1975-06-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of a most serious nature arising from a widely circulated advertisement stating that there will be a breathtaking display of aerial wizardry at a political picnic on Saturday with the Prime Minister in attendance. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the House requests the Prime Minister to state whether or not the advertised "breathtaking display of aerial wizardry" to occur at a political picnic on the farm of Ontario Liberal leader Robert Nixon on Saturday will consist of the Prime Minister's descent from the sky with three government-owned helicopters at an estimated expense to the taxpayers of $20,000 and, if so, the House requests the Prime Minister in the interests of the proper expenditure of public funds to cancel his tax paid arrival from the heavens in favour of a more proper and worldly procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PROPOSAL GOVERNMENT MEMBERS CEASE USING
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a matter pursuant to the previous one of urgent and the pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of a reported plan to use federal government aircraft to take the Prime Minister to southern Ontario for the express purpose of politicking on behalf of the Ontario Liberal party, and in view of the fact that special arrangements were recently made to detour a government aircraft carrying entertainers for the Canadian armed forces to attend and entertain at a party given by the brother-inlaw of the Minister of Justice, who is a candidate in the upcoming provincial election in Saskatchewan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the Prime Minister and other government members be instructed to cease immediately the practice of using government aircraft for partisan political purposes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I owe the hon. member for Leeds an apology. On hearing his preamble to the proposed motion I did not take it as a serious suggestion regarding the use of government aircraft. The motion before us does bring into perspective both motions which contain a serious element about the use of aircraft. Therefore, regardless of the gravity or otherwise of the matter, the matter is one on which both hon. members enjoy the right to have the question put to the House as to whether or not the House gives unanimous consent. Therefore I should like it to be considered that I am putting the same question to the House on both motions. Since both motions are put pursuant to Standing Order 43, they cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Beatty:: Otto said no.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to solve an important and urgent problem.
Considering the uncertainty of the small manufacturing industry in the clothing sector, and I have in mind the glove factories of my riding in particular;
Considering it is a labour intensive industry and plays a leading role in the Quebec economy;
Considering that massive imports in the field are slowly destroying the industry and raising the number of unemployed at an alarming rate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House order the discontinuance of manufactured products imports that are directly competing with our own production.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 5, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who yesterday indicated that the political and military situation in South Korea today did not warrant a change in the position of the government with regard to the sale of the CANDU reactor. In the face of growing concern about possible renewed military conflict in Korea, is the government prepared to suspend the CANDU sale independently of what kind of assurances can be negotiated on a bilateral basis?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister tell the House just what safeguards the government is proposing to South Korea, and will he admit that while arrangements may be made which will provide adequate inspection, these arrangements will provide no means of preventing South Korea from using, for non-peaceful purposes, plutonium and techniques provided by Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I mentioned yesterday, the safeguards which are provided for in the case of South Korea, in a sense, fall into two categories. The ratification of the non-proliferation Treaty by South Korea which stipulates that the total nuclear system of the country will be subjected to international inspection under the international agency. Second, we are negotiating a bilateral agreement with South Korea putting into effect the total range of safeguards which were announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I believe, last December 20. This is the most complete possible range of safeguards available at the present time. The diversion of plutonium or material for non-peaceful purposes is, of course, subject to the examination and inspection system of the international agency, and I am sure it is clear to the Leader of the Opposition that if that occurred, it would be instantly known to the international inspectors.
Obviously a new situation would be created at that point in which the international community would be alerted to this diversion which might be taking place. That is about the best answer I can give to the hon. member, and in reply to the hon. member for Calgary North, it is the best the international community has devised up to the present time. Perhaps the hon. member will be able to improve it at a later date.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-PROPOSED DEBATE ON SALE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL
Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has, in effect, conceded that the government of Canada does not contemplate making any arrangements with South Korea which would prevent South Korea from using plutonium and techniques for other than peaceful purposes. All these measures would do would be to assure that this arrangement would become known if the government did that. I put it to the Prime Minister, in light of what took place in India and in light of the moral responsibility that any government has in a field like this, is the government of Canada prepared to proceed with the sale of CANDU reactors in these circumstances with no way of preventing the use of such techniques and plutonium for non-peaceful purposes? Why will the Prime Minister not put this whole matter before the House and the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly put the whole matter in front of the House and the country. Here again, there are seven opposition days before the end of the month and if hon. members find this important enough I will gladly undertake to have all our side participate in debate. I will gladly join in it myself. I think there is a very serious moral problem which is raised by the Leader of the Opposition but there are two sides to it. The other side is whether we can sit on this technology and not share it with the developing countries who have no energy-


