely, medical research. Yet in view of these shortages the government continues to ignore the specific, detailed and concrete recommendations made by every group which has looked at the problem of medical research and the problem of medical colleges in this country.
Let me take a few moments to summarize some of the things which are said in the most recent comprehensive survey that I have seen, namely, the 1966 Wood, Gundy survey. This is what they say:
-funds available from a variety of sources have been considerably short of those applied for. In 1965-66, almost $29 million of funds were requested by medical researchers for their work from agencies outside the universities (extra-mural agencies)- an amount representing minimum requests in view of the known shortage of funds. Only $21.5 million was made available.
This is what they say. In case the minister thinks my language was too strong, I will put the whole passage on the record as it appears at page 5 of the report:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The effect on researchers can only be described as demoralising. Research effort is fragmented into small projects, the quality of research is impaired, uncertainty as to the ability to keep research teams together is general, and major new research programs are discouraged. There is a clear need to expand assistance to medical research in Canada if the present unfavourable climate is to be overcome and a longer-term expansion to be brought about.
The minister will, of course, tell me quite properly that we are spending substantially more on medical research in 1969 than in the
March 19, 1969

Government Organization year 1965-66 referred to in the report. But, Mr. Chairman, in that year we were meeting 70 per cent of requests for research funds while today we are meeting less than 70 per cent, according to the information I have. I therefore suggest that the fact that we are spending more money on research fails to deal with the crux of the problem which is that there is a tremendous shortfall in the effort made as seen by those who are most competent to judge.
The report goes into some detail. It says:
The capital needs of medical research in Canada for the period to the end of this decade amount to some $150 million. Since the announced size of the health resources fund is $500 million over a 15-year period, it would seem that the capital requirements for medical research-and it would appear, for health facilities as a whole-may not have been fully appreciated.
Today we are slowing down the rate at which we are paying out money from the health resources fund. The report goes on to say:
A doubling of the present level of research support in Canada would thus be needed to reach an appropriate level of research effort, and projection indicates that a further doubling to just over $100 million a year would be needed by the end of this decade.
Well, we are in the second to last year before the end of this decade and instead of the $100 million which the Wood, Gundy report recommends we are in fact giving to the Medical Research Council $31 million, roughly 30 per cent of what is called for. And, as I say, this report has been endorsed by all the prominent medical researchers and educationists.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his time expired some time ago.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this subject. I find nothing wrong with the proposal that the Medical Research Council should report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In my view this is a sufficiently specialized field to justify the council reporting to the minister of health. I point out that the Food and Drug Directorate, which has a certain responsibility in connection with the pharmaceutical industry, is at present part of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and that in addition the department is responsible for making grants from the health resources fund for use by the medical teaching complexes which are vitally concerned with medical

research. The department is also concerned with the allocation of funds to hospitals, and a certain amount of research is carried out on the basis of these grants. For these reasons I believe it is on the whole in the best interests of medical research in this country that the council should report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
When the affairs of the Medical Research Council were examined before Christmas it was found that a considerable proportion of its research funds was allocated to studies carried out in conjunction with the universities. The allocation of research projects was done by members of the medical colleges acting as members of the Medical Research Council. I should like to draw attention to certain anomalies and shortcomings which have arisen in connection with the health resources fund and the allocation of money from that fund.
Three years ago the government of the day promised $500 million over a period of years for the building of medical research complexes. This announcement was greeted with enthusiasm by the medical and teaching professions and a great effort was made by all the medical colleges to plan these complexes with a 15-year program in mind. Mr. Chairman, planning takes a minimum of five years to carry out, plus another five, tentatively. And at the end of that time a further period of five years may even be required. So it may take 15 years to plan a medical complex and bring it to fruition. Obviously, if there is any hitch in the program the effect can be doubly detrimental.
Last November the government in an atmosphere of stringency decided that the period preceding reassessment of this project should be shortened and today it looks as though the program of grants to these medical complexes may be reviewed in two years time, at which point funds may be either increased or restricted. I urge the minister to try to project farther into the future in determining what these treatment and teaching complexes are to receive. At the present time there is a great deal of uncertainty as to what may be in store for everyone concerned at the end of two years.
So far as the medical colleges are concerned, I am told on high authority from a teacher in one of the universities that they are spending approximately 10 per cent on research though it is considered desirable to spend upwards of 30 per cent of available funds on this work. When funds for research
March 19, 1969

are not available, medical colleges lose good men who tend to go to the United States where conditions are better and the tenure is longer. I therefore urge the minister to give those responsible for the teaching complexes an assurance as to what they may expect over the long term. If funds are not likely to be available, they will make plans accordingly.
We are about to embark on a medicare scheme which will require the services of many doctors and paramedical personnel. It seems to me that however we cut back in connection with medical care and activities, the research end should not suffer. In the long run, good research will bring about a reduction of the number of people involved in the actual care of patients or at least, for the level of care we shall need, fewer people will be required. I feel that the change now proposed in the system of reporting to the ministry is a sound one.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, medical research is a subject that has come to the fore today along with, I hope, the Science Council of Canada. Both matters are of extreme importance to Canada.
I am given to understand that because of conditions in Canada, particularly in our medical schools where inadequate funds for research are provided, many of our specialists and graduates with high standing are leaving Canada and going to other countries, particularly the United States, where they can undertake research. In addition, if research funds are not made available we may see more of our medical men leaving Canada to undertake research elsewhere. This has a great effect on the fundamental training of doctors in our universities. I am told that our best medical teachers in the universities want to do research work as well as teaching. In other words, they are not willing to vegetate in their chosen branch of the profession while training new doctors. In addition to teaching facilities they must have available research facilities which I am told are sadly lacking in Canada.
Some hon. members have already said that the budget for medical research this year has been increased by 10 per cent. It is estimated that it ought to be increased by 30 per cent if we are to keep pace with the tremendous growth in medical knowledge. That much money has not been promised and many
Government Organization medical researchers and specialists are worried because they may not be able to undertake research here and will have to leave Canada if they are to do so.
Bearing these factors in mind, may I draw Your Honour's attention to clause 56(2)(a) which says that the council is authorized to:
-expend, for the purposes of this Part, any money appropriated by Parliament for the work of Council or received by the Council through the conduct of its operations;
Clearly, therefore, under this clause there is provision for the expenditure of money on medical research. The best way of helping our medical schools is by spending money on research facilities for teachers. I therefore ask the minister, what funds will be devoted to medical research under clause 56 and how and when these will be paid? It is necessary for the minister, since we are considering a new set-up for the Medical Research Council, to assure the medical profession and its teachers and researchers that the federal government, through the Medical Research Council or otherwise, will provide funds to allow teachers to undertake research within the medical schools. If the minister can give that kind of assurance, not only will he have reassured the members of the medical profession but he will have boosted the esteem in which the Medical Research Council will be held.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to answer hon. members' questions as briefly as possible. I heartily endorse the remarks of hon. members about the Medical Research Council and Dr. Malcolm Brown. I think these people have done an excellent job and are to be commended.
I will resist the temptation to rebut some of the matters the hon. member for Simcoe North raised. His remarks seemed to apply more to medicare than to M.R.C. I shall be more than happy to face off on that question at some other time, either inside or outside the house. The hon. member referred to the health resources fund. We never hid our belief that it was necessary to limit expenditures under this fund. We regret that this had to be done since we know that limiting expenditures in this field caused some dislocation. The money allocated under the fund was to be spent over a 15-year period and, if certain applications for expenditures were approved, there was a danger that the total amount would be exhausted within a five-year period. But we do not intend, as I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North intimated, to stretch expenditures under the fund
March 19, 1969


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have a question to ask the minister involving medical and scientific research. I believe that the minister met a delegation today representing blind people across Canada.


John Carr Munro: Yes, I did.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I know they presented the minister with a variety of requests, but I would be out of order if I referred to them. I will content myself with asking the minister what special work his department is carrying out toward the rehabilitation of blind people.


John Carr Munro: I am pleased to answer these inquiries, Mr. Chairman. I really do not know what relevance this meeting has to the matter before us, the Medical Research Council. They did meet with me and were reminded of the assistance given to them in the past under the category of programs in the Blind Persons Act and how we hope to phase that out. In many provinces it is being phased out and being brought under the Canada Assistance Plan where the arbitrary limit is to be removed and assistance will be given on the basis of taking into account the variance in standards of living in those environments where there are high costs such as in our major metropolitan areas.
The delegation acknowledged that more assistance was being offered because of the Canada Assistance Plan. They felt that because of their unique type of disability and its seriousness compared with that of many others, who suffer from disability they should be treated in a way distinct from other disadvantaged persons. They talked in terms of blindness being almost a total disability. They suggested we could recognize this uniqueness by making a universal payment to blind persons of $75 a month in addition to all the other social assistance programs available to help them. I indicated that all the government could do at this stage was to take the matter under advisement and consideration. We received a brief and are prepared to give it consideration.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the minister for his answer. This is precisely what I would have asked if he had been here earlier. I thought I
March 19, 1969

put it within the realm of what we are discussing. What scientific assistance through medical research is being made available to help the rehabilitation of blind people? Are any special steps being taken by his department in the direction of medical research for the rehabilitation of certain people with blind conditions?


John Carr Munro: I believe we have made available several health grants for this type of research to help rehabilitate blind people in order that they may lead more meaningful lives. In terms of specifics, I cannot give these to the hon. member at the moment.


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the minister.
Would the proposed research council be truly representative of the Canadian people, and to what extent will the French Canadians be represented on it, particularly the Frenchspeaking doctors?


John Carr Munro: If this answer would suffice for the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, there are many appointments to be made in the very near future. I know the chairman is very much aware of the importance of the representative nature of the council and is taking that into consideration, as I intend doing when the recommendations are made. In terms of participation on the Medical Research Council at the present time, I am looking at the list and I see there is representation from the University of Sherbrooke, Dr. Leclair, and also representation from Laval University. In quickly looking at the list it appears to me that of the 21 members on the council seven are from the province of Quebec and appear to be French speaking. As I say, when making future appointments we will take this into consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 56 carry?
On clause 56-Functions of council.


John Carr Munro: I have an amendment to move to clause 56, Mr. Chairman. It is really a correction of the French translation of clause 56(l)(a) so that it will correspond more accurately with the English. I therefore move:
That the French version of Bill C-173 be amended by striking out line 5 on page 22 thereof and substituting the following:
"-sciences de la sante, sauf les recherches"-
Government Organization


James Hugh Faulkner: In order to conform with the practice, I suggest that the amendment be moved by Mr. Mcllraith, seconded by Mr. Drury.


Mr. Mcllraith:: I so move.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when I rose previously I was going to ask whether the minister had an amendment which I had hoped might be along different lines. I realize that the wording of clause 56 differs in certain respects from the corresponding clause in Part VII having to do with the National Council of Welfare, but I wonder whether the minister has thought about the same point, namely, that in this case the council seems to be given authority to advise the minister only in respect of such matters relating to research as the minister may refer to the council for its consideration. I remind him that when we were on clause 53 we amended the provisions respecting the National Council of Welfare to give that council authority to put things on its agenda which it regarded as appropriate. Would it not be a good idea to make the same amendment to this clause?


John Carr Munro: I agree with the general observations of the hon. member, but I would point out that the clause dealing with the National Council on Welfare, prior to the amendment, did not have the provision that is found in paragraph (a) of clause 56(1). Paragraph (a) gives authority to the council to act in a very wide way on its own initiative. All paragraph (b) really does is give the minister power to ask for advice on matters upon which he may want advice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I had in mind when I said I recognized the slight difference in wording. But if that is what the minister has in mind, that the two provisions are parallel, I am satisfied.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 69 inclusive agreed to.


The Deputy Chairman:: We will now proceed to Part XI, Ferries, clause 95, page 40.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thought we were going right on with Part IX, the Science Council of Canada.
March 19, 1969

Government Organization


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, I think it was the agreement that we would proceed on to clause 70 under Part IX.


Albert Béchard: I am informed that that part of the bill was carried on March 13.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which part?


Albert Béchard: Parts IX, and X,
clauses 70 to 94.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure there is some confusion. I was here through the whole of March 13.


Albert Béchard: We will try to do some deeper research and inform the hon. member later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I point out that we are supposed to take a bill clause by clause in consecutive order unless there is some other arrangement, and I submit that no other arrangement was made with respect to Part IX. We did switch the order a bit after we finished the part on Supply and Services last Thursday. We went to the Royal Canadian Mint but we did not deal with the Science Council of Canada. We went from Supply and Services to the Mint. Then we came back to Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Then we had the National Health and Welfare section. That is what we did on Thursday, March 13.


Albert Béchard: I wish to apologize to hon. members, who are right on this point. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, we switched, and I was present when we switched to clause 71. We are now on Part IX, the Science Council of Canada, clause 70.
On clause 70-Establishment and constitution.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to ask the minister whether he intends to make any statement on this clause. If he wishes to answer questions at the end of the discussion that would be satisfactory.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, as it is the hope that we will complete the balance of the bill, other than the part dealing with regional development, by six o'clock, I do not want to get into the position of talking the bill out and therefore I will try to answer questions.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Chairman, the government, after nearly a year in office, has presented no clear statement of objectives and priorities for the nation. As a result public policy in all areas is haphazard and ad hoc. In short, it is completely inadequate. Nowhere is this process more evident than in the general area of public policy for science and technology.
At present there is tremendous disillusionment, especially in the scientific community, concerning the lack of government direction and co-ordination for fresh and new approaches in the development of science and technology in Canada. This stems from the following unpalatable facts. First of all, there was a series of cancellations in the scientific area, beginning with the cancellation of HARP, the McGill University high altitude research program. It was cancelled in 1966 without any adequate reasons being presented to the Canadian people. The aim of the project was related to an attempt to orbit satellites in space by using large cannon. The project received wide recognition for its simplicity as a scientific principle throughout the advanced world. Following its cancellation it was taken over by a number of American firms and financed by the United States government. At present it gives every indication of being a very successful scientific endeavour.
Second was the cancellation of the intense neutron generator program of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Given other priorities, including a greater emphasis on industrial applied research and development rather than basic research, this may have been the right decision. However, the point is that once again there are no publicly available reasons for justification of the decision. The only reason given for the cancellation of the ING program is that it is considered to be too expensive. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced cancellation of this program he referred to its relationship on the priority scale to the very many other demands on the national treasury. I ask, what scale of priorities? No one has told us. In fact there is no indication that the decision had any place in an over-all program of scientific priorities or that the money saved here would go toward some other project. Dr. W. G. Schneider, President of the National Research Council, has stated:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There may be sound reasons but, if so, the public has a right to know; I feel when decisions of this
March 19. 1969	COMMONS
kind are made, a rationale should be given. If they are handled in this way it tends to destroy morale. Everyone will always wonder what's going to get the chop next.
The third cancellation was in respect of The Queen Elizabeth Observatory. This project was scrapped even though millions of dollars had been spent on it. Once again the government has refused to release its report regarding the reasons for that decision.
A fourth point is that there is a significant lack of funds required for research into urban problems in Canada. As H. W. Hignett, President of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation told the Senate special committee studying science policy; C.M.H.C. has a mere $10 million revolving fund for assistance in this area. Everyone who is involved in research knows that this is a mere pittance. Government programs for industrial-scientific research and development are completely inadequate.
Last week about this time I devoted a whole speech to this subject so I shall not go over the same ground again except to say it is a fact worth repeating that the federal government is spending over 50 per cent of the money devoted to research and development in the military sector. This is something about which we as Canadians should be deeply concerned. These things, plus additional factors such as the tremendous expansion in government oceanographic research announced in January and the successful satellite research program which is being conducted by the new Department of Communications, clearly reveal that we do not have a coherent, cogent, highly motivated technological and research program in this country.
Senator Lamontagne, hardly an enemy of the government and chairman of the Senate committee, stated that scientists running federal research projects have so little supervision by parliament that they constitute an almost autonomous republic of science. He went on to state that government sponsored scientific research has never been reviewed systematically and said that even cabinet to his knowledge paid very little attention to it except when it was appraising on rare occasions specific and major programs. Senator Lamontagne has discovered in his committee's investigation that there are at least 100 boards and committees comprising about 700 scientists dealing with government research and development. He said that for all practical purposes the supervision and direction of those activities are left to scientists acting in
DEBATES	6837
Government Organization
an administrative or advisory capacity. Decisions of social merit and human welfare cannot be left exclusively to scientists no matter how well motivated they may be as individuals.
After this very brief rundown of some unpalatable facts in respect of scientific development I should like to turn to the government's reorganization proposal. As the Glas-sco commission pointed out as long ago as 1958, there are basic contradictions and conflicts in the institutional environment regarding the determination of science policy in the government. The National Research Council should not be looked upon as the adviser to the government on scientific priorities since it is competing for the very same funds allocated in this area.
The Privy Council committee on scientific and industrial research, whose purpose it was to determine priorities, has been completely inactive since it was first established in 1916. It has been estimated that it has met only a dozen times since 1916. The establishment of the Science Council and Science Secretariat in
1965	and 1966 to fill this role has clearly shown severe limitations. The secretariat was to serve two masters, the Privy Council office with advice on scientific matters to the Prime Minister and also the Science Council of Canada as its secretary. This conflict of interest was obvious to all except the government.
The new legislation in the bill before the house merely gives the Science Council the same status and independence as the Economic Council of Canada. In other words, it will now hire its own staff rather than share with the government the staff of the science Secretariat. Thus the council's report will no longer be examined by those who participate in its implementation. The purpose of the Science Council when it was established in
1966	was to offer advice on public policy with regard to science and technology and to examine the role of our scientific effort in relation to Canada's aspirations. However, the Science Council has found itself confronted with the same difficulties in the formulation of objectives as were experienced by the Economic Council of Canada. Goals were established without any view of the relative importance of each and thus, for example, space and water resources programs were given priority by the Science Council in its last annual report merely for the bad reason that detailed proposals for implementation of these programs existed at the time.
6838	COMMONS DEBATES	March 19, 1969
Government Organization
As Professor Lithwick of Carleton University pointed out in recent correspondence in Science Forum of April 1968, the evaluation of a particular scientific project must be compared on the basis of whether the results of this form of public investment lare more valuable than the returns from an equivalent amount of funds invested elsewhere and not only in scientific research and development. I agree with Professor Lithwick that it is futile to argue as justification for particular projects that we have sufficient scientific manpower or that additional scientists and engineers will be employed, especially when he says that the housing industry is falling short of our minimum needs and our atmosphere and waterways are becoming dangerously polluted. In other words, a very serious consideration of the whole range of social and scientific priorities must be gone into. However, this is not the fault of the Science Council; it is the fault of the government in not assigning priorities in accordance with Canadian needs and aspirations and thereby giving no direction to the great potential role of science and technology in our country to meet these needs.
In recent months the government has considered setting up a ministry of science responsible for co-ordinating scientific research and development programs. At a press conference on August 14 the Prime Minister said that a science ministry was one possible mechanism for co-ordinating and checking on government research and development projects. I see the President of the Treasury Board smiling. He is well aware that the Prime Minister has changed his mind.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Following that one observation the Prime Minister stated he had some doubts about the desirability of asking the President of the Treasury Board to retain cabinet responsibility for science as chairman of the Privy Council committee on scientific and industrial research. The Prime Minister said that although the President of the Treasury Board knows a great deal about scientific research and was keenly interested, "as President of the Treasury Board he may have divided interests in the amount of money we would want to invest in that and perhaps I would not want to put him in a position of having to argue against himself". I agree.
However, the President of the Treasury Board in two recent speeches has completely ruled out any meaningful institutional changes in research and science policy. He