Mr. Fairweather:: South Korea?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and who have an extremely low standard of living. No, I am not talking about South Korea; I am talking about the moral problem of sitting on our technology or sharing it and the rules for sharing it which will be the same whether it is South Korea or an advanced country or a developing country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Leggatt:: Then why not give it away?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: These rules that Canada is announcing unilaterally, which were announced by the minister, are the most strict rules of any of the members of the international community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have personally been raising this subject with every nuclear country or near-nuclear country I have been visiting, asking them to be as strict as we are so that if the hypothesis that is feared by the opposition does occur and we have to cut off our co-operation, then the country that is cut off will not turn around and get it from some other country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 5, 1975


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-POSSIBILITY OF UNITED STATES REASSESSING DEFENCE COMMITMENT IF USED FOR NON-PEACEFUL PURPOSES
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure everybody in this House would agree with what the Prime Minister said about the moral dilemma.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: The moral dilemma it seems to me, however, would have to be backed up by specific action on an issue as important as this. I should like to ask the minister if in trying to work out an appropriate sanction situation with respect to the sale of the CANDU reactor to South Korea this government has had conversations with the government of the United States, for example, to see whether it would reassess its defence commitments in Korea if it turns out that the government df South Korea does not abide by the bilateral rules on which we are putting so much emphasis and hope in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the United States has precisely the same situation as we have in Korea with respect to their reactor.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not hear my question. Has there been any discussion between this country and the United States about the sort of bilateral safeguards that we are putting on? If there is a violation of our bilateral safeguards, do we know whether the United States would be concerned about their defence commitment in that country? Has there been any such discussion between our Department of External Affairs and the state department in the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly in touch with other suppliers in this field, but I am sure we have not contemplated the possibility or raised formally with the United States the possibility that South Korea would denounce its bilateral agreement with the United States and with Canada and denounce its adherence to the NPT, all of which is implied in the hon. member's question.


James McPhail Gillies: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the government takes a very cavalier attitude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-POSSIBILITY OF IMPOSING ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IF SAFEGUARD AGREEMENT VIOLATED
James McPhail Gillies: May I ask the minister if the government of Canada has made it very clear to the government of South Korea that if there is a violation of our bilateral agreement we will apply specific economic sanctions to that country?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that what the government of Canada did in the case of India ought to be instructive to the hon. member and to all other countries to whom we may supply nuclear materials.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Yesterday, in answering questions about an alleged internal report concerning a narcotics ring operating in the Montreal airport with the alleged assistance of 60 members of the public service, the minister said that he knew of no such report. I am now asking whether he or others on his behalf have communicated with the RCMP officers who are reported to have given a very detailed account of such a report to members of the press, in order to ascertain if there is such a report; and, if so, can he now tell the House if there is such a report?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the two RCMP officers the hon. member referred to are still out of the country, but expected back shortly, and the commissioner intends to communicate with them as soon as possible. Until he has, we do not wish to make further statements on this matter.
An v ->n. Member: Has the minister not heard of the telephone?


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the commissioner, with whom, as I understand, the minister conferred either yesterday or the day before, know of such a report?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, until we have all the details of this matter, we do not intend to make further statements.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? In view of the great importance of this matter will the minister seek to expedite either the publication of the report or the inquiry and to announce to this House what action is to be taken by way of discipline, if the report was made public prematurely, or by way of prosecution and prevention of this extremely serious organized criminal operation, if that is indicated?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have already taken steps to expedite the inquiry. As soon as it is completed, I will see what can be said to the House. As I said yesterday, I discussed this matter with the Commissioner of the RCMP and it was felt that for the time being, it would not be in the public interest to say more about this case or the investigation.

June 5, 1975
Oral Questions


HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Some years ago, a new hospital was built, larger than the previous one, as requested by the people in Val-d'Or, a community within my constituency. Now that the construction work is over, two floors of the hospital have been closed after the armed forces departure because a number of nurses, the wives of military personnel, had to leave the area. Can the minister advise the House whether the government could lend nurses who are on its payroll to remedy this situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The reply is no, Mr. Speaker.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Solicitor General? As we said yesterday, we appreciate that, normally, investigations of such a serious nature are obviously carried out in strict confidence; however, as a story has been printed implicating various officials of various departments, will the minister undertake to make a statement in this House within the next day, and certainly by Monday at the latest, and say either that there are substantive allegations against different officials of various departments, or not, so that if there are no such allegations the cloud hanging over them can be removed?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a serious matter and that it should be cleared up as soon as possible. As I said to the House, certain key figures in this inquiry are still out of the country and the commissioner has not been able to get in touch with them, according to my last notice. As soon as he does, we will make available-


An hon. Member:: Is there no telephone?


William Warren Allmand: Apparently some people here know more about the RCMP than the commissioner does. As soon as we get more information, we will give it to the House, if we can.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is recognized for a final supplementary question.


REPORT OF NARCOTICS SMUGGLING RING IN MONTREAL- POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT OF SECURITY AGENCY CALLED SECUREX
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If it is a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, it may come in two parts. When the minister reports to the House, hopefully in the very near future, will he advise whether part of the investigation involves a private security agency, I think known as Securex, which was given a contract for security operations at the Montreal airport against the recommendation of the RCMP, although with the personal consent of the then Solicitor General? While I am on my feet, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue how he could state to the House on Tuesday that he was co-operating with the Solicitor General and his officials when obviously the Solicitor General knew nothing about the report?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when I do report to the House, I will give as much detail as possible. I should point out, and I have done this before, that when there is a criminal investigation underway, if there is enough evidence, charges are laid. If there is not, the matter is kept private to protect those people who might have been under suspicion but against whom there is no evidence in order to protect their civil liberties. We have to respect those guidelines when giving any information to this House.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind we now have a floating dollar, will the minister indicate if there are any legal impediments to the minting of $100 gold coins, as some have suggested might be done to assist in financing the 1976 Olympics?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I was not authorized to give a legal opinion to the House even when I was Attorney General.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Without requesting a legal opinion, but for clarification, will the minister indicate whether, without further legislation and without changing our floating dollar, the governor-in-council is now empowered to authorize the issue of $100 gold coins.


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding the change in phraseology, surely the hon. member realizes he is seeking the same kind of information.


ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will shift my supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Has the government received a
June 5, 1975

report from the Royal Canadian Mint in which they review the possibility of minting new Olympic coins which will become part of the regular coinage of the land and, if so, does the report indicate such a scheme will be virtually impossible?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this question concerns policy and should have been directed to the Minister of Finance.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. What arrangements have been made providing for the use of National Defence aircraft to the Prime Minister for meetings such as those described by the Prime Minister's special assistant, Peter McGuire, as an old fashioned political picnic at Bob Nixon's farm where the Prime Minister will be demonstrating his support for Bob Nixon?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if National Defence or any other department can save the time of the Prime Minister, we will be very pleased to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Because of the particularly sensitive nature of the hon. member's questions, I do not want to restrict them but the House knows that the estimates of the Department of National Defence will be before us, beginning at three o'clock and rather than ask one or two questions the opportunity for extensive questioning about the very subject which the hon. member has raised could be taken; I think hon. members will agree that questioning on this subject ought to be reserved until then.


Robert Carman Coates: I am sure hon. members will be assisted materially if we can get some factual information from the minister concerning this matter. I think we should know whether the minister endorses the involvement of national defence forces and their equipment in the area of partisan political endeavours. Also, we should know who is going to pay the bill for such endeavours. I suggest that members of this House do not particularly care whether this form of transport is saving the Prime Minister's time or not when he is involved in partisan political affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It might be fair if I were to attempt to answer this question instead of the minister, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that I am leaving tomorrow morning for two days of travel around Ontario, including a lot of smaller centres which do not have
Oral Questions
airports at which I would land if I were using the Jetstar as is normally done. Like previous prime ministers I will use public transport to take me to these events.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the picnic!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I had better hear the supplementaries, Mr. Speaker, and then I shall attempt to deal with them.