has acknowledged that better co-ordination and direction of scientific effort is needed but feels that modifications in the existing machinery will correct the situation. These modifications include the change in the status of the Science Council and more activities by the Privy Council committee on scientific and industrial research. The conflict that the Prime Minister discussed in August apparently is no longer an important factor.
One thing is clear: either the government does not know what it is doing in science or it is indifferent to Canada's scientific needs. Immediate action is required on the question of decision-making processes in scientific and technological matters. Three years have passed since the Science Council was set up; five years have gone by since the Science Secretariat was established. The debate on science policy has been going on for nearly a decade with scientists and technologists becoming impatient for results. I think the President of the Treasury Board has encountered a little of this feeling, perhaps particularly during his recent speech in Toronto where he suffered some disillusionment.
The New Democratic Party in 1967 adopted a resolution that the present functions of the Science Council and the Science Secretariat be taken over by the establishment of a department of science and technology with its own cabinet minister. The new minister and his department would be responsible for science policy, ensuring that activities of other departments involved in science would fit into one national policy. This department's responsibility would basically be in respect of a broad point of view, organizing, co-ordinating and controlling all federal science activities, but the minister would have no other departmental operating responsibilities.
This proposal was made some two years ago. It seemed to me to be good then and it seems to me to be good now. This is something the government should have taken up. I should like to hear the President of the Treasury Board, when he gets on his feet in a few minutes, give us his thoughts on the subject. I should like him to indicate why the government did not go ahead with this very reasonable proposal.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on this subject. A lot can be said about the problems of science policy in Canada. A lot has been said in the past about the failure of the government to
March 19, 1969	COMMONS
develop a credible science policy. Much criticism has been directed at the government in respect of the cancellation of several scientific projects which had been started and whose cancellation was regrettable.
We should look forward and in doing so we must admit, first, that the present set-up for advising the cabinet on scientific matters has not worked out properly. I am not going to blame the President of the Treasury Board for this. I am sure he knows as well as anyone in the cabinet the intricacies of the science and research facilities within the government services. He knows very well, as do all of us, that research facilities are divided among the National Research Council, the Defence Research Board and the Science Council, formerly the Science Secretariat of the Privy Council. These services are also being performed by various other government agencies. I would not suggest that all these branches in various departments should be gathered up and pulled together into a new department. This would merely complicate an issue which at the present time is complicated enough.
In respect of pollution control the same situation applies. Many departments of the federal and provincial governments are involved. It would not be good policy to withdraw these activities from each of these departments and put them into one department. However, I do suggest that the scientific community, as far as I can gather, has the dreadful feeling that it is not getting through to the government. These people feel they do not have a minister or a spokesman with no other duty than to advise the cabinet on matters of science, research and technology, someone who would attempt to co-ordinate the efforts of these various groups. I know there is a real feeling of frustration in the scientific community. This was evidenced when these various projects were cancelled. In point of fact the scientific community does not have the feeling that an on-going science policy is being developed.
We are now dealing with the Science Council of Canada which is doing good work at the present time. The council has a number of very eminent members. If its chairman were within the cabinet structure it would be much more effective. I think the general feeling in the scientific community is that there is no voice in the cabinet to speak for it.
It has been said before that there is some conflict of interest. In other words, the President of the Treasury Board in reporting on
DEBATES	6839
Government Organization scientific matters does have a problem in that he cannot argue with himself too much in certain areas because he might win and someone else would lose. To that extent there is a difficult situation. This problem is very much in the minds of various people in the research and scientific community.
The President of the Treasury Board has other very heavy duties. He is not directly responsible for many of the research establishments I have mentioned. They come under the jurisdiction of other ministers who have equal status in the cabinet. Therefore there is in the set-up a lack of direct communication with the cabinet by the scientific community in respect of the development of scientific policy.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The Science Council has published some very good papers. On the subjects they have selected they have carried out a great deal of research and the papers have been well prepared. But there is also the feeling that they are not quite dealing with priorities and are just doing patchwork. In the United States the president has an adviser on science. We in Canada do not have this type of organization, and an adviser to the Prime Minister would not be within the cabinet. An adviser to the cabinet would have to be within it if the scientific community is to feel it is being fairly treated.
I have set out the problems as I see them. I think there must be an answer. There ought to be within the cabinet structure a minister who has no responsibilities other than to report on science and act as scientific adviser. I believe that such a minister does not need a department of government; he needs a small and competent research staff of senior scientists who can advise him.
So far as the bill before us is concerned, the move to upgrade the Science Council and make it a corporation with a structure of its own is a good thing. We certainly would support the principle. However, I ask the minister whether he can straighten out some statements he made recently, or at least was reported to have made, that there was no need for co-ordination of on-going research programs in Canada. The minister said that a minister of science and technology was not required.
Unfortunately we hear these reports second-hand. We get them out of newspapers in many cases. Sometimes the minister provides us with the text of a speech he intends
March 19. 1969

Government Organization to make. I would like the minister when replying to advise us whether it is the policy of the government not to appoint at this time a minister of science and technology. Second, I ask the minister to advise us whether he did express the view that there was no need and no possibility of a co-ordinated science program which such a department could undertake. If the minister can give us the assurance that the government is seriously considering this question and the lack of a person within the cabinet who has no responsibilities other than to advise on science and technology, he will do a great deal to relieve the fears of many people in the scientific community.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I have been most interested to listen to the comments of the two members who have just spoken, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. In relation to the amendments proposed in the bill relating to the Science Council and Science Secretariat, I am glad they both expressed approval of them. Therefore securing passage should present no difficulty.
I should like to deal with some observations made in relation to government science policy generally and the kind of institutions, the kind of structure, that might best operate to give the most effective, the most adequate response to scientific needs. I think one thing should be made clear. When the term ''science" is used, and it has been used by these two gentlemen

this is particularly so in its use in the bill-it relates to the natural sciences and engineering, technology as it is called, rather than the social sciences or science as representing the accumulation of human knowledge for the betterment of mankind. When I use the term "science" it will be in relation to the natural sciences and technology.
One thing that perhaps should be borne in mind in relation to the current debate is the changing position of science, that is, the natural sciences and technology, and of scientists in North America today. There has been for some time now an inclination on the part of the North American public to regard science as likely to produce the answers to all our current problems and anything, therefore, done for, by or in the name of science is of itself good. There has arisen rather more recently a tendency, particularly in the United States and it is beginning to show in Canada, to question the value of research as such and to ask what are the results of research.

Merely to proclaim -that the purpose of the activity is research in itself unrelated to our current needs, our current functions, or indeed our longer-range objectives, is not as accurate as it was a few years ago.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
According to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, the scientists feel that they are not getting through to the government. I suppose this is a manifestation of a lack of support in respect of these questions that are being asked as to the value and relevance of some research that is being done and in particular of the unwillingness of the government and of the public to support all scientific research, regardless of its class, kind, relevance or quality, merely because it is research. This questioning is understandable. I myself think it is a good thing and am very much encouraged by the growing public interest that is being shown in science and technology, not only by scientists themselves who have always had it but by a large spectrum of both the industrial and academic public.
What are our needs? These needs, put into a time framework in terms of science and technology, are both long range and short range, or immediate. The analysis of scientific objectives over the long range and the determination of long range priorities in respect of which we would not expect immediate results is not an easy task for the operating element of the government to undertake. Governments by their very nature are preoccupied, unless they are underworked, with dealing with day to day problems that are certainly not much longer than medium range, and there never seems to be adequate time for reflection and consideration of the longer range perspectives and objectives and the contemplative consideration of how best they can be met and how they fit into a total framework. This, then, was one of the reasons for establishing the Science Council of Canada which was, rather like the Economic Council of Canada, to do in the scientific and technological field what the Economic Council was to do in the economic field for the country, namely, to propound longer-range objectives and the priorities which should be attached to these and to suggest a long-term means of meeting them.
This is obviously a task which cannot be accomplished in a week. If it were as easy as that, the government would long ago have undertaken it itself within its own machinery.
March 19, 1969

But it is a difficult task that takes time and, more important, one should recognize that once this longer-range framework is established, immediate and specific achievement of it is unlikely. Since by definition it is long range, one cannot expect immediate results from the government or, indeed, immediate action on the part of the government or of the scientific community. If one accepts then that the function of the Science Council is to devise for Canada a framework over the long term into which our scientific endeavours, activities and policies should coherently fit, then I think we will have gone quite a long way to resolving some of the doubts that now exist.
As I have indicated, the perspective which principally engages the government's attention is very much shorter range than that which should be envisaged by the Science Council. I should add parenthetically that the objective in relation to the Science Council is not to have an organ which merely devises long-range policies for the federal government but to have a body which will enunciate long-range objectives in the science field for the whole of Canada, and this includes not only the federal government but provincial governments, the academic community, the industrial community, and anyone else who may be interested. So the Science Council would be expected to talk not merely to the federal government but to Canada, and it does this through the medium of its published reports of which the fourth, I remind hon. members, is modestly described as aiming toward a science policy. The Science Council does not pretend that in its short existence it has been able to formulate and enunciate all the long-range objectives, but it has made some progress in this direction, so that this in effect is a progress report.
So much then for the long-term framework. The federal government, in respect of scientific and technological research activities, is concerned) with a rather shorter period. Science, in the sense that I use the word, is a technique which is useful not in itself but as a means of accomplishing in an efficient and orderly way the human objectives that we all seek to reach. To this end everyone who is in charge of an operation of the government, no matter what his job or his station, should envisage the use of science and of scientific research in order to carry out his job more effectively. This means then that science cannot be separated from the day to day operations of the government departments or agencies; it must be an integral part of each and
Government Organization every one of them, and to the extent that the federal government is successful in integrating this scientific approach into the operations of government agencies it has been successful in its scientific policy.
As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka pointed out, it would be a denial of this principle to try to withdraw and segregate under one head all scientific research within the government. I heartily agree with the suggestion that these are now and must continue to be integral with the operations of all government departments. There are, however, some agencies which are devoted to scientific research as such, including applied research, and they have no other mission. We do not have many of these in the federal government, I am glad to say. Most of the research activities are an important appendage and a useful instrument in carrying out an objective or a mission of government agencies or departments. The large research effort of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is not made for research itself but to make that department more effective and more able to carry out its basic mission.
But the National Research Council is an exception. Its function is to carry out fundamental research and applied research in a variety of fields which are perhaps not immediately and directly related to government departmental missions. By statute it reports to parliament through the minister appointed as chairman of the Privy Council committee on scientific and industrial research. So that a number of scientific research activities are carried out in the government, and the problem raised by both the hon. members who spoke is how these should be co-ordinated. One suggestion was that there should be a minister charged with such co-ordination who would have no other activity than this co-ordination. It was suggested that such a minister should be a senior minister, and I take it that that particular adjective is used' by the proponents of this scheme in the sense that it conveys a notion of a person with major influence as distinct from one heavy with years and honours but with little else.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I was not referring to the present minister.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The problem of co-ordination is a very real one and I think that perhaps the mechanism of co-ordination, at least in embryo, now exists. The problem of relating science and research to departmental missions
March 19, 1969

Government Organization is a problem of the department. The co-ordination of departments is carried out by the cabinet and, as the Prime Minister has indicated, the modus operandi of the cabinet was made considerably more effective and efficient by assigning to functional committees the consideration in depth of the co-ordination of specific problems.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
One of these committees which has been considerably more active recently than in the past is the Privy Council committee on scientific and industrial research. I suppose it met more often last summer than it had in the previous year or so.


An hon. Member:: That could be three times.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Well, three times zero is
infinity.
The co-ordination of government policies generally is achieved through a structure of cabinet committees reporting to cabinet, the final co-ordinating body. In the field of scientific research and technology there is a committee now in existence and discharging its functions. It has a chairman who in addition to being the chairman of that cabinet committee is responsible to parliament for the National Research Council. At the present time he is also President of the Treasury Board, and it will be recollected that the Glas-sco commission included in its recommendations, first, the formation of a science council-this has been done-and, second, the appointment of the President of the Treasury Board to be the chairman of that committee. The role of ministerial co-ordinator of science and technology derives from the office of chairman of that committee as the minister responsible for the National Research Council.
I do not argue that the ideal chairman of that committee is the President of the Treasury Board, for the reasons outlined today, but I do say that in the structure of the Privy Council committee on scientific and industrial research as a scientific functional committee of cabinet, with a chairman, one has coordinating machinery for the short and medium-term scientific policies of the federal government. I say specifically to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that at no time did I express the opinion that there was no need for the co-ordination of on-going programs. Such co-ordination is essential. What I did say was that no need exists for the setting up of another organization to do this work. We

already have one for the purpose in the Privy Council committee.
One of its shortcomings in earlier years was the lack of an adequate secretariat. This was one of the reasons for organizing the science secretariat; it was to provide a central body composed of men of considerable scientific talent to advise both this committee and the chairman on scientific matters coming within the co-ordinating functions of the committee.
One should bear in mind that the basic responsibility for scientific research rests with the operating departments, and the apparatus set up should be employed by them as an essential tool in the accomplishment of their main functions. Co-ordination of all this effort is achieved by means of a cabinet committee recently made active. This committee is served by a competent science secretariat which as a consequence of this amendment will be able to devote its entire energies to serving this purpose rather than trying to serve the Science Council on the basis of terms of reference much longer in time. So I think the basic machinery is sufficient-


Albert Béchard: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I thank the committee for its indulgence. I hope I shall not get into the position of talking out the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I shall end in a moment. I do feel that in spite of the cancellation of the HARP project, in spite of the deferment of a highly imaginative project known as ING- the intense neutron generator-in spite of the conclusion drawn that the cost-benefit results of the Queen Elizabeth telescope project would not justify the large expense involved, Canada has been very successful indeed in the field of the natural sciences. I need only draw attention to such federal projects as the Alouette and the Isis, substantial contributions in the field of high and advanced technology, or to the considerable increases made in recent years in expenditures upon research and development within manufacturing industries. I might mention also the substantially increased contribution by the federal government toward research within the universities on which the hon. member commented. All these programs are being increased in the current year, one in which a
March 19, 1969

need for restraint in order to demonstrate fiscal responsibility has to be observed.
The rate of increase in funds for these programs has not been as great as in previous years but, still, there is an increase, and it is my belief that these increases must continue.
I trust we can pass into a period when the possibilities of federal assistance will be greater than they are today. Finally, I hope we shall have no difficulty in finishing the bill as a consequence of my speech.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I have a brief question to put to the minister. My curiosity has been aroused by the provisions of new section 9. I should like to ask why it was considered important enough to propose an amendment to section 9 of the existing Science Council of Canada Act removing from the council discretion as to where it should meet. I notice it is still left to the council's judgment to decide how often it shall meet. Why should it be laid down that it should meet only in one place, that is to say, the capital region? Under the old act it could meet wherever it chose.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In default of any specified place of meeting being laid down the council can meet wherever it wishes. The reference to the locus is necessary for legal purposes; the head office is all that is specified as being in the national capital area.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Albert Béchard: The committee will now move to part XI of the bill on page 40. Shall clause 95 carry?
On clause 95-Commission.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if the minister wishes to speak I am prepared to yield the floor to him.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: I shall ask leave to move an amendment to make a correction only in the French version of the bill.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the subject of ferries and I regret that the Minister of Transport is not in the house to hear me. He may not regard this amendment as a major piece of legislation, and I suppose it is not. Yet there have been altogether too many instances where the minister has not been present to discuss matters relating to transport or housing. That is unfortunate. I wanted to hear him make a statement about ferries and transportation questions that relate to Prince Edward Island.
Government Organization I hasten to add that I will not talk about the causeway. Indeed, since only 26 minutes are left before the supper adjournment I have too little time to put even the basic case before the committee, let alone develop any arguments to show how the matter of the causeway has been completely mishandled. It was all very well for the Prime Minister to backpeddle and say the causeway would not be built.
Very little has been said about transportation difficulties besetting the people of Prince Edward Island and still less about increases in ferry rates. There was a rumour two or three years ago when Mr. Pickersgill was in command that our ferry rates would be increased. The actual increase in respect of vehicles, was in the order of 50 per cent. We know that this is a period of inflation and rising costs. Nevertheless, the people of Prince Edward Island were justifiably upset when the increase of 50 per cent was introduced two years ago. Ferry rates were increased despite the assurance of the then minister of transport and the then government, represented by two ministers in the chamber this afternoon, that responsible authorities-presumably that was the Canadian Transport Commission-would hold a full series of hearings to determine the effect of the increase before the increase was introduced. That assurance was given on many occasions. Of course there were never any hearings and the rates were increased through the mechanism of doing away with the return ferry rate which had been in existence for many years. As a result the people of Prince Edward Island had to bear increased costs. We are told now that there is to be a further increase in rates of about 50 per cent. The total increase will then be 100 per cent of the old rates. And all this has taken place within the last two or three years.
We talk about responsible action to be taken by government departments. When one considers what has happened to Prince Edward Island ferry rates one must be shocked. I find it particularly shocking for the Minister of Transport not to have the decency to be present in the house this afternoon and discuss this matter. Considering the decision not to continue with construction of the causeway project, why has the minister agreed to these ferry rate increases? This is a particular affront to the people of Prince Edward Island. When we are all supposed to be concerned about maintaining good rela-t:ons between the provinces and the federal authority, this kind of cavalier handling of a
March 19. 1969

Government Organization basic question related to the economic and social future of this province is really contemptible.
There is little use in my elaborating on this question this afternoon, but I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the people of Prince Edward Island are profoundly disturbed that this government and the Minister of Transport should, after having cancelled the causeway project, go full speed ahead with an increase in ferry rates that will come into effect shortly for the Northumberland ferry service. The private company operating the other ferry service presumably was not consulted and no doubt it too will revise its rates upward. The new rate structure will hurt the economy of the province and will dampen any optimism our people may have generated for the government's recently announced plan to develop the island. In heaven's name, what is the sense of attempting on the one hand to raise the living standards of the people of Prince Edward Island while on the other hand attacking this vital transportation link with the mainland?
I will speak no more about the matter. I trust that although the Minister of Transport is not here this afternoon he will read my remarks and respond to them in a responsible manner.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be in a vein different from those of the hon. member who just sat down. I want to do something very unusual. I wish to compliment the government and Canadian Pacific Railway for the new ferry it is planned to construct for the service between Saint John, New Brunswick, and Digby, Nova Scotia. I therefore disassociate myself from the remarks of the hon. member who just spoke. I do not mean that I disagree with him; we, too, have many complaints. It is said that it is bad politically to compliment the government in the house, particularly when you are in the opposition. But I say for the record, so that I will not be misunderstood, that the plans the railway company and the government have made to construct a large new ferry for the service between Saint John and Digby are commendable. We have waited a long time for this new ferry. I could take hours in criticizing the government for its delay. At any rate, the ferry will be large and it is what we need. I am glad that Canadian Pacific have agreed to construct the vessel in Canada, and particularly in the Saint John shipyards. I want that clearly understood and on the record.

I hasten to add that we have many complaints about the port of Saint John and other transportation matters related to Canadian Pacific Railway. But for the record may I say we appreciate the fact that finally we are getting this new ferry for the service between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, may I move an amendment to correct an accidental omission or variation in the French version of the bill only.

I move that the French version of Bill C-173 be amended by striking out lines 21 and 22, on page 40 of the said bill, and substituting the following:
5 (1) Whenever a waterway other than a waterway between Canada and another country is established or-


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 96 to 99 inclusive agreed to.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
On clause 100-Acts to be administered by Minister of Communications.
John Cole: I would like to move an amendment to subclause 1, Mr. Chairman, to add "the Post Office Department, the Postmaster General or the Deputy Postmaster General" because in the period July 12, 1968 to April, 1969 the acts mentioned in Part II of Schedule A were under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General and not the minister of communications. I therefore move:
That Bill C-173 be amended by striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 45 thereof and substituting the following:
"Minister of Public Works, the Deputy Minister of Public Works, the Post Office Department, the Postmaster General or the Deputy Postmaster General is mentioned or"
The Depuly Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: In clause 100(2) I would like to move an amendment for a similar reason as in clause 100(1). I move:
That Bill C-173 be amended by striking out lines 26 and 27 on page 45 thereof and substituting the following:
"Minister of Transport, the Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster General or any other officer of either the Department of Transport or the Post Office Department in relation".
March 19. 1969


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, would the
minister explain to us the effect of this amendment and why it is necessary?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, when the bill was drafted provision was made for a takeover of functions of various departments by the to-be minister of communications. The fact of the matter is that in the past few months these functions have been exercised by the Postmaster General in order to effect a continuity between the operations which have been carried out by the Postmaster General in his capacity as the to-be minister of communications.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister will really have two capacities and the two departments have to be included.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 101 agreed to.
On clause 102-Acts to be administered by Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Thomas Miller Bell: I notice in glancing at clause 102 that it deals with the lapsing of the appropriations associated with the Atlantic Development Board. I further notice, and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, that payments may only be made during the 30 days immediately following the 31st March of this year. If this is true it leads me to make the assertion we have been continually making in the house that we are very disappointed there is no method of continuing payments of this nature during the period of transformation from the Atlantic Development Board to the new legislation. I assume this is correct.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the hon. member might raise this matter with the to-be Minister of Regional Economic Expansion when this department is discussed tomorrow.


Thomas Miller Bell: I thank the minister for his invitation. I assume from the glee with which he offers it that he is in agreement with me. He probably does not mind my saying that we are still starving to death in the maritimes as far as development funds are concerned and the situation is going to be worse unless changes are made by the to-be minister.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I rise on a point of order. I suggest it would be appropriate to stand this
Government Organization clause until we have passed the clauses dealing with setting up the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. If there are amendments tomorrow it would be necessary to reopen this clause in order to amend it. I think it is common sense to stand it until then.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is agreeable that clause 102 be stood until the clauses relating to regional economic expansion are dealt with.
Clause stands.
Clauses 103 and 104 agreed to.
On clause 105-Amendments and repeals.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I make the same request with regard to this clause for the same reason. I do not anticipate there will be any difficulty, but there may be amendments.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, we have some amendments to make to the schedules. In order to meet the hon. gentleman's request in relation to the debate tomorrow, I suggest that clause 102 and Schedule A, Part IV, be stood. These are the references?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: And that under Schedule B the repeal of the Atlantic Development Board Act be stood, the Forestry Development and Research Act be stood and the Fund for Rural Eeonomic Development Act be stood. Possibly we might proceed with the balance.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I followed as the minister listed and I think his list is comprehensive. I think he has made an agreeable request.


Albert Béchard: Shall clauses 105 and 106 stand?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Could we not carry clauses 105 and 106, Mr. Chairman?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, I think we can, Mr. Chairman, but with the reservations that the minister himself has listed and which will be on the record. I think we are agreeable on this side to carrying everything else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that is the sensible thing to do, to carry clauses 105 and 106. But it seems to me there is going to be some difficulty in trying to carry and stand different
March 19. 1969

Government Organization parts of the schedules. Perhaps the schedules could stand, it being our understanding that the only reason they stand is in case anything flows from the discussion tomorrow, and I do not mind having that on the record.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the discussion we have this evening will dispose of the schedules, apart from regional economic expansion, we will not spend long on that discussion, but we would like to propose some minor amendments to Schedule B.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think we can give the undertaking that debate will not be revived outside this particular area and dealing with regional economic expansion.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 105 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 106 agreed to.
On Schedule A-
Albert Béchard: Shall Schedule A stand?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Stand, subject to the understanding, Mr. Chairman.
Schedule stands.
On Schedule B-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I have a few amendments to present on Schedule B, Mr. Chairman. I move, seconded by Mr. Drury:
That Bill C-173 be amended by striking out paragraphs 1 and 2 opposite the reference to the Canada Dairy Products Act in Schedule B on pages 53 and 54 and substituting the following: "1. Paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(c) "grader" means a person designated as a grader pursuant to section 7;
(d) "inspector" means a person designated as an inspector pursuant to section 7;"
2. Subsections 7 (1) and (2) are repealed and the following substituted therefor;
"7. (1) The Minister may designate any person as an analyst or a grader and the Minister or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs may designate any person as an inspector for the purposes of this act."
I also move that Bill C-173 be amended-


Albert Béchard: Order. We will first
deal with the first amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I move, seconded by Mr. Drury:
That Bill C-173 be amended by striking out paragraph 2 opposite the reference to the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act in Schedule B on page 56 and substituting the following:
"2. Part II, except subsections 15(2), 15(3) and 15(4), is repealed."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I move, seconded by Mr. Drury, an amendment to Schedule B, page 60, to correct a translation error.

I propose that the French version of Bill C-173 be amended by striking out Paragraph 2 opposite the Income Tax Act, in Schedule B, page 60 of the said bill, and substituting the following:
"2. Paragraph 71A(2) (b) is amended by substituting the Area Development Incentives Act for the Department of Industry Act."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I move, seconded by Mr. Drury:
That Bill C-173 be amended by striking out paragraph 2 opposite the reference to the Public Service Superannuation Act in Schedule B on page 63 and substituting the following:
"2. Sections 32, 33 and 48 are amended by substituting the words "Minister of Finance" for the word "Minister" wherever the latter word occurs."


Albert Béchard: Shall the amendment carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: have some doubts about this but I guess we had better let it carry.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Albert Béchard: Shall the Schedule as amended carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: With the same understanding we had with regard to clause 104.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: With the same understanding in relation to Schedule A.
March 19, 19S9	COMMONS


Albert Béchard: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Schedule B as amended stands with the understanding we have already arrived at.


Albert Béchard: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: With respect to all these sections that are being stood I hope that Hansard will record the optimism that the minister and some members from some of the wealthier regions of Canada have that there will be no amendments tomorrow in the regional development debate.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, amendments can have two results, and I am sure the hon. gentleman is not envisaging the kind of amendment which would make him unhappy.


Thomas Miller Bell: You cannot take nothing from nothing.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think we have concluded about all we can do on this bill today, Mr. Chairman, and I would suggest that we might report progress.
Progress reported.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have pased Bill S-30, an act respecting The Perth Mutual Fire Insurance Company, to which the concurrence of this house is desired, and also a message informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill C-154, an act to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants, with an amendment, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.

It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume at eight o'clock this evening, in order to allow the house to study a motion which will be presented by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), in accordance with standing order 26.

At six o'clock the house took recess.
DEBATES	6847
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER STANDING ORDER S-O 26 NATIONAL DEFENCE FIRING OF A.B.M. WARHEADS OVER CANADIAN TERRITORY-MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 26 Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves that the house do now adjourn.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, normally one would express regret at bringing members back on a Wednesday night, which is the only evening they have off all week. However, I have no apology to make for asking the house to debate a matter which I think is the most important problem of our age. Certainly, nothing is so important as the survival of the human race.
This is the first time in the history of mankind that man has had the power to commit social suicide. There have been countless wars throughout history. These wars have involved a few thousand, a few hundred thousand or even a few million people; and cities or even entire countries have been devastated. But for the first time in man's long evolution, he now has the power to destroy not only himself but all forms of life. Therefore, nothing can be more important than that we, as members of this house, should concern ourselves about any event which might lead to an escalation of nuclear arms and to a proliferation of nuclear missiles.
This matter came to a head last Friday, March 14, when President Nixon of the United States announced that his administration had decided to proceed with an A.B.M. system known as the Safeguard system. It should be recalled that the whole question of anti-ballistic missiles has been discussed for a long period of time. Many opinions have been expressed for and against in many parts of the world, including the United States. Some people in the United States Senate and the United States Congress have spoken out against the establishment of an A.B.M. system. Sometimes when one expresses some concern about this matter one is accused of being anti-American, unpatriotic or pro-Soviet Union. The fact of the matter is there are a
March 19, 1969

Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada great many patriotic United States citizens who today are questioning very seriously, and criticizing very vigorously, the President's decision with regard to an A.B.M. System.
I notice that the New York Times, in an editorial of Monday, March 17 says this:
For all the surface persuasiveness of the President's assurances that he seeks to follow the course of moderation, the rationale on which he bases his decision provides fresh evidence that the arms race feeds on itself in a cycle that can never stop short of world annihilation.
The editor goes on to point out that while the President has based his decision on some 67 A.B.M.'s stationed around Moscow, the Pentagon has long recognized that these are already obsolete and that the planned American response involves more than 700 antimissile missiles and, through the use of MIRV multiple warheads, a probable fivefold increase in offensive delivery vehicles from 1,700 to more than 8,000.
So, many thoughtful people are raising honest questions about this whole matter. Let me very briefly, in my limited time, try to outline the story of the investigations and discussions that have gone on with regard to A.B.M.'s. The first proposal was for a complete A.B.M. system with Nike-X missiles. That was opposed by former defence secretary Robert McNamara. He appeared before the Senate Armed Services and Defence Appropriations Committee on January 26, 1967, and presented a 209 page brief. I shall not take the time of the house to quote from the brief extensively but I believe I could paraphrase his submission by saying that he objected to the proposal, first on the ground that it would not provide real security and that the United States would be spending large sums of money for something which in the end would provide it with little or no security. He argued that the United States security lay in its offensive capacity and its four to one ratio in respect of intercontinental ballistic missiles vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and its possession of the nuclear submarine armed with Polaris missiles.
His second objection before the Senate committee was that the construction of an extensive A.B.M. system could quite easily be the step that would trigger further escalation in the nuclear arms race. As hon. members know, Mr. McNamara, under pressure from the powerful military complex in the United States, finally agreed to what was known as this "thin line system" missile system. This was for use for defence against Mainland China only and not directed at the Soviet Union. Continued pressure from the chiefs of

staff and from the industries concerned resulted in the acquiescence and the announcement by President Johnson of what became known as the Sentinel system. This was to surround some of the major cities in the United States with A.B.M. bases. There was so much of an uproar in some of the cities in the United States that in the United States Congress that President Johnson decided to leave this matter in abeyance and dump it into the lap of the incoming president.
e (8:10 p.m.)
President Nixon has for some time been considering what his administration would do about the construction of the A.B.M. system. Last Friday he made an announcement that they were going to construct what he calls a Safeguard system which will not surround major centres of population but will be designed to protect the 11 Minuteman bases situated centrally throughout the United States.
In his statement the president was very careful to say that this decision on his part was not provocative and not meant to lead to nuclear escalation. I cannot do better than quote what was said in the Montreal Star on Monday, March 17 by James Eayrs, who is a well known author and acknowledged authority in respect of foreign affairs. In answering the president's statement that this' A.B.M. system would confer protection on the American people Mr. Eayrs said:
It Is likely to confer nothing of the sort. It offers protection only if the Soviet Union stands pat in the face of an addition to American power. Everything known about the dynamics of the arm's race, about the reflexes of its Russian contestants, suggests that the Soviet Union will not stand pat. Mr. Nixon's assurances that "the program is not provocative," that "the Soviet retaliation be retaliatory capability is not affected by our decision," are either naive or dishonest.
Someone may well ask, what business is it of Canada's what the United States does. I suggest that it is our business. It is our business because any action which could lead to a nuclear holocaust would have terrible consequences for the people of Canada. This was underlined this week by the Canadian chief disarmament negotiator in Geneva, Mr. George Ignatieff, who was formerly our representative at the United Nations, and is now stationed at Geneva. Mr. Ignatieff said:
-Canada is placed in the most dangerous position of any country by the galloping arm's race between the United States and the Soviet Union. If this race gets out of hand, it could be catastrophic for Canada which lies between the nuclear giants.
March 19, 19B9	COMMONS
In respect of something which is of so great importance to Canada, it seems to me passing strange that the Canadian government should have had no intimation from the United States, and that there should have been no consultation. There can be no doubt about that. Hansard of March 17 at page 6684 records the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as having said in answer to the question I asked:
No, Mr. Speaker. We were notified of the decision, but there was no consultation in the sense that we might have been in a position to change the decision.
At page 6689 of Hansard for the same day, there is recorded a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the minister's answer. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked for similar information in these words:
-will the minister say when he . . . first received notification of the decision by the United States in this regard?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs replied:
Mr. Speaker, we were told of the decision immediately before it was announced.
I must say that many Canadians will feel as I do, that we who are neighbours and friends of the United States, with 4,000 or 5,000 miles of undefended border, have a right to better treatment than that. Canada is not a banana republic. We want to be friends and neighbours but not subservient.


Mitchell William Sharp: And allies.
Mr.	Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): We are allies and the minister knows it. We are allies in NORAD and in NATO.


Mitchell William Sharp: Do you support these things?
Mr.	Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): I support them and I hope the minister will tell us his view when he gets up to speak.


Mitchell William Sharp: Do you support them?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I support them, yes. I suggest that we are allies and I would ask the minister when he gets up, and I hope he will, to tell us whether he is prepared to have Canadians be merely subordinates so that when the United States makes decisions it can do so without any consultation or negotiation as to whether they should be allowed to use our air space.
DEBATES	6849
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada


Mitchell William Sharp: I gather the hon. member is in favour of NORAD and NATO, is he?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely we have the right to be concerned about this decision by the United States in view of the fact Canadian territory is involved. As I said before, the missile bases are proposed to protect the Minuteman bases. Some of these will be close to the Canadian border. They will be protected by Spartani missiles with a range of not more than 400 miles. Certainly, all indications are that any interception will be planned over Canadian territory. I agree that the primary concern is not just where the anti-missiles will intercept these missiles. The primary concern is to prevent the escalation of nuclear armament and a nuclear war.
Surely, when the government deliberately designs an A.B.M. system for its own defence that is predicated on the interception of ballistic missiles over a neighbour's territory, the very least it could do is consult with the neighbour prior to making the decision.


An hon. Member:: Who is going to fire those missiles?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Have they consulted with the
Canadian government? We asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether there have been any discussions in respect of permission or approval for United States missiles to be fired over Canadian territory. All the minister has said is that discussions have been going on for years. That is not the question. The question is, have there been discussions with respect to this particular Safeguard A.B.M. system? The Secretary of State for External Affairs quoted the joint communique from the United States Defence Department and the State Department in these words:
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
We discuss matters such as these with the Canadians on a continuing basis. A number of aerospace matters pertaining to A.B.M. are under discussion-
I underline these words.
-are under discussion with the Canadians. Since these matters are being discussed, it would not be appropriate to deal in specifics at this time.
I think the minister has to tell us whether discussions are going on at the present time regarding this proposed Safeguard A.B.M. system.


Mitchell William Sharp: Do you want me to?
6850	COMMONS
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would hope that the minister, instead of interrupting, would give us some information in this respect, because he has been so evasive; he has waffled. This afternoon he tried to mislead the house when he said that this discussion has been going on for years. The discussion of the A.B.M. Safeguard system has not been going on for years. He said the other day they had been consulted. When did discussions start on this Safeguard A.B.M. system? Are they going on now? What decision has the government made with respect thereto?
Some years ago the Prime Minister was a member of a group which wrote an article, a translation of which appeared in the May issue of the Canadian Forum. The article was entitled "An Appeal for Realism in Politics". This was in 1964.


An hon. Member:: When did you write yours?
Another hon. Member: Regina.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The article of which the Prime
Minister was one of the authors1-


An hon. Member:: You were the author of the Regina manifesto. That was many years ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -reads in part:
As regards national defence, there are two points that seem to require urgent attention. First, that our government seems incapable of defining a clear and coherent national defence policy is alarming. Second, the lack of information about defence matters released to the public is very worrying and could prove to be a serious setback to democracy in our country.
That is certainly true; we have not had very much information and we certainly have had no clear statement on government policy. The Prime Minister yesterday, as reported at page 6741 of Hansard, said:
-I repeat now, that any danger of escalation is something which we would be very anxious to discuss, and if there is evidence of escalation then we would be ready to indicate our disapproval of such escalation.
A.B.M. systems have been discussed for years, and the Prime Minister has not yet made up his mind whether there is any evidence of escalation. This matter has been discussed in the United States Congress, in many parts of the world and before the disarmament committee, but the government has not yet decided whether there is any evidence

DEBATES	March 19, 1969
that this will cause escalation. The government has not yet even decided what to do about its Bomarc missile bases. In 1963 the Prime Minister wrote an article of which I am sure he has been reminded many times. The article appeared in Cite Libre of April 1963. In it the Prime Minister castigated his predecessor for agreeing to accept nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. He said that his present colleagues had made this decision in order to get into office and that they hurried into office with all the elegance of animals heading for the trough.
Where are the nuclear, Bomarc missiles now? They are still at Macaza, Quebec, and North Bay, Ontario; still under United States control. In 1965, the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson told this house and the Canadian people in the election campaign of that year, that if elected his government would negotiate us out of Bomarc nuclear missiles. But they are still here. Is this a clearcut policy? When the Secretary of State for External Affairs rises, I hope he will tell us whether discussions are now going on with respect to the request of the United States for approval to fire antiballistic missile warheads over Canadian territory. If so, when did they start, and what answer is being given?


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may only continue with the unanimous consent of the house. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but apparently there is no unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, these nuts. Come on!