Robert Carman Coates: I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question: if he endorses the use of government aircraft, especially National Defence aircraft, for political mean-derings around the Province of Ontario, is he prepared to make such aircraft available to all party leaders in the House so that they can do the same thing and save themselves time?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mot only do I endorse that suggestion but I am practising it-I am practising a custom endorsed by prime ministers long before me, who when they travelled around the country, used public conveyances. It used to be trains and boats; later on it was airplanes, and then helicopters were invented and it was helicopters. I make no apologies for this. If I am expected to visit parts of Canada which are not just big cities with airports, I shall use this means of conveyance.


An hon. Member:: To visit Nixon's farm?


An hon. Member:: You are breaking our hearts!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I don't think it is a question of breaking their hearts, Mr. Speaker; I think it is a matter of the votes involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: An old-fashioned picnic!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members opposite would look at the trip which is planned, they will find that I am meeting citizens of Canada in many circumstances-in schools, public meetings and shipyards. If I take a few of my lunches with some Liberals I shall be pleased to do so and I make no apologies for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: The
response of the government members indicates that they are worried that the truth will hurt. The Prime Minister has stated that previous prime ministers used aircraft at the expense of the people of Canada when travelling to political meetings. Mr. Speaker, that did not happen under Mr. Pearson, it did not happen under me and it did not happen-*


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The issue is simply this: shall the people of Canada pay for partisan activity on the part of the Prime Minister of shall they not? There is nothing wrong with attending meetings but the expense should be

June 5, 1975
Oral Questions
borne by the Liberal Party of Canada, not by the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the right hon. member misunderstood what I was saying. I had pointed out that the events I am attending are mostly public events open to the people of Canada. I repeat, I am having a few private meetings with Liberals-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: What about the picnic? Is that not a partisan thing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The picnic is open to all citizens of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: As long as they have a ticket from the Liberal party.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And to show the spirit in which this trip is conceived, I would invite the right hon. gentleman to travel with me-not in my helicopter, but there are two other helicopters carrying the press. I hope the right hon. gentleman will feel free to come along to the picnic if he wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister for the generosity with which he uses the things of Canada as though they were his own.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It arises from the request put forward by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, through Professor Finkelman, for the appointment of a special mediator to deal with the question of disciplinary measures taken in relation to casual workers. In view of the minister's statements to the press about his desire to bargain in good faith, will he now demonstrate his own good faith and tell the House whether he intends to agree to the appointment of a special mediator? If so, will he communicate his agreement on the matter immediately to Professor Finkelman?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: I believe the hon. member, whose opinions on industrial relations I respect, is, unintentionally, I am sure, confusing two issues. In the area of collective bargaining on the national level we gladly agreed to the use of a conciliation officer, hoping, of course, that both sides would drop any prerequisites before they began bargaining. The other issue of

disciplinary measures in Montreal is a local matter, one which does not require mediation but simply the application of the relevant provision in the collective agreement. This would permit the application of the grievance procedure and the problem would eventually get to Mr. Finkelman or the PSSRB through the logical grievance channels. If this had been done three months ago it would, no doubt, have resolved many of these difficulties.


John R. Rodriguez: I have always held the minister in great respect and honour, and he knows that well. But these disciplinary measures which he describes as being local to Montreal are not, in fact, local to Montreal; they also affect Fredericton and the Lakehead. The normal grievance procedure is set up to handle disciplinary problems as they arise in the life of the contract and in view of the fact there are more than 1,000 such disciplinary measures being implemented, does the minister not agree they should be considered separately from the present contract negotiations? Would the minister not reconsider his decision and appoint a special mediator to deal with the cases of nearly 1,000 suspended postal workers?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to lose the respect of the hon. gentleman, and I say that sincerely. I do feel once again that the suspensions in Montreal have nothing to do with the current bargaining. My only desire is to see that Canadians in this country obtain the type of postal service to which they are entitled, and I am afraid that I would lose his respect far more quickly if I were to bow to blackmail, which I do not intend to do.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be good enough to assure me that on the political trip that he is taking this week-end he will call in on my riding and make an appearance, since his last appearance there a year ago added 1,000 votes to my majority?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
surprised, Mr. Speaker. If you check the record you will see that in every picture I was in, there was the hon. member crowding the background.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, it is quite right that I was predominant in all the pictures, and this was because all the people in Prince Edward-Hastings were calling me forward to talk to them instead of the Prime Minister.


FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING COUNCIL
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and is on a subject matter that is different from the one on which he has just been
June 5, 1975

questioned. The Minister of Agriculture stated in the House on October 3, 1974 that a consumer representative and two other representatives of non-farm groups would shortly be appointed by the government to the Farm Products Marketing Council. Last November 14 the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs told a parliamentary committee that he was hoping for a cabinet decision on this within three weeks. Some eight months have gone by since the government's intentions were first stated. Can the Prime Minister now say when these appointments will be announced by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the point is well taken, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for jogging my memory on this. I remember that that was the government's stated policy and I will be discussing with the minister to make sure we pursue it as soon as possible.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General a question.
Following the answers to questions No. 238 dated October 3, 1974, where it was admitted that confidential information was given by the Royal Mounted Police to private police agencies on Canadians declared not guilty before the courts, is the minister prepared to forbid the RCMP from releasing such information to private police agencies on citizens who have not yet been found guilty before the courts?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, very often there are people involved in organized crime who have not been convicted before the court, and police forces exchange information on such people if suspicion is very strong but there is not enough evidence for conviction. I cannot promise the hon. member that I will change this policy.


REQUEST OF SURREY FOR SIXTEEN ADDITIONAL OFFICERS- POSSIBLE FORMATION OF PROVINCIAL FORCE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Solicitor General. Recently the municipality of Surrey requested 16 additional RCMP officers be granted to its jurisdiction. Only four additional officers were granted. It is reported that the RCMP is hesitant about sending more officers to British Columbia because the report is that the provincial government is planning its own provincial police force. May I ask the Solicitor General about this report, whether the information is correct, and if it is, what the target date is? If it is not, in view of the fact that Surrey's police force is undermanned on a per capita basis, would the Solicitor
Oral Questions
General look into and reconsider this request and grant the 16 officers requested by the municipality?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, the deployment of RCMP personnel in British Columbia comes under the jurisdiction of the attorney general of British Columbia. With respect to the other question, we have had no indication that British Columbia is planning its own provincial police force. As a matter of fact, I had some discussions with the attorney general, the deputy attorney general and other legal officers from British Columbia a week or so ago. We are presently negotiating a new contract for the RCMP in British Columbia and in other provinces, and British Columbia gave no indication that they did not want the RCMP. How they use the number of men out there and the number they want to sign a contract for is up to them.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It has recently come to my attention that the Farm Credit Corporation has been refusing applications for loans by successful farmers on the basis that they do not need the loans. I would ask the minister whether he will have this policy of the Farm Credit Corporation reassessed, because it should be obvious to the minister that decreasing farm incomes coupled with increasing input costs make it necessary for many farmers to expand their operation in order to maintain their income.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the intent of the Farm Credit Corporation legislation is to lend money to those people who cannot get money any place else. I specifically instructed the Farm Credit Corporation to adhere to the legislation. Those people whose net worth allows them to get money from trust companies and private lending sources should get money in that way. Farm Credit Corporation money should go to those farmers whose financial position is such that they cannot borrow money any place else; these are the farmers we should be helping.


Robert Elgin McKinley: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me from my discussions with Farm Credit Corporation officials that most applications that come in are from those who either do not have enough equity, in which case they are turned down, or from those whom the minister says probably have too much and do not need a loan. What good is the Farm Credit Corporation if they are not going to do anything for any of the farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Farm Credit Corporation, since I have been minister, has doubled the amount of money that it has lent and has almost doubled the number of farmers to whom it has lent money per year. It has done a good job. The recent legislation that was passed was specially geared to young farmers between the ages of 18 and 35, and 50 per cent of the loans went to these farmers