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands continue.
March 19, 1969	COMMONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the house for its indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and I shall take only a few more minutes. I am sure that members in all parts of the house, and Canadians generally, will be pleased that the right hon. Prime Minister is going to Washington next week. I hope the Prime Minister will tell the President of the United States that we in this house, and the people of this country, are concerned about the decision he has taken, a decision which Mr. James Eayrs in the article to which I referred earlier called "black Friday".
I hope he will tell the President of the United States that we feel justified in being concerned because of our geographical position and our long association with the United States. As neighbours and friends of the United States we feel we might have been given an opportunity to express our opinion. I hope the Prime Minister will tell the President of the United States that we believe there is a serious danger that this action, without providing any amount of security for the American people or ourselves, could trigger a very serious nuclear arms race.
I am sure the Prime Minister realizes that this is one of the most important missions he has ever undertaken. I am sure he realizes that he will go to Washington with the hopes and aspirations of the Canadian people on his shoulders, with the hopes of all humanity who yearn for peace. We hope he will succeed in getting reconsideration of this matter, and that there will be agreement for consultation in' the future before action is taken which could affect Canada's safety and welfare.
If the Prime Minister is able to accomplish that, I tell him he will have the gratitude and indebtedness of people in all parts of this country. However, if he does not speak out for Canada and take an independent stand, which I think he is capable of doing, this is a matter which will be on his conscience for a long time.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that seldom does it happen that the leader of a government can say he welcomes debate under this standing order. In this particular case however I say very sincerely that I do welcome debate. This is a most urgent and difficult matter, and before I go to see the President of the United States I am anxious to hear the views of the leaders of the opposition parties on this important subject. I say this because I realize
DEBATES	6851
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada that we are discussing here one aspect of a problem which involves the fate of all mankind. I know it is necessary that we, as the government of Canada must speak about the protection of Canadians, about the protection of our cities, and about the protection we believe our nation deserves. I know, too, that as the government, we must also ensure that the international laws which apply to our air space are respected.
Nevertheless when I answered questions in the house on this subject the other day I said very frankly that in a real sense these were secondary concerns of ours, and I will explain why this is so. We believe that this whole matter is not one in which only Canadians are involved. I echo what the leader of the New Democratic Party said when I say that we believe that this whole matter is one which involves the fate of humanity. It is for this reason that we on this side of the house take the position that before sitting down to bargain with the United States on where the system should be located, on whether they have considered where the fallout would occur, whether or not it would be on Canadian cities, we want to remain free to say that we condemn this system entirely. We want to be free to disapprove of it, which we would not be if we said to them: "Please set it down here or there and please make sure that you do not destroy us in the process of protecting yourselves".
This is the reason that I, and the government take this stand. When I do speak to the President I will not be in the position of asking for a little more protection for Canadians but rather will be able to put questions to him about whether his decision constitutes an escalation and an increase of the danger of nuclear warfare or whether it is merely an operation which adds to the stability of the deterrent system.
Some years ago Canadians did not have such a difficult decision to make. Other countries in history have lived for years in the fear of destruction, although perhaps not nuclear destruction. Wars in other lands very often constituted an imminent danger of destruction to many nations. For us in Canada however, it is the first time that we have been faced with such a problem. It is only four and a half decades ago that Senator Dan-durand was able to say to the League of Nations that we in Canada "live in a fireproof house, far from inflammatory materials".
This is no longer the case. Our house is not fireproof and, as we know, inflammatory
March 19, 1969
6852	COMMONS
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada materials are no longer very far from it. Science has made us all neighbours in this world. The progress of science and technology is such that one nation cannot hope to save itself alone. Talented writers have used various expressions to express this result. Mr. McLuhan speaks about the "global village", and he is right; we are truly living in a global village. Barbara Ward talks about a "Spaceship Earth". I suggest these expressions convey, in a true sense, the feeling of solidarity that we as Canadians have with all nations on this earth.

Consequently, the Canadian government is as concerned about this subject as the members of the opposition and all Canadians.
I repeat that we wish to ensure the security of Canadians and especially that decisions that might affect the future of humanity are not taken without our participation.
I think the debate taking place this evening is intended to determine a policy which will ensure the security of humanity, including that of Canadians.

How we manifest our concern for humanity, so as to make our desire for survival into an effective policy, is the subject of this debate tonight. There are a few general principles which guide this government in establishing such a policy. The first refers to the stability of the deterrent system. This system exists as a deterrent because of the knowledge on both sides that the other has a destructive power capable of annihilating it. It is the credibility of the system which ensures its stability. This is a fragile and dangerous balance. If the system is to retain its credibility, we must seek to make sure that it does not lose its balance; we must make sure that there is no escalation of nuclear armament systems, no rushing ahead by one of the two centres of military power on this earth, the TJ.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., so that the other is in fear of being destroyed without having the capacity to destroy its opponent. It is this very delicate balance that must be maintained until we are able through other means to ensure arms limitation and arms reduction agreements which are truly workable and effective.
The second principle is that Canada should continue to participate in the Geneva negotiations, as it has through one of its most able ambassadors, Mr. George Ignatieff, who has


been speaking for Canada in these matters. We must continue to do so because we believe that deterrence is a very delicate, sensitive and dangerous system, and we must work with all our energy to seek out other avenues to arms limitations and reductions.
Another principle that we must apply is to attempt to prevent the further proliferation or indeed escalation of nuclear armament systems. To each of the countries concerned, such an escalation is an extremely costly business and can only entail an extremely costly retaliation of the defensive system of the other country. This is doubly serious because it places these great great nations of the world in a less favourable position to meet the other challenges facing humanity, the challenges of domestic poverty and of slowly developing nations, for example. We, therefore, believe this escalation to be a dangerous thing for this additional reason that it prevents countries from solving these other problems. Then again, it is dangerous in itself because the more sensitive these systems get the more complex they become and the greater the danger of accident. Already, we are beginning to wonder whether these systems are not so complicated and intricate that the decision to start a nuclear holocaust will be made by a computer or by some officials who really have not the time in which to weigh all the imponderable elements before reaching a decision.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
These are the principles which govern us. But because this government is not yet in possession of sufficient information to make the necessary judgment as to the decision taken last Friday by the President of the United States, we are keeping an open mind on this. The leader of the New Democratic Party says we have evidence of escalation, and he has quoted some evidence. But I think it would be counter-productive in connection with any talks I might have with the President if, before going to Washington, this government took the position that there was escalation; that the United States was guilty; that we were not giving them a chance to explain their point of view, and that we condemn them out of band.
This is the reason the government is not taking an attitude of condemnation. It is one of interrogation, one of seeking information; it is one of finding out reasons for this action by the United States and then making up our minds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
March 19, 1969


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If, Mr. Speaker, after receiving all the information, we are led to the view that the A.B.M. system constitutes escalation and is conducive to greater peril for mankind, then we shall condemn it. We shall tell the United States that we disapprove. If, on the other hand, we are convinced that the A.B.M. system is necessary though regrettable as a move by the United States, then we shall have to decide whether or not we shall participate in the operation of that system. Let me remind this house that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux), and myself have made clear on several occasions that the space defence system, the A.B.M. system now contemplated, has not been integrated into NORAD but is something outside NORAD. It follows in all fairness that we cannot, while refusing to participate in this A.B.M. system, while taking the position that it must remain outside NORAD, complain that the United States is not consulting with us.
The leader of the N.D.P., who answered a few questions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs must, I think, sense this contradiction. On the one hand, he complains that the Americans have not consulted us, as they should, while on the other hand, his party has on various occasions taken the position that we should withdraw from NATO. I was happy to hear the leader of the N.D.P. clarify his position on this issue. He said in answer to the minister that we were allies in NORAD and NATO, and he supported the idea that we should be friends and allies of the United States. Well, the New Democratic party has obviously reached the conclusion of its external affairs review. We have not reached that position yet, and we still reserve our judgment. We may decide to stay in NATO or we may decide to pull out. We may decide to stay in NORAD or we may decide to pull out. But we shall have to be consistent with ourselves, and if we stay in NORAD we shall have to ask ourselves whether we want it to include some degree of control over, the A.B.M. system, or not. If our answer is we do not, we shall not be in possession of a very strong negotiating point with the United States.
We might, of course, protest that they should not be using our air space or that they should not contemplate exploding anti-ballistic missiles over Canadian soil. However, I repeat, as I said the other day in the house, 2S180-4341
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada that this would be a fairly academic consideration, Mr. Speaker, because should the system begin to fire it will mean our efforts to preserve the peace and the safety of the world have failed, and I think the question of national air space would be secondary. I do not mean to say-and I believe I am answering the question which was put to me-that we are not informed. The minister said this afternoon, and I repeat it, that we have been informed to an impressive degree about what the United States is doing. I believe the Minister of National Defence will reveal later in this debate that we have a lot of information on the technological work being done there in the field of deterrents. However, we do not have all the information and, in particular, we do not have a veto over the operation of the system. If this house feels we should participate in decisions concerning this system it may be we shall have to become partners in the A.B.M. system. But this is a decision we are not yet prepared to make.
We want, first, to be convinced that the system is necessary. If it is not necessary we shall condemn it. If not, we shall seek the kind of protection which the opposition suggested we obtain for Canadian cities. I do not believe I should carry on this debate further. Essentially, I am saying we do not yet have sufficient information on the basis of which to reach a decision on the position taken by the United States last Friday. We do not wish, before going to Washington, to judge that position out of hand. Therefore, I believe I shall welcome this occasion as an opportunity to hear what other members of this house have to say. Before any final conclusion is reached, we shall always consider that it is our duty to look for methods of settling disputes through negotiation rather than through any form of escalation of deterrent systems.
Let me, before ending, read to the house a fitting quotation from Madam Barbara Ward, words which are deservedly well known. I quote:
In the last few decades mankind has been overcome by the most fateful change in its entire history. Modern science and technology have created so close a network of communication, transport, economic interdependence-and potential nuclear destruction-that planet earth, on its journey through infinity, has acquired the fellowship and the vulnerability of a spaceship.
In such a close community, there must be rules for survival.
It is in search of those rules for survival, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be speaking to the President of the United States next week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
6854	COMMONS
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have some views I should like to express in this debate, one which is obviously of considerable importance.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I think we have to remember that we are debating in Ottawa and not in Washington. Therefore, certain considerations that might be relevant to people in our position in the United States are hardly relevant here, in Canada. Such questions as whether this system of deterrence gives the best value for money and whether the United States can afford it are hardly questions for us in this country to consider. But there are aspects of the matter which I think we ought to consider. The first, of course, concerns the proper response of Canada to the decision of the President of the United States; the second concerns our ability to respond in an informed 'and effective way to it. In other words, we are concerned about the degree to which we have been consulted in this matter; in which we are entitled to be consulted.
Some Canadians, I think, are inclined to be suspicious of motives behind decisions made in the United States in respect of defence matters. That is not a particularly fruitful or helpful approach or, indeed, an approach that will be effective in bringing any influence we have to bear on policies of the United States government. We have influence which, because of our interests and geography, I think we should seek to extend.
I am as concerned about Canada's independence and about securing peace in the world as is anyone here, sir; but I cannot see how our interests are advanced by a persistent and almost Pavlovian condemnation of United States actions. In so many words, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) emphasized that we share the same danger from nuclear weapons; we are all in the same boat and we shall all share the common fate of mankind. We all agree with this; but that agreement does not, by itself, take us very far. The Prime Minister emphasized a number of points of importance to his government. He referred to the importance of the credibility of deterrence, the question of preserving what he referred to as the delicate balance of terror and the importance of preventing this delicate balance from being upset. He said we should make sure that one side does not rush ahead. Frankly, I am at a loss to know how we can do this. Let us be realistic. Just how do we make sure that one of the super powers does not rush ahead and upset what the

DEBATES	March 19, 1969
Prime Minister calls the delicate balance of terror. Just how do we prevent escalation of nuclear weapons? How can we do this with the two great nuclear powers? Is it, therefore, realistic for the Prime Minister of this country to say that we must make sure neither side rushes ahead. If we can achieve, through a disarmament conference or any other kind of conference, some form of agreement on this matter, that is one thing. Certainly, we should emphasize the importance of such understanding or agreement. But in considering the question we consider tonight, is it realistic for us as Canadians to say to ourselves, "We must make sure that neither side rushes ahead." I repeat, just how do we make sure, Mr. Speaker?
Naturally, we in this party are deeply concerned about the implications of the President's announcement. I agree with the Prime Minister and the leader of the New Democratic Party that we should not be overly worried about the immediate effect this United States policy will have on us. After all, if nuclear weapons are used not much will be left to be worried about. I recognize that we have a special relationship with the United States, and we cannot escape from it even if we want to. It is based to some extent on geography and proximity but also on' a common interest in the security of this continent, the rest of the free world and the less developed countries of the world. That relationship should mean that we can regard the United States as a friend and ally and that we can expect from the United States the consideration that close friendship and alliance involves. I do not ignore the fact that the United States is sometimes wrong. In Canada, we are sometimes wrong. Neither do I ignore the fact that there are occasions' when our interests and their interests clash. By and large, however, we have common interests, common aims and common purposes.
We must also recognize the awful responsibilities carried by the President of the United States who must make decisions in this field. He carries the responsibility for the defence not only of his own country but, indeed, for the free world. So, although we must consider the effect United States policy in this field will have in this country, we ought to be more concerned about its effect on the peace of the world and the fate of mankind. The Canadian people ought to know what that decision entails for them.
There is a real possibility that if the U.S.S.R. develops an anti-ballistic missile defence, that any missiles it fires may violate
March 19. 1969

Canadian air space. If we are concerned about the actions of the United States in this field, we ought to be equally concerned about possible actions taken on the Other side of the North Pole. I do not see how the United States decision is provocative in the sense that it is likely to cause an outbreak of nuclear warfare. I am not an expert in this field and I am not passing judgment on how effective the missile system is. That is primarily a matter for the United States to decide. But if we consider this matter in terms of whether building that defence system is a provocation to war, the view of my party is that it is not a provocation. That is, we do not think this decision is likely to make the outbreak of nuclear war more likely. On the other hand, there is evidence that it will lead to escalation of weapons and that the U.S.S.R. will increase its capacity to build missiles to pierce any defence system that might be built on this continent.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
This anti-ballistic missile defence system may well lead to escalation in this sense, although I do not believe it is provocative.
It might very well be with this kind of system a wild missile or missile sent by mistake could be dealt with by the A.B.M. defence system rather than by massive retaliation caused by a false alarm. It might be argued that the anti-ballistic missile defence system might reduce the possibility of an outbreak of nuclear war by accident. On the other hand, it may lead to an escalation of investment in nuclear weapons.
It is regrettable the President of the United States felt it necessary to make this decision because of its effect on potential United States foreign aid in assisting underdeveloped nations. I agree we should emphasize the importance of efforts in the area of disarmament. I hope the Prime Minister on his visit to Washington emphasizes to the President the importance this country attaches to this and our concern in this regard.
The responsibility for decisions relating to the defence of the United States rests with the United States government, but we are partners in defence, NATO abroad and NORAD on this continent.
But I do not agree with one view expressed by the Prime Minister. As I understood him, we cannot claim any right seriously to be consulted with regard to an anti-ballistic system because we have chosen not to be involved in that system. We are partners in
DEBATES	6855
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada continental defence and as such I think we have the right to be consulted as allies and partners. I do not think we would expect the right to veto a decision taken by the United States with regard to a matter considered vital to the defence of that country, but as partners, I believe we have the right to be informed and to be given an opportunity to express our views on matters relating to the defence of the continent, even though we are not involved in the financing or in the administration of what is proposed. I reject, Mr. Speaker, the position taken by the Prime Minister in this regard.
If we have not been consulted, the Prime Minister should make it clear to the President of the United States that if we are to be partners in defence we ought to be consulted and fully informed. I am not certain as to the degree to which we have been consulted as a neighbour and ally of the United States. 1 have spoken before about the special relationship between our countries based upon proximity. I emphasize our right to be consulted.
I do not think the government has been clear as to the extent to which there has been consultation at the various stages. The Prime Minister stated there had been minute consultation on the various stages, yet on Tuesday he explained the government was not making a clear statement as there had not been time since the previous Friday to consider all the complex implications. I do not want to be critical. I do not know all the complex implications, but I know the matter of the possibility of an A.B.M. system being established in the United States has been discussed for some years. I find it difficult to understand that the appropriate officials and the responsible ministers in Canada are not fully informed. They have not made a point of being fully informed as to all the implications. I do not understand why the government of this country as a partner in North American defence, has not insisted on having all the necessary information in order to be fully informed on this matter. If it is a fact that we have not been fully informed on these momentous matters, then we must conclude that the relations of this government with the government United States are in a rather primitive state.
I must assume that Canada was consulted or informed to some degree well in advance. If not surely the government would have been frank about this in the house and would have protested the discourtesy of the United States. There has been no protest as far as 1
March 19, 1969
6856	COMMONS
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada am aware. I do not want to be nit-picking, but I do not think it is adequate for the Prime Minister to suggest that Canada has no right to be consulted about this. It must be apparent to the government that we have every right to be consulted.
The Prime Minister stated he has not enough information to make a decision. We know these matters have been considered in the United States for years and that certain information has been given to Canada. I fail to understand why the government of Canada has not insisted upon being fully informed, if in fact this was not done. I want to emphasize that I reject the regrettable position taken by the Prime Minister that we are not entitled to this information. Surely, the government has now learned there are complexities in this matter of consultation.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I shall be just a few more moments. I do not think parliament or the country will much longer accept the excuses of complexity relating to government policies, including defence policy. The Prime Minister has emphasized that he has wanted to go to Washington with an open mind. He has wanted to go there untrammelled and he is not going from the narrow point of view of expressing concern about danger to Canada although he has reserved the right to raise this question, but with a free hand to reject the American decision. Mr. Speaker, the American decision has been taken; the American decision has been made. What is the use of going to Washington with an open mind when the President of the United States has already made up his mind? What is the good-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is your mind?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be perfectly frank with my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister. I am going to sum up for him so that he can understand my position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You have not got an open mind.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to be very emphatic, Mr. Speaker, and make it very clear that I think the Prime Minister and the government have a responsibility to the Canadian people
IMr. Stanfield.]

to insist upon being consulted. I think the Prime Minister had the right and the duty to insist that Canada should have been fully informed before the decision was taken by the United States.
I want to make it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion it is not satisfactory for the Prime Minister of Canada to go to Washington after a decision has been taken by Washington, to try to influence a decision now made and which the Prime Minister has known for some time that the President of the United States had under advisement.


An hon. Member:: He should be a mind reader?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One does not need to be a mind reader. All of us know that an A.B.M. system of some sort has been under discussion in the United States for a good long time. So, Mr. Speaker, my own view is that we had a right to be consulted. I think we have a right to consult, and I hope the Prime Minister will make the point in Washington that we do have such a right. I hope he will express regret that the President has felt it necessary to make this decision. But I want to emphasize this, Mr. Speaker, that I do not say the decision is provocative in the sense that it brings nearer the possibility of a nuclear war. I do not take that position. I want to be perfectly clear in this respect with the Prime Minister, but I do believe that the decision is likely to provoke some degree of escalation.
I do not understand what the Prime Minister hopes to gain by going to Washington after the decision has been taken, even if he is going to disapprove of the decision.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So, I should not go?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course, my right hon. friend should go. There are many other things he should talk about.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I won't talk about that?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let us not quibble, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to be perfectly clear about what the Prime Minister should do and what he should have done before this.


Mitchell William Sharp: Before the decision was taken?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes.


Mitchell William Sharp: How would he know?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He would know, Mr. Speaker, by insisting upon the right of Canada to be consulted, and I think this is one of the
March 19, 1969

points the Prime Minister ought to insist upon in Washington rather than the view he took that we have no right to be consulted with regard to this matter.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I do not think we have any right of veto with regard to this matter. I think the government of the United States in the existing circumstances has the ultimate responsibility of making the decision which it considers necessary to its defence. I think Canada ought to have had an opportunity to influence that decision, but I do not question the right of the United States to make the decision. I am not rising in my place in this house to accuse the United States of doing something that is leading the world nearer to nuclear war because I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I do believe that this is going to lead to escalation. I do believe that the government of Canada ought to have insisted upon consultation and not opted out of its responsibility as unfortunately, I believe, the Prime Minister has done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker-


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Frontenac is raising a point of order.


Bernard Dumont: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As members of the opposition, could we not express the opinion of the Ralliement Creditiste before hearing the reply of the Minister of National Defence?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Frontenac.


Bernard Dumont: 
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to adopt a literary style to speak about such a serious subject as the one we are discussing tonight.
The Cuban crisis for which the Americans were blamed when they were directly threatened, has been mentioned as well as $40 billion when the amount involved is $6 or $7 billion. The Korean war was mentioned as if it were a blot on the American escutcheon, when the undertaking was initiated by the United Nations. Some mention was also made of the Bomarcs, although they have nothing to do with the question before us.
So, faced with this spate of arguments that have no bearing on our discussion tonight, X


feel somewhat out of tune because I wanted to offer the kind of information of which, to my way of thinking, the Canadian people should be made aware in order to be able to assess the situation in a calm and reasonable manner.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot follow in the footsteps of the opposition leaders, to say on the one hand that the American government is free to make whatever decisions it wishes with regard to its security, such decisions being exclusively under its jurisdiction, and, on the other hand, that we should protest because our opinion was not sought beforehand.
I remember when the NORAD agreement came up for renewal, when those same parties wanted the Canadian government to make known in no uncertain terms that it was not interested in participating in anti-missile installations on the North American continent.
Those same people tell us today, after insisting that the government make known its lack of interest: Demand that the American government consult you before making decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I only wish to give some information which I consider necessary, as I said, and I shall not, like my friend, the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas), quote sources which are only critical of the military efforts made in this country or elsewhere for defence purposes and which have never any solutions to offer.
According to them, it is a matter of coining what I call "dirty words". The same tactics have been tried before about the Bomarcs. It has been the case for the CF-104 and the nuclear warheads also. Now it is being done about the ABM system.
I think we should for once think about this and perhaps try and find out whether there is something in this situation which offers some hope. In the light of all these joint efforts by different countries and alliances, we should try to discover what attempts are being made to achieve what everyone of us is looking forward to: a detente and eventual de-escalation and disarmament.
At least we did achieve something recently. For whatever it is worth, this appeal must be heard. It originated from Budapest, from another military bloc and it appeared to intimate that discussions should be undertaken in order to arrive at this de-escalation everybody is hoping for.
March 19, 1969	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, we should, to some extent, be reasured by the statement of the President of the United States. There is one paragraph of it I would like to quote in which it is clearly indicated that the U.S. president was indeed trying to avoid this escalation and to have this Safeguard project interpreted as an indication of the desires of the Americans of insuring a detente and of having the time needed to attain this objective.
All the necessary time must be afforded so that discussions will get under way and it is hoped that moderation will prevail. Here is one sentence which I think is very important. It was said by the President of the United States:
The modified system has been designed so that its defensive intent is unmistakable. It will be implemented not according to some fixed theoretical schedule but in a manner clearly related to our periodic analysis of the threat. The first deployment covers two missile sites; the first of these will not be completed before 1973.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of such wisdom, I am sure that next week, the Prime Minister will find a counterpart as receptive as he is, who has no prejudice either, nor any preconceived ideas, and who has not already taken positions he cannot change, but who is rather anxious to find solutions. Both will have discussed together the possibility that perhaps, through their concerted efforts, they could eventually work toward the promotion of that detente and that disarmament.
Mr. Speaker, I have not much to say. If I may, I would like it to appear in Hansard, because all kinds of concern have been raised by saying that the Americans had never consulted us adequately, and that Canada was uncertain and ignorant of what was happening in the United States.
I simply wish to put in Hansard a few facts which I believe must be known.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)

Ever since the early American research on the NIKE ZEUS anti-ballistic missile defence system ten years ago, the Canadian Department of National Defence has taken a close interest in the problems of ballistic missile offence and defence. We have never thought of participating in the offence, but we have been keenly aware that developments in defensive systems could have great significance for us. It was important to know 29180-435
DEBATES	6859
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada whether Canadian geography would be vital for the defence of North America against missiles, as it is in fact for defence against bomber aircraft. It was necessary to be able to assess the probable effectiveness of defensive systems, and to evaluate dangers to population that would be posed by such systems. Only with such knowledge would we be in a position to judge what was the best course of action for the protection of the Canadian population and for the pursuit of stability on the international scene.
The U.S. government has some limitations on the extent to which it releases information concerning nuclear weapons, and its research in the fields of missiles and anti-missiles is of course highly secret. Nevertheless, the Americans have given us access to a considerable amount of information on the progress of their A.B.M. research, sufficient to permit us to make our own independent assessments of the successive plans.
The plans for the "Sentinel" system were shown to our Minister of National Defence in April 1967, five months before the public announcement by Mr. MacNamara. We have studied the implications of such a system to Canada.
I wish to state that the Canadian government has been well aware of the potential importance of A.B.M. for several years, and has received the co-operation of the United States government in provision of the technical information necessary to enable us to make our own assessments of the benefits, dangers and implications of successive developments.
The objectives of the new United States system have been stated as protection of their land based retaliatory forces against a direct attack by the U.S.S.R.; defence of the American people against an attack from China, and protection against an accidental launching of a missile from any source. They have not requested that any of the defensive equipment be located in Canada. We believe from our analysis that it would be possible for a system located south of the border to afford protection to a number of population centres north of the border, if the defensive plan and the firing doctrine so provide, but we have not requested that this be done.
The new Safeguard system makes use of the same components as Sentinel, which consisted of two radars; the Perimeter Acquisition Radar (PAR) and the Missile Site Radar (M.S.R.) and two anti-missile weapons: The Spartan and the Sprint.
March 19, 1969
6860	COMMONS DEBATES
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada
An attacking I.C.B.M. is expected to be first observed over the polar regions by the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (B.M.E.W.S.). It will subsequently be acquired and tracked by the PAR which has a long range capability of more than 1,000 miles. Information is then passed to control posts where computers process the data and, on receipt of a firing order, the M.S.R. guides the Spartan missile to make its intercept.
The Spartan missile has a horizontal range of about 400 miles with a somewhat shorter vertical range. The effectiveness of Spartan depends on the detonation of a very large nuclear warhead in the near-vacuum of outer space.
The Sprint missile complements the Spartan system by making its interceptions lower than Spartan, and can destroy I.C.B.M.s in their final approaches to the target. Sprint has a much shorter range than Spartan, being able to reach about 35 miles from the launch site. Because the intercept occurs at low altitude, Sprint has a very much smaller warhead yield than the Spartan.
If long range "Spartan" A.B.M. missiles, sited near the Canadian border, were fired against ballistic missiles approaching U.S. targets from the north, it is probable that some of their defensive nuclear warheads would explode above Canadian territory. These explosions would occur well above the atmosphere where the Spartans are designed to destroy or neutralize the I.C.B.M. warheads so that they could not detonate. Spartans are programmed to make their interceptions at a high enough altitude to prevent damage to people living beneath the bursts'.
In contrast, if the attacking missiles were to penetrate to their intended targets and burst on the ground, very heavy fallout would ensue, which would be spread by the winds over a large area of the United States and Canada. Consequently, from the point of view of fallout, the presence of the defensive system is a distinct advantage if you accept the possibility of a nuclear exchange. Contrary to popular belief the fallout resulting from high altitude nuclear bursts does not constitute a more serious hazard than that to which we have already been subjected during nuclear tests in the atmosphere.
The shorter range Sprint A.B.M. missiles would also be burst at altitudes high enough to avoid serious damage to populated areas on the ground, but it is unlikely that they would have sufficient range to reach as far as the

Canadian border in the new Safeguard deployment.
Under unfavourable conditions where the Spartan engages the I.C.B.M. below the minimum designed altitude over Canada, the following harmful effects could be possible, but the possibility of these occurring would be very small: some fires might be started in inflammable material; anyone who had skin directly exposed to the burst might receive burns; some window breakage would be apt to occur, and possible temporary flash blindness might take place.
These results are very minor compared with the casualties which would result in the vicinity of the target, or indeed over a wide area in the event that the attacking missile burst on the ground and produced widespread fallout.


An hon. Member:: Would Colonel Blimp rout them?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: You do not understand what I am trying to prove to you.


An hon. Member:: We have heard this before.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: You know all about it. You are a critic, but what have you to offer?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister will perhaps remember the Bomarc missile which was going to "cook" the warheads so there would be no fallout. That theory has been completely discredited.


An hon. Member:: By whom?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I simply hope-


An hon. Member:: By James Eayrs.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: -that the foregoing will prove helpful to the house, and to some people outside the house, in their appreciation of the complexities and significance of what we are talking about in respect of this defensive system. This is the only contribution I wanted to make. I think some factual information is necessary in this particular debate.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: First of all, may I thank him for giving the house some solid information. I
March 19, 1969	COMMONS
ask the minister whether there is any information that he has felt it necessary to have in this regard that he has not been able to get from the United States.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Do I understand the question correctly, Mr. Speaker-whether there was any information we requested that we did not get?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Any information the minister feels he needs to assess this matter which he has not been able to get from the United States.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, I would not say so. I think we secured all the information that we needed. As a matter of fact, there is a joint committee of the armed forces that has been studying these problems.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we could rejoice that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will be able to go to Washington with a copy of Hansard for the President.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: But this is a serious matter and I think it really proves the usefulness of the rule under which we are having this debate. It is perhaps a pity that this parliament has not taken the next step in the educative process and allowed television into the house so that what we do here, badly or well, can be shared with the people of Canada.
The Prime Minister said that Canadians are involved in this and other issues as world citizens in that science has made us all neighbours. Because I understand some things better than I do science, I can recall a speech made by the former President of the United States, President Kennedy, in New Brunswick, when he quoted the poetry of Robert Frost who said that good fences make good neighbours. I presume this is really what is behind the trip of the Prime Minister to Washington; and he goes, I am sure, with the good will of this parliament.
While I am dispensing good will, if that is of any value to anybody, I think it is an opportunity to say how much we welcome back the leader of the New Democratic party, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). In his first really crunching debate he has had some success in getting you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that it is important for Canada to have the discussion in which we are involved. He said that
29180-435a
DEBATES	6861
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada the problem is the most important one of our age. Perhaps he would agree that we did not come across that truth today; we came across it some 25 years ago when science made the implications of the atom so evident to the world.
It is a difficult debate because I think we cannot be like the Pharisee and stand in this parliament and say: Thank God we are not as other men. That is perhaps a temptation we have often in this country when we think about our relations with the United States. The debate is difficult because really what we are being asked to do is provide some sort of a sound-track for the Prime Minister when he meets next week with the President. I suppose it would be easy to bring out a series of editorials and comments from the United States press, as well as commentators upon that press who are in this country, and make a contribution to our understanding of international affairs. But I have resisted that temptation because I do not think it adds very much to an assessment that we have to make. What information, for instance, could I give that would help the leaders of the two countries next week?
I think it is important to remember that the debate is not by any means over in the United States. In spite of the President's decision, he has not any money allocated, yet, and two of the most important Senate committees, the foreign relations committee and the defence committee, are even now arguing about which one will have the responsibility of considering the President's decision.
I suppose many of us heard Senator Ful-bright just this past Sunday in what seemed to me to be a compelling recapitulation of evidence that had been given by three distinguished scientists in the United States which showed, according to the scientists and to Senator Fulbright's comment on what they said, how ineffective really is the A.B.M. system. It is fair to say that many thoughtful people, on the basis of the information they can gather, share that view.
We as Canadian parliamentarians watch the debate, share the concern of the United States and choose our sides even here, as do, presumably, people who have different views even though they are within the same party. But I wonder if we send urgent messages to Washington suggesting that, as a matter of judgment, President Nixon is right or wrong. I am glad that other speakers have mentioned the supremely important work being undertaken by Mr. George Ignatieff at Geneva. It is
March 19, 1969
6862	COMMONS
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada here that I hope the Prime Minister will be able to remind the President, if in fact he needs any reminding, of where the on-going work of the world needs to be done; because surely nobody, not even the President, can take very much satisfaction in the fact that he felt compelled to take the decision he did last Friday. We wonder at any country being able to commit so much of its treasure, in spite of what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) has said. I think perhaps he was answering another speaker. But it seems to me that $7 billion is a fair amount of money to spend on an untested system. However, I will leave that to others to judge.
The other thing I think it is important to underline is that escalation, of course, is a two-way manifestation and that just as we worry about what may be happening in Washington, so too our urgent concern must be as to what the response will be in Moscow.
I think we want the President of the United States to know that, as was so interestingly put the other day by Mr. Escott Reid, a distinguished citizen of this country, really the major problems that we face as a country, and in fact many people in the world share our concern, in the next 20 years are first those with regard to the People's Republic of China with her 700 million people, now outside the ordinary diplomatic ambit of so much of the world community and outside what should be a world body with universality of membership.
[DOT] (9:50 D.m.)
Second, and other speakers have spoken of this, two thirds of the peoples of this earth, if they have any knowledge of this debate about the United States and A.B.M., must wonder about countries that can talk about billions of dollars worth of hardware when they, themselves, in fact have not enough money to feed themselves.
The Montreal Star published a series of articles on its 100th anniversary about the human condition in 1969. One of them, written by Paul Ricoeur contained a paragraph that might be appropriate. He wrote:
War is the most immediate expression of political violence, because it is the most obvious form of it. The phenomenon of war results from the fact that the State exists historically only because it is the result of a particular will, ... States on the international scene, may be compared to individuals, for both are capable of violence; but whereas the violence of individuals is limited by the existence of laws backed by public force, States behave historically as individuals who no longer recognize any law other than their own arbitrary 

will. They will continue to do so until an international law, backed up by an international force, will impose itself on the wishes of each individual state.
These words could have been said by so many of our leaders. As a matter of fact they were said by the former prime minister, although not in quite the same language, in Mr. Pearson's Reith lectures this spring.
Paul Ricoeur went on to say:
We are very far indeed from this world state which presupposes a major revolution in human relations;-
The tragedy is, it seems to me, that we know that this is so and that we know that it is within the mind and wisdom of man to do this thing. It has been clearly and compellingly stated many times for many years. Paul Ricoeur went on:
-up till now, and for thousands of years, men have identified themselves with the nation to which they belong; and these nations, organized into states, become centres of decision-making and figure on the stage of history as strong-willed and arbitrary individuals. No one knows how humanity will be able to rise above the stage of nation and nation-state and invent "the perpetual peace" dreamed of by the 18th century philosophers.
It may be that the dreams of the 18th century philosophers can become reality, perhaps not in the 20th century but we are fairly close to the 21st.
The Prime Minister mentioned Barbara Ward who, I suppose, better than most other people on earth, articulates the real problems of our day. I thought I would quote what that special person said at Expo in her Noranda lecture, but others will want to speak tonight, so I will indulge in the ultimate vanity and quote no one other than myself from a talk which I gave at a seminar at Couchiching on U.S.-Canada relations. The part I will quote is short, but it seemed to me to be a valid ending to a comment on this terribly urgent issue. This is what I said:
Most of the issues that face Washington and Ottawa are parallel. We have an obsession about this independence bit,-
I must confess that this was said extemporaneously, as will be seen.
-and I think that the obsession's in danger of being elevated into a cult.
A second prejudice I have is about those super lovers of everything which emanates from Washington.
There are two sides to this. There are those Who are ready to say: "We are ready. If Washington tells us to do something we salute
March 19, 1969

and march off". There is no place for that either in this country. I went on to say:
The third prejudice is about those who have the simple view that the world is just a matter of polarization, those espousing communism and those who favour free enterprise.
It is not quite that easy, as we have been reminded many times before.
So, as we pursue this debate on our relations with the United States of America and on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, we might remember that sometimes we do niot want to be independent of a person who said not so long ago when speaking of international commitments that there were dangers. He said that the first is that of futility, the belief that there is nothing that one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills, against misery, against ignorance, against injustice or against violence. He said the second great danger is that of the expediency of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessity. He said that the third great danger for countries that are pretty self satisfied as we are, is comfort, the temptation to follow easy and familiar paths of personal ambition, financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of education. Those were the words of the late Senator Robert Kennedy, and we do not want to be independent of those views in our search for a sensible and reasonable response to the United States as she faces, as my leader said, awful responsibilities.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate on what I think is perhaps the most important issue that is facing Canada and the world, that is the question of nuclear arms proliferation, where the world goes from here, and the general attitudes and policies that we should follow as a nation in trying to promote a harmonious world.
To begin with, I should like to quote a paragraph from a book entitled "The Violent Peace" which contains a chapter entitled "What is Peace". I think this is a good introduction to a debate of this sort. It reads as follows:
The choice between peace and war Is as basic to mankind as the choice between life and death. In the past few thousand years, man, one of many species, has pre-empted the earth; In the last 100 years he has proceeded from the internal combustion engine to the hydrogen bomb to flights into space. Still, the roots of war are deep in his heart, lodged in fear, ambition, a thirst for vengeance, hate. Since every human being lives with these
DEBATES	6863
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada emotions day by day, the "absence" of them is difficult to conceive. But if true peace is a quality "which passeth all understanding", it is nevertheless the only alternative to death.
I think this, in itself, demonstrates the importance to Canada of a debate such as this. I think it also brings out our responsibility as members of parliament on an issue of this sort to try to dismantle what I call the powder keg that we have in the world today. Many people, especially in my generation, are concerned about this in many different ways and for different reasons, merely because I believe we share some characteristics that were not found in other generations. First of all, today many young people were born after many of the international disasters and troubles that have hit the industrial states, such as the great depression and the second world war. They were born after many revolutions such as the revolution in Russia and the civil war in Spain. They were born into a world that has a fair amount of material wealth and stability. Moreover, they have been born into the nuclear age with all its ramifications. They were born after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They saw the destructive potential of nuclear bombs and nuclear energy; they were made aware of the uncertainty of life and realized the frustration which this brings.
o (10:00 p.m.)
This is why so many young people are protesting. They are protesting against the uncertainty which is being created not only for themselves but for generations which are to follow. Their historical imagination is not bound by the past. Young people have an unhibited sense of the future and it is this concern for the future which sets their standard for the present.
Today we are relying basically on a balance of terror which seems to be threatening the world on all sides. It is ludicrous that we can reach into space when we cannot reach out to fellow human beings to try to understand them, or do much to improve conditions for those who live in deprived circumstances. There are many contradictions in our society. For example, we stockpile weapons-the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) spoke about this tonight-we talk about new weapons and new technology, and we do this in the name of peace, in the name of promoting some kind of stalemate supposed to lead to security. Meanwhile, there is evidence of poverty in our society, evidence of growing
March 19, 1969
6864	COMMONS
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada disparities in living standards and increasing discrimination. We compromise constantly in the name of efficiency.


An hon. Member:: All right. Let us have some answers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We talk about communication, yet we refuse to communicate. We talk about co-operation but we refuse to co-operate. We talk about the equality of man, yet we live by the law of the survival of the fittest.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), for example, talked about Canada and the United States having consulted each other for years over these questions. On the other hand, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tells us we do not have enough information because we have not been consulted. This type of thing happens constantly. For instance, in the Ottawa Journal of March 18 I noticed a little article which said under the heading "Nixon seeks A.B.M. talks with Russia":
President Nixon informed the 17-country disarmament conference today the United States hopes to start talks with the Soviet Union in the near future on limiting anti-ballistic missile systems.
His remarks came in a message to the first session of the talks after a seven-month recess.
As I say, there is talk about co-operation but in practice we do not find co-operation. Because of these and other contradictions in our society young people say this amounts to a betrayal not only of their generation but of people in general.
This is the situation which prompted me to take part in the debate tonight. The action we are now discussing is regressive. The A.B.M. system would increase tension in the world, it would increase polarization, it would increase the animosities of the cold war, it would increase hatred and perpetuate fear instead of promoting a sense of security and understanding. It is a betrayal because it runs counter to some of the basic principles of life; the need to understand people, to co-operate with them and to communicate. It polarizes the world, it strengthens the force of regional pacts. It destroys the bridges which have been built toward understanding and toward trying to avoid a nuclear war. It causes the nuclear build-up to escalate and makes the whole country a powder keg. I hope the Prime Minister will confirm the statement he made a few days ago to the effect that the most important issue at stake here was the peace of the world as a total entity. I hope he does so because today, as a result of advances in
IMr. Nystrom.]

technology, economics and communications, national boundaries have lost their old significance and nations are becoming increasingly interdependent.
For reasons such as these I believe we should ask a great many basic questions when we consider the A.B.M. system. We should ask what effect this system is likely to have on the military objectives of Canada and the world. We should ask what effect it is likely to have on the security of our country and the world, what effect it is likely to have upon the creation of a saner world, upon progress toward the eradication of poverty and the promotion of understanding and concern for each other. Canada is bound to be concerned about military objectives and the military aspects of the A.B.M. system. This must be so because we are members of NORAD. For this reason I believe we should take part in consultation with the United States. After all, we have a joint security plan and for this reason it is necessary for us to communicate with our neighbours. We should also be concerned by reason of our many political and economic ties with the United States. There is, too, the fact that Canada finds herself unfortunately between the two mightiest nations in the world in terms of military power, the Soviet Union and the United States. There should, therefore, be constant communication and consultation between our two nations as long as we have a joint military and production policy.
Another aspect is that we are close to the United States border, and when that country instals A.B.M. bases on its frontier the implications are alarming. What effect would this have on civilians in Canada? I think we have yet to learn all the answers; the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs all seem to give us different information on this point. In my view, each of us should be concerned about the kind of choice which might be available between the A.B.M. system and NORAD. We all want to know whether this system will be integrated. We also want to know why we have been ignored in many of the preliminary consultations. In general, a system of the type proposed leads only to escalation instead of to accord and harmony. I should like to quote a paragraph from an article by Jerome Wiesner, former science advisor to President Kennedy:
We always underestimate our own capabilities and overestimate those of the other fellow. I think this is true of both sides, and it generates what X call a parallax effect. That is, if the Russians
March 19, 1969

build a defensive system, we think it is better than it is, so we overbuild in order to penetrate it, and vice versa. Thus there is the real possibility that when everything is stabilized at some higher level and we are all relaxed because we have become used to it, the potential for destruction will have gone up instead of down.
This is what continuous escalation leads to.
I guess there is truth in the old saying that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. It is this fear which contributes to the stockpiling of weapons throughout the world and the proliferation of arms. Worst of all, it polarizes the world community into two separate blocs as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) mentioned.
What is the over-all effect of the A.B.M. system on national security and on world security? As I have said before, it will be to create difficulties rather than to solve them. We are proceeding on the basis of might being right, rather than in the direction in which the younger generation want to see us move. Why should there be any need for the A.B.M. system? Some would say it is required to preserve the balance of power for the protection of the United States. But whenever a balance is reached there is escalation on one side or the other. The weapons are built up, and some day someone will flip the switch and the powder keg will explode.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The United States has also introduced this A.B.M. system because it is afraid of communism and wishes to combat it this way. Third, and most important, certain industries that supply the military in the United States wish to keep the United States a military nation. May I first talk about my second point, the reason for the United States to introduce this A.B.M. system. As I said, part of the reason is fear of communism. I know hon. members opposite have interjected to the effect, "Does Russia consult us?" Of course, they do not. Russia will never consult us while the present atmosphere of distrust prevails. We ought to create some sort of understanding among the world community. We should try to avoid polarizing the world into east and west, communist and non-communist.


An hon. Member:: But they have socialists in Russia.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That kind of remark coming from one of the hon. members for the Windsor area helps to polarize the world and keeps the world in a state of perpetual fear. That is
DEBATES	6865
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada why we are living today in a state of perpetual insecurity.
Commenting on this question, an article in the Globe and Mail of February 7, 1969, said the following:
-Insurance against a Chinese attack upon Canada is best provided not by its participation in any U.S. so-called 'Chinese-oriented' BMD system (deploying Spartans and Sprints in the point-defense of Greater Vancouver), not by any other military preparations. It is best provided by political measures-recognition of the People's Republic and the conclusion with its Government of a Canadian-Chinese non-aggression pact.
That is what I should like to see happen. We need to bring China into the international community, try to understand her and communicate with her. When you leave a quarter of the world's population outside the international community, you will only have trouble and insecurity in the world.
Instead of spending so much money on weapons we should be spending more money on trying to feed the hungry part of the world and upgrading their living standards. U Thant said that as long as we have hungry people and suffering in the world, we will not have peace and security. If we were hungry in this country, I am sure we, too, would be restless.
Some of our people keep saying that the Chinese are irrational and when they have sufficiently developed their new weapons they will lob them on New York or Washington. I say that we ought to understand the Chinese, bring them into the world community and consult them. Many leading congressmen and senators in the United States are now talking in this direction. They say United States defence policy ought to be revamped.
Writing in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 3, 1968, Air Vice Marshal Bob Cameron had the following to say:
The arguments Mr. McNamara used to oppose his military chiefs may make good theoretical sense. (I happen to agree with them.) But I very much fear that ABM defence is like many other gadgets in the shop window these days. They can be expensive, of doubtful value, and seldom required. But having been invented, they seem to sell.
That may be why the A.B.M. system is being installed in the United States. I sometimes think that maybe the end of the Viet Nam war is in sight and some industrial giants in the United States supplying military hardware may be worried about where they can earn money in future. Producing an A.B.M. system will bring them a great deal of revenue.
March 19, 1999
6866	COMMONS DEBATES
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada
I ask, where do we go from here? How can we prevent this polarization of the world into two factions? What can we do to make sure that some money now spent on defence goes to feeding the hungry of the world? We ought to work towards the creation of a viable world community. I should like to see us withdrawing from all regional military pacts such as NATO and NORAD. If we do, Canada could become the leader of the middle powers. Our action may even prompt Warsaw pact and SEATO treaty nations to diminish their armed forces. We could be instrumental in building bridges toward understanding and communication in the world. Our action could lead to a better life for all the peoples of the world. That is the direction in which we must go if there is to be a future for us and our children.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister to consider some of these matters when talking to the President of the United States next Monday. I conclude my remarks appropriately by quoting a paragraph from a speech Senator Rabi gave. He said:
A country is more than its economic capacity or its material possessions. It has a personal, spiritual, psychological side-it is a culture.
Those of us who are teachers and close to young people know the degree to which they have been alienated by all this expenditure on military things. When they see the government putting out tremendous sums of money for military purposes, and then observe the government's reluctance to invest in the solution of domestic human problems, they see a reorientation of our national policy which they believe is turning us into a garrison state. If I have any trust in the American people, I can't believe they will stand for it much longer.
I plead with the government to re-examine our defence policy and foreign policy in general.


Mitchell William Sharp: will have upon east-west relations. One of the most important and encouraging developments in the past several years has been the willingness of the United States and Soviet Union to begin talks on the issues which divide them, particularly on the problems of arms control and on major political differences such as exist in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Only a few months ago we were all much more optimistic than we are today, before the Soviet and Warsaw Pact invasions of Czechoslovakia, but we are beginning to see hope for the resumption of these talks.
No country has been more active than Canada in pressing the cause of disarmament.
I would like to join with others in paying tribute to George Ignatieff, our ambassador in Geneva, who is now heading our talks. I would also pay tribute to General Burns, who retired last week.
We played an important part in the long negotiations leading to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and were among the first countries to ratify it.
It is encouraging that both the United States and the Soviet Union, in their opening statements to the disarmament committee, have shown evidence of serious intention to seek further measures of arms limitation and control. It is obviously in our interests and those of all mankind that Canada should seek in every way to help bring these intensions to fruition. This we will certainly do.
The question that people are naturally asking at this time is whether the prospects for these talks will be jeopardized by the United States decision on A.B.M.'s. On this score, I am not prepared to draw hasty or pessimistic conclusions.
What seems undeniable, however, is that the United States government is serious in its desire to enter into these discussions with the Soviet Union. Just the other day, Mr. Nixon said that it would be the policy of his administration to make the transition from confrontation to negotiation. The President's decision on A.B.M.'s must be seen in the light of his earlier declared intention to seek nego-tation with the Soviet Union. Moreover, the President, in the course of his official announcement, made the following statement on the question whether the beginning of construction of an A.B.M. system would complicate an agreement on strategic arms with the Soviet Union. This is what President Nixon said:
X do not believe that evidence of the recent past bears out this contention. Soviet interest in strategic
DEBATES	6867
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada talks was not deterred by the decision of the previous administration to deploy the Sentinel A.B.M. system-in fact, it was formally announced shortly afterwards. I believe that the modifications we have made in the previous program will give the U.S.S.R. even less reason to view our defence effort as an obstacle to talks. Moreover, I wish to emphasize-
I think it is important that hon. members bear this in mind.
-that in any arms limitation talks with the U.S.S.R. the United States will be fully prepared to discuss limitations on defensive as well as offensive weapons systems.
I interpret this to mean the A.B.M. system itself.
As evidence that we may not be faced with an escalation, the Soviet representative at the opening session of the 18 nation disarmament conference at Geneva yesterday made no reference whatever to the President's decision on the A.B.M., but did indicate the Soviet Union's continuing interest on talks of limitation of strategic weapons. I think we can draw some encouragement that this particular announcement by President Nixon may not have the effects some of us fear.
I now turn to some of the considerations for Canada. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has pointed out, Canada cannot divorce its interests from those of the remainder of mankind in this matter. We are not only talking about the defence of Canada and the defence of our cities, but the effect of fallout from an explosion of a missile which by that time would be fired at us. What we are talking about is whether we can maintain peace in the world. Very often when I listen to debate on defence and foreign policies, it appears as though we were fighting 19th century wars. The whole purpose of any defensive system nowadays is that it shall never be used.
If the A.B.M. will contribute to the stability of the nuclear balance, if it will at the same time not prejudice the talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of strategic weapons, the benefits are evenly shared. There are, of course, some preoccupations peculiar to Canada. It has been suggested that Canadian permission might be required because some of these missiles might be exploded above Canada.
As I said earlier today, there has been no specific request to Canada from the United States government asking for permission to use our air space. If they do proceed with their A.B.M. system, I have no doubt but that
March 19, 1969
6868	COMMONS DEBATES
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada they will seek our permission, if permission is required. Depending on the nature of the system, our permission may or may hot be required. It depends where the system is to be located and how high up the missiles are to be encountered in space. We do not know whether our space is involved. Let me remind the house, as the Prime Minister did, that whatever the legal or scientific position might be, it should not be forgotten that, if it ever became necessary to employ A.B.M.'s over Canadian territory, we would at that moment already be in as great or even greater jeopardy from the missile or missiles which the A.B.M.'s were directed to destroy.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Ini other words, Mr. Speaker, if this system is ever called to bat the game is over and mankind has lost. The question has been asked whether Canada would have any influence on the employment of these weapons. At this point I asked the Leader of the New Democratic party if he thought we should seek to have influence. I went on to ask him if he wanted us to be allies of the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I understood his reply, he supported the proposition that we should be allies and friends of the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are, whether we want to be.


Mitchell William Sharp: Then, he said we are allies in NORAD and NATO. These are the words he used.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is right.


Mitchell William Sharp: I understand from this conversation that the leader of the New Democratic party has in fact returned to the position that he once took on these matters, and from which he seems to have departed in recent months and years, because otherwise how could we have the influence he wants us to have unless we were allies and friends in NATO and NORAD?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot put words in my mouth. If the minister is going to quote me, I suggest he quote from the blues and not from his

memory which may not always be too retentive. When the minister asked me, what I said was that we are allies and friends under both NATO and NORAD. The minister asked me if I supported that. As long as it is an agreement Canada signed of course I have to support it as a member of this house, but I am perfectly prepared to debate with the minister at any time whether or not we should continue to be in those agreements. However, as long as Canada is a signatory to those agreements, then as a citizen of this country of course I must support them.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am very glad that at least on the one point, the leader of the New Democratic party recognizes that it is within these alliances that we can have this influence. If he wants us to have this influence, all I say is that he should return to the position he took some years ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the minister's position with reference to NATO and NORAD? He is in the government. Is the government going to stay in them?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not questioned our membership in NATO and NORAD.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister has.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, the Prime Minister has asked questions about whether we should continue in NATO and NORAD.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what I am questioning.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, the hon. gentleman, on his part, has taken the view that we should not be in NATO or NORAD.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would request that these remarks be directed through the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the minister think about NATO?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, through you, I want to ask the minister if he is in favour-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the member asking the minister a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, I am rising to ask the minister a question. I ask him if in his opinion the
March 19, 1969

government should renew the NATO agreement when the question of renewal comes up this year. Since he is asking the opposition where they stand, I would like to know where the government stands.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we shall make our announcement in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was going on to point out that the leader of the New Democratic party seems to be contradicting the position he has taken on so many occasions. Indeed, if I may I would like to recall some words he used not so many years ago when he said this on April 3, 1939, before the outbreak of the Second World War. Let me read what he said on that occasion, and which still applies equally well today. This was on the verge of a world war that he wanted to avoid. I quote:
The second principle in collective peace action is the willingness of the nations who desire peace to act collectively, not to maintain the status quo hut to act collectively to make any resort to force an unprofitable venture-such collective action will involve sacrifice. I admit that, but I do submit that the sacrifices will be infinitesimal compared to the sacrifices that would follow from another world war-
Those are words I agree with, and I hope the hon. gentleman will support collective action as much today as he did in those days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? Is it not true I was speaking there about the League of Nations, and I would speak the same way now of the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: You were talking about collective action to make any resort to force an unprofitable venture, and that means the kind of defensive alliances1 we are in today which do make a resort to force an unprofitable venture.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Don't try to convince us; convince the Prime Minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: For the past two years there have, in fact, been continuing discussions, largely between officials of our two governments, on United States plans for the Sentinel System, the predecessor of the new system, as described by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux).
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada
During these discussions we had the opportunity to express our concern about the implication for Canada of those plans. In particular, we drew attention to the vital importance in any deployment arrangements of ensuring that A.B.M.'s were sited and aimed in such a way as to minimize damaging effects in Canada. We shall now, of course, do this in the new circumstances arising out of the announcement made by the President the other day about the abandonment of the Sentinel system in favour of the new system. Safeguard is a new system based on a revised concept. The Sentinel System was different. We had ample information on that system. We now need to know whether all that information is still relevant to the new system, and we think it probably is with respect to fall out and damage from burst. But this is what the Prime Minister will be discussing with the President next week.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be agreed by all members of the house, regardless of their political persuasions, that as we listened to the Prime Minister tonight, speaking quietly and eloquently about his concern for mankind, we felt re-assured that he will be talking for Canada with the President of the United States on these matters that affect so much the destiny of all of us.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) tonight I am sure that many hon. members must have been reminded of the debates that took place in the British House of Commons during the 1930's. It was said by many at that time that there could not be another war, that there would be no defence against the bombers of that day. There were many arguments against rearmament and the taking of stronger defensive measures. The result was that Britain did not keep abreast of the times in her defence commitments.
Later, at the Nuremberg trials, the testimony of the German generals revealed that it was this fact that prompted Hitler to start his offensive against the world. It was because Britain in particular was so weak defensively that he waged war. In other words, it was anticipated by Hitler that there was no power strong enough to deal with an all-out offensive by Germany. This deterrent factor is the same issue that we are talking about tonight, a deterrent factor in the name of peace.
March 19, 1969
6870	COMMONS DEBATES
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada
I would also like to say to hon. members, particularly members of the New Democratic party, that some of us have to be realistic. We cannot all be dreamers. I would also suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that rather than direct the questions he did tonight to the Leader of the N.D.P. it would benefit Canada much more if he directed his questions to his own Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They say there is no difference. There is one difference; I think it is mathematically impossible for the leader of the N.D.P. to ever sit in that seat, having in mind the time he has left in this house. The present Prime Minister is supposed to speak for Canada. To my knowledge he has not given the Canadian people the benefit of the decision his cabinet has made in respect of this issue, and in fact in respect of the whole issue of continental defence, in which I think we must all admit we are involved.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
I had not planned to take part in this discussion because I do not believe there is any more substance to it than the other favourite topics raised periodically by our socialist friends to my left. But as a result of listening to the tenor of some of the remarks which have been made I feel compelled to rise and place before you a point of view which I believe is shared by a great many Canadians.
I believe we all admit that no one wants another war. Certainly, those who have taken part in a past war would be the last to want to participate in another. No one wants Canada to be a battleground. No one wants bombs or missiles which possibly would be intended for other countries to come down on our own country. We do not want anything of that type to burst over Canadian soil. There is, however, a vast difference between what we want and what could actually happen. The plain fact of the matter is we cannot be our own masters because of our geographical and political position.
Defensive theories have changed since the advent of nuclear arms. These theories have not actually been tested yet. We are, or should be, partners whether we like it or not. Our past commitments have made us partners in a continental defence. The question the Canadian people are asking today is whether we are going to live up to these commitments. I believe that if we are not going to do this then it is time our present Prime Minister told not only the people of Canada but our previous partners about these continental

commitments. This house can pass all the pious resolutions it wishes and the government of Canada can make all the self-righteous protests it wants, but the fact remains that the world's dominant nations will not be listening. We are powerless to change the course of whatever events may lie in store for us.
It actually means little to the major powers of the world whether the Canadian Prime Minister makes up his mind tonight, next week or a month from now. I believe it is about time this country stopped pussy-footing. It is about time we stood up and were counted. Either we want freedom enough to fight for it or we do not. Right now, I would wager that no one in the world knows exactly what Canada wants or what we, as a nation, are willing to do. Certainly, I as a member of the official opposition in this house, do not know what the present policy is of this government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How could you know; there isn't one.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In fact tonight, after listening to the speech of the Prime Minister, after listening to the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) and after listening to the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) it would seem to me that there has been no co-operation and no co-ordination in respect of what they all believe.
Surely, after the questions which have been asked in this house for the last several days with regard to what the United States authorities have told the Canadian government, this must have been known to the Prime Minister. The Minister of National Defence said he has had this information for weeks. He read it out to the house. He even knew the specifics about the Spartan and the Sprint. He mentioned 400 miles. I am informed that the minimum range of the Spartan is 75 miles. If it is 400 miles then we in Canada should be concerned, particularly western Canadians.
There was never before in our history this uncertainty. In two world wars Canadians fought for those things they wanted and believed to be right. Other nations were in no doubt concerning where Canada stood. I grant that today the face of warfare has changed to such an extent that it may no longer be practical for a small nation such as ours to contribute directly to the expensive and sophisticated techniques of nuclear missile
March 19. 1969

intercontinental warfare. We may be an inconsequential item in democracy's armoury this time, but at least we can do those things which are within our power to do in an effort to assist those who lead the cause in which we believe or are supposed to believe.
We can contribute and we can fight to that extent. There can be no doubt that the United States of America is the champion of those things which we, as a nation, wish to preserve, individual liberty, political freedom, the rule of law and democratic government. Much legitimate criticism can be levelled at our neighbour, but surely no Canadian in his right mind can equate the United States and the Communist colossus equally in terms of Canada's interests. We may have neither the men nor the missiles to give direct assistance in battle, but there are many things we can do to help ensure that our friends and allies have the best chance possible in a showdown. One of the most important of these I suggest is to help and not hinder the United States in those measures which that country sincerely believes are essential to her and our defence.
If it were up to me, I would be in Washington today pressing the United States government to instal more of these anti-ballistic missile sites much farther north, in our northern and Arctic territory. If there must be nuclear explosions of the type suggested by some people perhaps it would be better if these explosions took place over our Arctic or even farther away over Soviet Siberia. I think that would please us in western Canada much more.
There is an unpleasant, mean-spirited theory current today in this country that we can have our cake and eat it too; that is, that we can enjoy all the benefits of having a guardian without doing anything to help him. Some promoters of this theory go even further. They would even hold his arm when it is raised to ward off a blow. This criticism of the United States defence plans is part and parcel of a new and most unsavoury national stance that Canada has adopted ever since 1963 when the present government came to power. This stance has resulted in Canada's reputation abroad hitting rock bottom.
I suggest that the recent public questioning of our relations with NATO have spread dismay and disgust among Europeans and Americans alike. We have given the appearance of wanting all the benefits of a defensive alliance without being willing to pay part of the bill. We only offend by our preaching, our "holier than thou" attitude and criticism. In
DEBATES	6871
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada this instance, we have not even been asked to pay anything. It seems to me that Canada will have to make up its mind whether it is proCommunist or pro-democratic. I think we should do that soon. India and several other countries have shown the futility of trying to form a third group. We have only one choice, which is to be for or against our own history. If we are for the free world, if we stand with the western democratic nations still, then in God's name let us say so clearly, loudly and in unmistakable terms.
Our present posture of questioning and doubt can do only a disservice to our friends and a greater disservice to Canada. If we do stand with the west, then let us make up our minds to shoulder the burden and the responsibility that that stance entails. We may not like the role circumstances force upon us. We may question methods and quibble about details; but if we stand for what we say we stand for we have no choice but to go along with those who call the shots for our side by virtue of their vastly greater financial, military and political abilities and sacrifices.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
If we stand with the west, then we stand with the United States. If we stand with the United States we do our part, even if this part is small and negative, amounting to nothing more than desisting from destructive criticism and petty nagging. It might be well for those who today are carping at the United States for adopting this anti-missile defence system to remember that it was the Soviet Union which set the example in this regard. It was the Soviet Union which erected a similar system around its capital and broadly hinted that additions would soon make their territory invulnerable.
I would simply ask that the critics of the action of the United States consider one question. Where would Canada be and where would those hon. members be if the Soviet Union alone was invulnerable to attack by I.C.B.M.s, and thus able to dictate terms to the free world? It may be that there are some Canadians who wish this were so, and who look for the day of a Communist triumph. They might welcome worldwide domination by the Kremlin. That would at least give some logical basis to some of the arguments and criticism we have heard in respect of United States action.
Those Canadians who sincerely wish to see national freedom and individual liberty preserved have no other choice but to stand or
March 19, 1969

Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada fall with the United States. When your life is being protected it seems not only extremely petty but actually idiotic to quibble about the manner in which your saviour is doing it.
Not very long ago we heard the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) move a motion to adjourn the regular business of the house to consider a matter requiring urgent public consideration. In part he said:
-given this fact plus the broader world danger implication, that the construction of this A.B.M. system may further escalate the nuclear arms race-
This statement made me wonder why he or some other member in his party did not move a similar motion in the early 1960's when the U.S.S.R. announced the construction of its defensive missile system. I think the hon. member was here at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since I have been asked a question-


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will let you answer later on, since I have two or three questions to ask.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has the floor.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to answer that question now, Mr. Speaker, but I have several other questions I should like to ask first.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member should either not ask questions or, if he does, he should let an hon. member answer. He asked me why I did not refer to this matter in 1960. My answer is that I was not in the house in 1960.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. If there is time later, the hon. member will have an opportunity to answer.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I fail to understand the point of order. I think the hon. member completely ignored the fact that he will have an opportunity later on to answer this question plus the others I wish to ask. In any event, there was no cry from the hon. member at that time about the further escalation of the nuclear arms race, and there was no cry from any other member of his party. There was no protest from that party about the escalation of nuclear power by Russia and other socialist

countries when it was announced that the U.S.S.R. had 67 of these Galosh sites deployed near and around Moscow. I did not hear any member of the N.D.P. protest this action at that time.


An hon. Member:: They are from Russia, that's why.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I understand that the system in Russia is called the "Galosh system". Perhaps hon. members on the other side do not have their facts straight. Let me refer to another statement the hon. member made in support of this motion.
It is quite clear that the United States in deciding to construct this new A.B.M. system did not seek or obtain the Canadian government's permission for such thermonuclear missile flights over Canada, which means that interception would take over Canadian territory causing extensive nuclear fallout.
Such a statement means that the hon. member is aware of at least two facts about this matter. First, he is aware that the American Spartan and Sprint missiles are purely defensive weapons. Secondly, he knows that there would have to be something to intercept before they would ever be fired. I should like a member of the N.D.P. to tell this house what these missiles are going to intercept. Perhaps they are going to intercept friendly missiles directed to the N.D.P. I should also like to ask the hon. member, when he insists we demand the United States get Canada's permission to establish their defensive system, whether it is not logical that we demand also that the U.S.S.R. and China get our permission to fire offensive missiles across our territory before they launch a nuclear attack against the United States.
Let me suggest that we should be realistic. As I said at the start and as everyone knows, such an undertaking would never be entertained. This is something that the N.D.P. fails to realize. History reveals that neutrality is respected by an aggressor nation only as long as it suits the aggressor's purposes.
Having regard to the first fact emphasized by the hon. member's motion that the Spartan and the Sprint-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house agree that the hon. member should continue?
March 19, 1969

Some hom. Members: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will not be very long, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to thank my colleagues in the house for this courtesy.
The United States is only protecting itself against a form of blackmail from any other country which feels it has a definite system that could not be penetrated by a retaliatory force, or against any nation that might feel by striking the first blow a victory might be secured. The United States is only protecting itself against blackmail. The president himself has said this is the case. The main purpose of the United States Safeguard system is to preserve the credibility of the United States and its capability, which is actually a deterrent. This is what we want.
The Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs made reference to the conference held by the President of the United States last Friday. Some of the points to which I should like to refer have been mentioned by other hon. members. I think it is of benefit to Canada and the Canadian people that the president of the United States made a statement in respect of protection to Canada. Let me read from the statement he made to show what I mean. The president indicated that there is no way we can adequately defend our cities without an unacceptable loss of lives. He also stated:
The program I am recommending is based on a careful assessment of the developing Soviet and Chinese threats.
He then went on to state:
Each phase of the deployment will be reviewed to insure that we are doing as much as necessary but no more than that required by the threat existing at that time.
The statement then goes on as follows:
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
Since our deployment is to be closely related to the threat, it is subject to modification as the threat changes, either through negotiations or through unilateral actions by the Soviet Union or communist China.
The program is not provocative. The Soviet retaliatory capability is not affected by our decision. The capability for surprise attack against our strategic forces is reduced. In other words, our program provides an incentive for a responsible Soviet weapons policy and for the avoidance of spiralling U.S. and Soviet strategic arms budgets-
Moreover, I wish to emphasize that in any arms limitation talks with the Soviet Union, the United States will be fully prepared to discuss limitations on defensive as well as offensive weapons systems-
This is why I am recommending a minimum program essential for our security-
DEBATES	6873
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada
I am announcing a decision which I believe is vital for the security and defence of the United States, and also in the interest of peace throughout the world-
It is a safeguard against any attack by the Chinese communists that we can foresee over the next ten years.
It is a safeguard of our deterrent system, which is increasingly vulnerable due to the advances that have been made by the Soviet Union since the year 1967 when the Sentinel program was first laid out.
It is a safeguard also against any irrational or accidental attack that might occur of less than massive magnitude which might be launched from the Soviet Union-
The only way that I have concluded that we can save lives, which is the primary purpose of our defence system, is to prevent war, and that is why the emphasis of this system is on protecting our deterrent, which is the best preventive for war.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe this debate has been unnecessary and, in fact, insulting.


An hon. Member:: Then why have you taken part in it?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Let us not be so ungracious and unmannerly as to criticize the man we hire to protect us. That is the situation today. For various reasons, some good and some bad, Canada cannot hope to adequately defend herself; we must rely on another or others. As this is the case, let us help and not hinder them. It is my hope that the Prime Minister, while in Washington this week end, will assure President Nixon that Canada has made up her mind and agrees to the necessity of the A.B.M. system; that we will do whatever is reasonable to make it as effective as possible.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will be very pleased when I say that I intend to be very brief indeed. The first thing I want to say is that, while I cannot agree completely with the last speaker, in my opinion he hit the nail reasonably well on the head. I congratulate him for bringing this problem to the attention of the house in a way that I consider was most capable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I do not want to walk many miles around the question; I want to go in a direct line. I say that if I have the opportunity to be pro-Chinese, pro-Russian or proAmerican, I will be pro-American every time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
March 19, 1969
6874	COMMONS
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I say, further, that when we in this country have the opportunity to have people defend us, our way of life, our democracy, our children and ourselves, without costing us a single nickel, we should accept it with no questions asked whatsoever.
This is, of course, a very serious problem. We have in years gone by had the opportunity, if one might call it that, of waging war. Certainly, during the last two world wars we did a very creditable job and, as Canadians, we should be very proud of ourselves. But now the time has come when, because of the great advancement in weapons, we simply must appreciate the fact that not only can we not wage war offensivly but we cannot wage war defensively. We must have the help of our neighbours.
The only major powers in the world today which have the capability of waging the kind of war that we are speaking about tonight are our neighbours to the south, the Soviet Union and communist China. I ask my hon. friends to my left this question: If they had to choose between the Russians and Americans, would they prefer the Russians, or the Americans? I think any member of this house who has any degree of common sense whatsoever would agree that, in spite of the fact that the Americans are not always 100 per cent right, they are much more credible neighbours than any other country in the world, could possibly be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Several ministers and members of the opposition have raised the point that the anti-ballistic missiles which are to be placed on American territory in the next several years are defensive weapons. I ask this question: Is there anywhere in the world, under our way of life, that man does not have the right to defend himself? If somebody goes into your house with a gun and tries to hold you up, do you not have the right to defend yourself by firing back?
This is the question facing our American friends. They are not going to fire the first weapon as far as these anti-ballistic missiles are concerned. They are strictly a defensive weapon. The missiles that may be going over our heads will be either Russian or Chinese. The ones our American friends will put up will be in defence of not only the United States but the whole continent of North America, which includes Canada. I think we should appreciate the situation and should not be wishy-washy about it.


As my friend, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) said, we can make our choice in life; we can be either pro-democratic, pro-American, or pro-communist. There is no use trying to walk the line which divides these ideologies. We cannot stay on the fence in this regard. We cannot tread on broken glass in this respect. The Czechoslovakians tried that; the Finnish people tried it; the Polish people tried it and the Germans tried it. Is there anybody in this house who would suggest that Berlin would not be in Soviet hands today were it not for the power of the United States? Is there anybody who would suggest that the whole of Europe would not be in Soviet hands were it not for our friends to the south? Thank heaven we have them. Thank heaven these people are willing to put up not only the money but the weapons in order to defend our way of life.
We have an obligation not only to the people of this country, not only to our children, but to those who died in the last two world wars, those who fought for our way of life. I appreciate my hon. friend saying that he is of the younger generation, and of course he is. He suggested that his generation had grown up since the last war. But there are many people in this chamber, and in Canada, who remember the great sacrifice that was made by Canadian troops on land, sea and air to defend our way of life. The Americans are not asking that we do this. They are willing to do it for us. They are willing to not only extract the necessary money from their taxpayers' pockets but to supply the weapons and the men to defend our way of life.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
In conclusion, let us remember that this is of course our country, and we must have the say as to what happens in it. We must remember also that this is our continent, that besides being Canadians we are North Americans. If we can justly say that we are North Americans, then we must also remember that our friends to the south are also North Americans and they are not just interested in the defence of the United States. As a matter of fact, they are not just interested in the defence of North America. They have made many mistakes, but this is not one of them by any means. I think they have justly tried with their power, their might and their goodness to defend the democratic way of life all over this world.
March 19, 1969	COMMONS
I cannot help but think that when a motion such as was given to us this afternoon is made, there is a certain amount of anti-Americanism expressed. I do not blame my friends to the left, although I do not agree with their policies, when they say that the Americans control our industries. I am not critical of that. Nor do I blame them when they say that the Americans control our oil interests. Personally, I could not care less so long as they employ Canadian workmen, pay Canadian taxes and obey Canadian laws. But when they suggest that the Americans are wrong in trying to defend themselves; that they are wrong in employing defensive not offensive weapons, then 1 say, with all due respect to my friends to the left, that this is anti-Americanism which is not popular in Canada. I hope it is not popular anywhere in the whole world.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate with some trepidation because I cannot for one moment pretend to be an expert in the military technology of missile and nuclear warfare. I take part only as Joe Citizen who represents many other Mr. and Mrs. Joe Citizens in my constituency, who are voiceless and defenceless in matters such as the location of an A.B.M. system and who are, I submit, under-represented. They do not have enough access to information to intelligently decide what decisions they feel should be made. I suggest that this applies to many Mr. and Mrs. Joe Citizens in Canada as well as in my own riding. So, I hope that however inadequate my remarks may be I can to some degree express the feelings of ordinary Joe Citizens.
I do not know who it was who said that wars were too important to be left in the hands of generals. Personally, I have often felt appalled at the kind of statements made by generals on both sides of the Iron Curtain. They have contributed more to the continuation of hatred and mistrust among nations on both sides of the Iron Curtain than any other group of citizens in those respective societies.
I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) express pleasure at the fact that this debate was allowed by you, Mr. Speaker, today. I was, therefore, a little disappointed at the comments made by a member of his party and by a member of the official opposition that this debate was a waste of time, or words to that effect. We all listened with attention to the remarks of the Prime Minister and, if I understood him correctly, he let
DEBATES	6875
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada us know that he and his government, as I inferred from his words, have not yet made up their minds on this matter. He does not wish to take a stand at this time until he is able to get more facts and more information. He will then have a free hand.
If this is the position of the Prime Minister, then I find it passing strange that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) should spend a great deal of time quoting the President of the United States and quoting statistics defending the A.B.M. system. I have a strange feeling that either a "snow" job is being done on the members of this house by the government or that there are some deep divisions within the government on the pros and cons of an A.B.M. system. I feel there are those, including the Prime Minister, who have some sincere and deep reservations about it, and there are others, including the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), who do not have reservations about it but who support and applaud the installation of an A.B.M. system.
The Prime Minister said that we are all interested in protecting our people and our cities. I hope he was not trying to give an impression that an A.B.M. system is designed to protect our cities or, for that matter, any of the cities in the United States. I do not think he was, and if he was I hope that sometime soon he will clarify these remarks. As I understand it, the decision made by President Nixon places the A.B.M. system away from U.S. cities. The system is designed to protect their own I.C.B.M. sites and to protect their first and second strike capability. It is not designed to protect Canadian cities, and now it appears the decision has been made that it will not protect American cities. The A.B.M. system is designed to protect the U.S. offensive capability. I submit that it logically follows the A.B.M. system which is proposed is an offensive system. If so, this throws into a cocked hat the entire proposal made by President Nixon that the A.B.M. system will be for defensive purposes only.
A number of speakers tonight have said that they doubted whether the installation of this system would cause an escalation of the arms race. It seems to me there is overwhelming evidence that it will inevitably escalate the arms race no matter how small, minor or thin the system may be, it seems to me that we might assume that the Russian
March 19, 1969
6876	COMMONS DEBATES
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada system is bad and that the Russians are ignorant, but we cannot assume that they are stupid. For anyone to suggest that the building and perfection of a modern, up-to-date A.B.M. system in the U.S. will not be immediately followed by similar action on the part of the Russians is a grand delusion. As I understand it, in the late 50s and early 60s when the Americans were constructing their Sentinel system, which was designed to defend cities such as Washington, the Russians were constructing a similar system to protect Moscow. There is not the remotest resemblance between the now obsolete system which surrounds Moscow and Washington and what is now proposed by President Nixon. To hold these up as an example, I submit, is not in accordance with either the history or the facts of the present A.B.M. system. It is not, in fact, the same as the A.B.M. systems that were installed in the late 50s and early 60s around Moscow and Washington. As my leader mentioned today, the obsolete system that surrounds Moscow consists of 67 weapons, as compared to what is proposed by President Nixon which has 700 weapons. I suggest that it is perfectly logical and inevitable that the Russians will also endeavour to instal a thin A.B.M. system of 700 or more weapons. For anyone to suggest that this will not bring about a further escalation is nonsense.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
There are certain rationalisations put forward by the President of the United States. It should be noted that he seems to have something less than majority opinion on his side on this issue. One of these rationalisations is that the A.B.M. system should be built to protect the United States from rockets the Chinese might lire. There appears to be an animalistic viewpoint held by military men in North America that the Chinese are not people, and that they do not, therefore, think and react like people. It is passing strange that we should need an A.B.M. system to protect North America against Chinese missiles while at the same time being prepared, as Professor Wiesner pointed out, not to build one if the Russians would agree to follow suit. Surely, this lack of logic is evidence of some kind of insanity. If the system is necessary to defend us against Chinese missiles, it would be most embarrassing if the Russians were to agree to negotiate on the basis that they would refrain from building one if we would also refrain from doing so. What would happen to the China argument in that event?

One has the impression that the military and government mind in the United States maintains this animalistic view that there are Chinese people huddling in oaves putting together a rocket made out of nuts, bolts and tin cans with an atomic weapon at the head of it and that as soon as the work is done they will fire it oft for two reasons: first, to see whether it works, and, second to hit the United States.
I suspect that when China does develop its intercontinental rocketry the rockets will be aimed in two directions. It is just possible that the U.S.S.R. and the United States' might combine their A.B.M. system, and here Canada could play the part of an honest broker. We might arrange for them to meet at the DEW line.
For anyone to suggest there would not be escalation as the result of an A.B.M. system constructed by the United States1 or by the U.S.S.R. would be to mislead the people of this country. I submit that the reasons put forward by the President of the United States and echoed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in this house tonight are illogical, inadequate, irrelevant.
I call as witnesses a number of people who I do not think can be considered unknowledgeable with regard to matters such as this, namely, former Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Mike Mansfield, Senator McGovern, Professor Wiesner, scientific advisor to the late President Kennedy, and others. There is a list of names as long as your arm of prominent, knowledgeable men with access to the necessary information who have repeatedly stated that in their opinion construction of an A.B.M. system is a continuation of the race to suicide.
As the horn, member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) said earlier this evening, the President of the United States has not got this proposition through Congress as yet and it is a fairly even bet that he may not get it through Congress. It would !be most embarrassing for the military minds in the United States, and it would be embarrassing for those in Canada who went along with this proposal, if the United States Congress rejected it, if the representatives of the American people voted against this expenditure of billions of dollars on a system which Professor Wiesner says will be obsolete by the time it is finished.
March 19, 1969	COMMONS
Mention has been made this evening of consultation. The Minister of National Defence questioned the stand taken by our party on the issue of consultation. If we were not a member of NORAD, he asked, how could we expect to engage in consultation with the United States. I submit we could quite properly consult with the United States and make representations as a friend and as a neighbour. We could quite properly be vociferous and firm in our representations if the interests of Canada were affected. It is not necessary to retain membership in NORAD, an obsolete arrangement, for us to take advantage of our friendship with our neighbour to consult on these issues. We need this consultation in order that Canada can make firm and full representations to the United States government in an effort to persuade that government to reconsider its decision to instal the threatened A.B.M. system.
It is not too late. Canada could have a voice which would be listened to with respect and understanding even if her opinions were not shared. The Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could do not only Canada but the nations of the world a great favour. I believe they could even do Mr. Nixon a favour. It might well be that, privately, Mr. Nixon would welcome representations from friendly governments asking him to change his mind so that he could use these arguments against the arguments of the military and industrial complex which have mounted the most unholy pressure on the present and previous presidents of the United States to develop this system- anything to make a buck. And seven billion dollars spent on the A.B.M. system amount to a lot of bucks for a lot of generals and corporations who specialize in perfecting machines to kill. I submit that if Canada were a true friend and neighbour, in or out of NORAD, she ought to make this kind of representation to the President. I add my request that this course be followed, to those of the leader of my party, of other members of my party and, I dare say, of members of other parties in this house as well, because there is certainly no unanimity among the other parties on this issue. I was surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) tonight supporting this missile system since he was a member of a Conservative government which opposed nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. That policy has
DEBATES	6877
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada not yet been officially repudiated, though perhaps it has been repudiated unofficially.
I ask, as a Joe Citizen speaking on behalf of a lot of other Joe Citizens, that the Prime Minister and his colleagues proceed to Washington next week and urge upon the Presi dent of the United States in the firmest as well as in the friendliest fashion, that the construction of this system is unnecessary; that it would lead to escalation and lead to increased difficulty in negotiating arms reduction. I would ask, too, that they meet with members of United States Congress who have differing opinions on this subject. It would be well for them to hear the views of Senator Kennedy, former Vice-President Humphrey, Senator McGovern and Senator Mansfield. I may say, for the benefit of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and the hon. member who spoke after him, that these are men who cannot be accused of being "pinkos" or communists or sympathetic to the U.S.S.R. and so forth, the kind of nonsense we have heard so many times in this chamber and outside. We have a real opportunity to make a contribution towards understanding in the world, peace and the reduction of weapons. It is a delusion to think that an anti-ballistic missile system will contribute to the defence of North America. It is not designed to defend North America. It is designed to defend the United States offensive missile capacity, and nothing else.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)


Mr. Alastair Gillespie (Etobicoke):: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late. We have heard many words this evening, some of them thoughtful, some of them quiet, some naive and others angry. Throughout, I think we could detect a yearning for peace, quiet and serenity in the world, reflecting man's frustration in dealing with cosmic forces over which he has no control.
In moving the adjournment motion the leader of the N.D.P. did this house a great service. After listening to his words I thought to myself that that was the only contribution he made. His were brave words-some of them were at any rate. He said we must not be subordinated. Listening to him, I wondered if he understood the idea of deterrence. When I heard the last speaker say that the A.B.M. system is designed to protect United States offensive capacity I wondered if he, too, understood the principle of deterrence. The leader of the N.D.P. reminded us of the nuclear holocaust, the arms race and of our
March 19, 1969
6878	COMMONS DEBATES
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada need to participate in controlling it. These were useful reminders. He also spoke as if he were a member of a movement that practised the politics of non-involvement. His sort of argument really, was, "We will determine the ends you must seek but we will not tell you how you ought to arrive at those ends. We will criticize; we will warn you of the dangers, but do not look to us for any suggestions, because we have none." That, it seemed to me, was his position and the position, of his party. It was a position of non-responsibility. They alone can indulge in the luxury of offering gratuitous advice.
This evening the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke about the protection of Canadians and of all mankind. He spoke of the fate of humanity, emphasizing reason, not fear; reality and not the Alice in Wonderland world of international affairs that some hon. members preferred this evening. He referred to stability and perspective, to interdependence as opposed to dependence. He spoke of the need for stability of the deterrent system and that if any missile went off, the whole system would have failed. He spoke of the need, in his conversation with the United States President, to discuss the question of preventing escalation of nuclear capability and warned of accidents arising from miscalculation.
A real problem may arise through miscalculation. The A.B.M. -system probably may be so automated that human decision will not enter into the question of whether a defensive missile is to be fired or not fired. I hope this point is discussed and clarified. It seems to me that it is possible for an anti-ballistic missile to be fired, without human decision, at a piece of space hardware returning to earth. If that happened it might stimulate concern or even panic in certain quarters, causing an inadvertent escalation of nuclear exchanges. That is what I think the Prime Minister meant when he talked of the dangers of miscalculation.
I do not propose to deal with all matters raised by the Conservative Party here. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke about the question of consultation, regretting the lack of consultation although recognizing that the United States President had every right to make his decision without prior consultation.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) spoke of the notion of sovereignty of air space. We must ask ourselves, how far up does sovereignty extend?

Does it extend up to 75 miles above the earth, or up to 35 miles? I hope the Prime Minister will discuss this with the President and perhaps take the initiative in suggesting new approaches to the control and use of outer space.
In this debate we have been reminded that the world order is not one we would choose if we had any choice in the matter. It is dominated by the super powers. We are part of that world order, and its fate will be our fate. We have been reminded of the frightening prospect arising from nuclear miscalculation. There are no instant solutions to the difficulties of our world order. We must remember to take a long perspective when looking at international settlements; that the settlement may take generations to come and that we mus be prepared to pay a price for it. It is easy to say that our NORAD and NATO alliances have outgrown their usefulness and are no longer relevant in today's world. These alliances have maintained the peace of the world for the last 20 years, a peace that could only be maintained by a stability based on recognition of deterrence as we work towards detente.
In closing, I urge the house to recognize the dangers of miscalculation. I hope our Prime Minister will discuss this aspect with the President. I also hope he will discuss with him the whole question of whether A.B.M. systems are likely in any way to restrict the opportunity that may arise for a planned reduction in nuclear armaments. I hope also that he will raise the question of civilian control of these systems and civilian control of the Pentagon. In my view this is a legitimate question for our Prime Minister to raise with the President of the United States. After all, we are members of NATO and NORAD. If we were not, I do not think we would have the same right. Certainly, our voice would not carry the same emphasis. I hope he will discuss the question of stability with the President of the United States vis-a-vis China because there are shifts in the international power balance. Above all, Mr. Speaker, I hope that he says that Canada regards the United States as a friend and recognizes that the security of Canada depends on the security of the United States.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because I think I have some small contribution to make. I listened with patience to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) calm and
March 19, 1969

rational language when making his remarks this evening, although I firmly believe if he made any points they were somewhat vague. On the other hand, the Secretary of State of External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) delivered to this house this evening a sincere and blunt address. After having listened to his predecessor for many years, Mr. Speaker, it was rather refreshing to hear a clear expression of concern in respect of the issue being discussed.
On March 17, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked a question of the Prime Minister in the following terms:
I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether his government has studied the decision by the President of the United States to build an antimissile defence system and if the government of Canada has considered the possible implications for Canada of the President's decision?
The Prime Minister replied that the matter was under consideration and he was not able to make any firm decision on this point. The Leader of the Opposition then asked a supplementary question:
-is the Prime Minister free to tell the house whether the government of the United States consulted the government of Canada on this matter and whether Canada made any representations to the United States in this regard?
The Leader of the Opposition was concerned whether actual deliberation or discussion in respect of this matter had in fact taken place. We were told this afternoon by a member of the cabinet that discussions had not taken place. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) stated earlier this evening that this matter had been under discussion for approximately 10 years. No one has suggested that the A.B.M. systems! were weapons of aggression. They are merely weapons of defence. I hope that the Prime Minister will take a positive position on Monday and Tuesday of next week. I wish him well in his deliberations in Washington.
I listened with a great interest, Mr. Speaker, when members of the N.D.P. spoke earlier this evening. I feel there is a great misunderstanding in that party with regard to the issue under discussion. I am not sure they understood what their motion was about this afternoon. The real issue under discussion is whether we want defensive weapons, not offensive weapons. We are not suggesting that we are going to acquire offensive weapons of any nature. We are discussing whether we are going to allow the United States to use
DEBATES	6879
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada ground and air space for installation of A.B.M.'s for self-preservation.
I listened with interest to the young member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). He described his generation as the generation bom after the depression of 1935 and indeed after the last war. He described them as a bunch of gutless homo-sapiens, who could not or did not care to look after themselves. I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker, because I have four young sons who I am sure would defend this country.


Mr. Gilbert:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am certain that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville did not use those words. I am sure the hon. member misunderstood and will be glad to withdraw them.


William Skoreyko: I do not see any point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The inference was in his remarks. He could not agree with the decision of the government to take any steps to protect the nation. After all, who were the "reds" to be worried about? The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville seems to adopt the attitude seen in the Yorkville district of Toronto of simply disarming. If an enemy happens to strike, turn the other cheek. The hon. member says, withdraw. He says, "Let's get out of NATO and NORAD. Forget about our defences. If we are helpless militarily, nobody is going to bother us." What kind of reasoning is that? I understand the hon. member is in the teaching profession. If he recalls his history, he will know that militarily adequate countries are no longer in existence.
The leader of that party made the usual speech. He has jumped from policy to policy, riding to riding, and I hope some day he will jump from country to country. I agree with the principle of non-proliferation talks and with the initiative of disarmament talks. Who in this house would suggest that we disarm first and then try to negotiate world peace? It is like walking into a bear pit without a gun.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) stated this evening the A.B.M. installations might contribute to some degree to nuclear world balance. I agree with that principle. Shortly after the last election, the Prime Minister told the people of Canada on a national television broadcast that Canada's participation in NATO and NORAD would be reviewed. A committee of the house is now in Europe visiting the installations. I hope they will visit NORAD at the same time. It is reasonable to assume that upon its return this
March 19, 1969
6880	COMMONS
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada committee will make appropriate recommendations to this house. I hope their recommendations include suggestions that Canada remain in NATO and NORAD. I hope there will be no suggestion of any significant reduction in those two bodies. Any reductions in NORAD or NATO should coincide with similar reductions and effectiveness within the Warsaw pact alliance. Contrary to the relief of some of our flower-power advocates, the North Atlantic Treaty and NATO should be maintained and we, as a sovereign nation, should live up to our responsibilities in that regard.
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)
When you look at the record militarily of Canada to this point, it is disturbing to note that since December, 1967, our contribution to NATO has been reduced to one army brigade in Europe, two full brigades at home, and one transportable brigade on tap in Canada. The air division has been reduced to six squadrons, running out through possible attrition in the early 1970's. We, as a nation, can afford more and should do more than that. Now, I wish to say something about NORAD, Mr. Speaker.
NORAD is the first two-nation military command to operate on this continent. Its
170,000	personnel at some 400 posts in the United States and Canada have been operating well, and the fact that it has not been called into action is the best reason for its existence. NORAD has worked on the theory that if you are powerful enough no potential enemy would start a conflict. Cuba may have been a reasonable example of that.
On reflection it should be pointed out that the United States and Canada began building up their defences after the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950. The decision was quickly made that co-operation, and co-operation only, was not enough; that what was really needed was a joint defence effort with complete coordination to meet the bomber threat of that time-bombers with increasing speeds and greater capacities to deliver lethal weapons with more accuracy.
Since its inception the system has undergone continuing review with respect to modernization, expansion and effectiveness. Antiquated radar systems, which covered only prime industrial targets, have been replaced with the most modern sensor equipment covering the entire continent. The need for this modernization was recognized with the advancement which had taken place in the


development of supersonic bombers, rocket ammunition and guided missiles.
The next requirement which was met was the need for information inflow which had to be accurate in respect of immediate identification. The volume of information required new and sophisticated computer systems which would analyse and advise NORAD. This was achieved by a system known as "SAGE". All members who have interested themselves in this aspect of our North American defence system know how well SAGE has functioned, even though information available to members of parliament is limited in scope and often very sketchy.
Today, the threat is not so much that of bomber attack, although I am sure the presence of bombers would be felt. The fact remains that initially the targets would be hit by I.C.B.M.'s and NORAD, I believe, has the facility to deal with these. Today, the threat looms greater in light of newer, more sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missiles.
There have been developments by some other great powers. China has now emerged as a new threat in the nuclear field, and what weaponry that nation may develop is as yet relatively unknown. The fact is that China becomes another valid reason why North American defences should be constantly upgraded, and I for one would gladly support the government in any action it would take to assist the United States in setting up such defences. I support the principle that security and freedom do not come cheaply and, within our ability to pay our contribution to North American defence, in co-operation with our greatest ally, should no longer be minimal.
I think that to some extent we in Canada are greedy people when we do not hesitate to lobby for our share of the defence dollar to be spent supporting our industries, but at the same time we offer only token support for our own defence, and indeed for our survival. This is grossly unfair.
I hold little or no brief for our so-called flower-power advocates who suggest that the United States should be denied air space over Canada. Such a view against North American defence is un-Canadian and indefensible. I am proud to be living next door to a great neighbour whom everyone knows has problems not dissimilar to ours with respect to poverty and urban blight. But the fact is that the United States has the courage to develop defensive techniques which are costly, indeed very costly. If my information is correct the new
March 19, 1969

A.B.M. system will cost in excess of $5 billion. To deny our neighbour the use of our ground and air space for our mutual preservation would not only be denying Canadians the security which they deserve and cannot afford, but would be turning our backs on the fundamental principles of self-preservation.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my words serve only to emphasize those of my colleague from Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) and also to deal with other matters which have been raised in this debate. There are 'times when one is not so proud to be in this house due to the conduct of people and the quality of debate, but I do not think we can say that about this evening's debate. I think the motivation of it was perhaps ill-founded but sincere. I think that the contribution to it by all has been of high standard, and given with sincerity even if we do not always agree. I am particularly proud of the contributions of the leader of my party, of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) for the semblance of reality they brought to a very serious subject.
In my short time here, Mr. Speaker, I have found that one of the easiest areas in which to make simple judgments is that of external affairs. Yet as one gets into it, one realizes that simple judgments are simply not valid. The complexities are indeed great, but it is very simple for those without the responsibility to criticize and almost appear credible.
The eloquence of the leader of the New Democratic party and the eloquence of the leader of the Creditiste party is at times captivating in its simplicity. One could accept their simplistic statements if one did not think about them, but we must deal with realities and the realities are not always pleasant. We have to live in the world as it is rather than how we would like it to be, and this is not always easy.
The Minister of National Defence read an inventory of weaponry that was chilling, but yet this is a fact of life. It reminded me of the time about 25 years- ago I was listening in- a convalescent hospital to a radio broadcast when Mr. Harry Truman, then President of the United States, announced the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. It opened up vistas of horror that one could barely imagine. Those who at that time realized the significance of this saw that horror and wondered how to cope with it.
The easy answer at that time was that our side had the bomb and we might as well use
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada it before the other side got it. By doing so we would eliminate fewer people than if both sides had the bomb and used it. But fortunately some sanity prevailed and we have through some peculiar system of balances developed an arsenal of weaponry which has kept us at a relative level of peace, at least saving us from total destruction over those years, which is remarkable considering the potential for destruction that exists by error, let alone design.
I really get terribly upset when I hear my hon. friends across the way refer to anyone who shows any sense of reality in this situation, any knowledge about the real effects of this weaponry, the dangers of this weaponry, and is able to list an inventory of it, as a hawk. We do not have an easy answer to this, but we must know what we are talking about. We should forget about this weaponry and direct our energies along more constructive lines. I was thinking of the conference on housing at which Mr. Buckminster Fuller said that we have to do something even though we cannot afford it. He pointed out that when there are things such as- wars, we do handle the problem and raise the money. But, unfortunately, that is an oversimplification, because we cannot deal with life and our problems in -separate compartments; they are all part of the whole. My friend, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is delightfully naive. It is a pleasure to see him in this house with his lovely young fiancee. They have all their fives ahead of them. They deserve a lot of credit for the courage they have in facing a very complicated future.
[DOT] (12 midnight)
The answers are not simple. It is so easy to blame things on the faults of past generations. As I said the other day, this generation can and will make mistakes just as we have made ours. It is very easy to have 20-20 hindsight, but it is foresight, courage and realism we need. The concern of all of us here is for peace. I really believe this is the concern of the President of the United States and the people of the United States. We may not agree with their way of going about it, but to try to support debating points over this is really not resolving our problem; nor is it any good to stand by being "ready, yea, ready".
We have a legitimate point to make; that is, that we want to maintain the sovereignty that is ours. As my friend, the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) said, we can stand up and express our views because we have
March 19, 1969
6882	COMMONS
Firing of A.B.M. Warheads over Canada stood up and accepted our responsibilities. I believe all of us here are united in one concern. We believe that any further escalation should be avoided; but the crux of this whole debate tonight is that we are not talking about escalation.
If the Russians were to introduce a new system of A.B.M.'s as a result of this system of A.B.M.'s, I think it would be a stabilizing instrument for peace. If we accept the premise that these are defensive weapons, this could lessen the possibility of war. I would like to find some better answer. I think and hope that the answer might be found in Geneva by the efforts of our ambassador, Mr. Ignatieff, who has been mentioned several times tonight. I do not believe that will be simple. I think as our concern is equal in respect of peace and harmony in the world, although the way we go about things may be different, this debate has served a useful purpose in focusing the concern Canada has in respect of this problem. As our Prime Minister goes to Washington I believe the hopes of all members of this house and all people of the country will go with him. He will discuss these problems with the President of the United States with a realism and knowledge which is sometimes not available to us in matters of defence and external affairs.
Our Prime Minister goes to Washington on our behalf, as he said today, in the legitimate interests of all mankind. He can go there with his head held high on our behalf because, when the chips have been down, we have shouldered our responsibilities. I hope we never lose our sense of responsibility in this regard.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak for about two minutes because I know the hour is very late. Some excellent speeches have been made in this debate. The members are concerned about the issues of peace and war. Most members know that in the real world of 1969 we are very much involved in the fate of the world and indeed the North American continent in the future. It is a deplorable and tragic measure of our failure to establish a climate of trust and confidence that such fantastic amounts are spent by all nations, whatever their ideology, on military weapons, offensive and defensive.

One of the truly great Canadians was the founder of the C.C.F. party, J. S. Woodsworth, the member at one time for Winnipeg North Centre. This evening, as I have been listening to the debate, I have been reading the great war debates which took place in 1939. One cannot help but be moved by what was said by the late J. S. Woodsworth on that occasion. His photograph occupies a place of honour in N.D.P. halls throughout this country and for good reason.
Even this great idealist, this good man, the philosopher of the New Democratic party, which party has sponsored the resolution we have been discussing tonight, recognized that Canada's position in North America imposes certain imperatives. I shall conclude merely by quoting what J. S. Woodsworth said in 1939. On the eve of the great tragedy of the second world war he said:
Canada is situated on the North American continent. Geographically and economically we are North America. To no small extent the attitude of our great neighbour must be a determining factor in our international relations-
Then, Woodsworth said:
We have boasted of the unguarded border between ourselves and the United States, but we cannot assume too lightly that this condition will continue forever. We assume that the United States is going to be forever with us. I hope that they will always be sympathetic with us-
He went on to say:
I believe that the greatest contribution that Canada can make-
Talking about the conditions at the time, he said:
*-is to maintain the most friendly possible relations with the United States.
Woodsworth's words in 1939 I think have meaning in 1969 in the context of this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 13 of Standing Order 26 I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded. I, therefore, declare the motion carried. This house stands adjourned until today at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2, subsection (1).
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 12.10 a.m.



END OF VOLUME VI

[Stage Direction]
Ssa


[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 19, 1969