June 5, 1975
Oral Questions
last year. More than 50 per cent will be lent to them this year; so far 54 per cent of our budget has been lent.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MR. GfiRIN-LAJOIE CONCERNING PUBLIC ACCOUNT OF CIDA OPERATIONS-PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of Mr. Gerin-Lajoie's statement yesterday that CIDA will have to give an account of its actions to the public in greater detail and more often, would the Prime Minister inform us whether or not this means that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be tabling the Price-Water-house study on CIDA management, all correspondence between Ottawa and Kenya involving the Kenyan technical teachers college and the $2 million loan, and confirmation of the information regarding CIDA's loan to Cuba? Was Mr. Gerin-Lajoie announcing policy and will the minister table these matters in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, not having heard the statement I cannot say whether Mr. Gerin-Lajoie had those particular points in mind, but I will ask him to look at it. Perhaps he was thinking of all those exact points.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I assume that the minister has in fact seen the statement by Mr. Gerin-Lajoie. Because of those statements and by reason of them, can we assume that the minister will now recommend or support the establishment of a committee or sub-committee to study the affairs of CIDA, and in particular foreign aid?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Standing Committee on National Defence and External Affairs did suggest that it be given a further reference to deal with the general question of international development. I hope that if any such reference is to be forthcoming it will be broad enough to include a consideration of the economic relations between the developing and developed world. It is in light of that particular request that I am considering a reference. I should like the committee to have the opportunity to discuss, consider and report upon the policies that Canada is following in the field of international development, and indeed, if possible, to make proposals on how we can develop a policy with respect to our economic relations with the developing world.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, is the President of the Treasury Board aware of a recent program or skit by the CBC in the Atlantic region portraying in a satirical but truthful manner the regional wage disparity policy being followed by the federal government in respect of certain federal employees in the Atlantic region?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I did not see that CBC skit.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, will the minister arrange then to get a copy of the tape of this program and listen to it, and after he does will he indicate whether it is his intention to take steps to eliminate the present discriminatory regional wage disparity philosophy followed by the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained the government's policy in that respect. In certain sectors, some prefer to have regional policies, while in other sectors some would prefer national rates, but I shall ask the CBC for its viewpoint and study it.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION NOT TO TEST FOR MERCURY POISONING AMONG NATIVES
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, the last time I questioned the Minister of National Health and Welfare we had a discussion about arsenic, but today I want to talk about mercury. In view of the fact the National Indian Brotherhood survey of hair samples in Yellowknife showed one reading of 180 parts per million of mercury in the hair of a ten year old girl, and in view of the fact the minister's department has called 60 parts per million of mercury the "dangerous level", will the minister reconsider his decision not to do further tests for mercury?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I missed the last part of the question and I wonder if I could hear it again.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the minister reconsider his decision not to conduct further tests?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I never said there would be no further tests. I said further examinations would be carried out in cases which appeared to be above that level, or where there is any cause for further tests to be carried out.
June 5, 1975


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, according to a news release the New York based Pittston Company on Wednesday received state approval for a proposed $500 million coastal oil refinery complex on the northernmost Maine coast at the fishing village of East-port. In view of the fact Canadian territorial waters will have to be used to get to this fogbound deep-water port, and the possibility of oil spills which could damage the fishing industry of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether there has been any consultation between the minister and his United States counterpart in respect of this particular matter, and has he agreed with U.S. officials to the movement through Canadian waters in order to service this proposed plant?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has taken a very strong attitude in opposition to the movement of such tankers through the Head Harbour passage. The hon. member refers to a decision that is pending from the Maine environmental board. I understand that decision is due in the middle of June. There is some preliminary indication as to what the decision may be. We have already declared our opposition to any such movement of materials, for environmental reasons, but we would want to wait until we see the actual decision before we make further comment.



PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to an earlier range of questions in respect of which the Prime Minister indicated his intention to use government aircraft for Liberal party purposes. I should like to ask whether government helicopters or other aircraft were used by advance men of the Prime Minister in arranging this particular partisan trip this week-end, or for any of his other recent trips involving partisan functions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the question itself, Mr. Speaker, I would have to inquire, but on the qualifications of the trip I wish to remind the hon. member that, as I said in an answer a few minutes ago, the trip involves many events including a visit to a shipyard at Collingwood, a visit to a senior citizens recreational centre in Waterloo, and a question and answer session with students of a high school, I believe in Barrie, as well as a fish fry in Port Dover, to which the right, hon. gentleman from Prince Albert is invited. I think it is quite unfair to ask this type of question based on false premises when all I am attempting to do is bring government a bit closer to the people.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to have missed the display of aerial wizardry, political impediments and other activities at the farm of the Liberal leader in Ontario. I should like to ask him a question regarding policy. Is it the policy of the Prime Minister that his staff should have access to government helicopters or government aircraft to advance trips of his which include on the itinerary activities such as the Nixon picnic, which are clearly and simply partisan political events? Is that the policy of the government of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the hon. member is so interested in the picnic, I want to tell him that I understand Mr. Nixon is a good farmer in Ontario and I am interested in the farming problems of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In a less serious vein, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear, and I hope it is not libellous, that I do not know if there is a swimming pool, but I am going there anyhow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He has a manure pile that's for sure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the question of the advance, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Be serious.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question similar to one asked yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River regarding a problem we find in respect of Bill C-62 and a royal proclamation reference to marriage, whereas in the definition section of the bill there is reference to other than marriage. Has the government extricated itself from this very peculiar situation and, if so, what is its intention?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, when the House leader of the opposition raised the question I thought he was being humorous, but I find he was not. The problem is that while it would be possible to justify the terms of the royal recommendation in English, since "marriage" has many meanings, including legal marriage and other kinds of cohabitation, I find

June 5, 1975
Business of the House
when I look at the French version it states "conjoint", which almost surely means legal marriage. My intention, therefore, is to ask unanimous consent tomorrow when the bill is called to an amended version of the recommendation.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Transport consider a strong request to the CNR to enter into a unilateral contract with the CSL to continue the packet steamship business on the Great Lakes in view of the reported refusal of the CPR to continue this vital service, and would he consider a subsidy if necessary to keep the service going in view of its importance and the fact that if the service disappears the Minister of Transport will be forced to supplement the revenue received by several harbour commissions from this vital service?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would surely, as I have already, support an understanding between CSL and the railways. As far as subsidies are concerned, I think the CTC is the proper organization to decide this. I am very worried about this problem and I am trying to solve it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I think on reflection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Corbin.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government House leader if he could give us the business of the House for the balance of this week and perhaps as far into the future as he might be able to see.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Beyond three o'clock.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all designate the remaining allotted days. I should like to designate June 9, 12, 13, 17, 18 and 19 as allotted days, pursuant to Standing Order 58.
Tomorrow we intend to call Bill C-62, having satisfied the hon. member that the recommendation will be in good order. Then on Tuesday and Wednesday I would like, if possible, to deal with certain matters that are of considerable urgency. I gather that the Senate has now submitted its amendments to the petroleum administration act. We wish to call that act so as to get it approved quickly. I also hope that in due course we will get the Petro-Can bill out of committee because it is equally urgent.


Walter David Baker: May I ask a further question with respect to government business? In view of the statement in the early part of the question period, by the Prime Minister, that he would be prepared to take part in a debate on the question of nuclear proliferation and perhaps other aspects of our foreign policy in government time, would the government House leader consider entering into discussion with the other House leaders and taking whatever steps might be necessary so that we could discuss the matter on a day during government business?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I understood the Prime Minister, he did say that if the opposition would call this business on one of the allotted days, he would be present and so would all those ministers whom the opposition would like to have present, and I stand by that offer.


FINANCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), and in accordance with my undertaking given to the House on February 19, 1973, I wish to table the final report on corporate tax measures of the Tax Measures Review Committee, in both official languages.


IMMIGRATION POLICY
Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the motion on behalf of the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell). As chairman of the Special Joint Committee on Immigration Policy, he is travelling in the maritimes with his committee.


Thomas Lefebvre: that the first report of the Special Joint Committee on Immigration Policy, presented to the House on Monday, June 2, 1975, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
June 5, 1975


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the spokesman for our party on immigration matters is not here; he is also travelling with the committee. I do not wish to hold up this matter, but I think it should be on the record that we earlier pointed out this particular problem to the minister and said that more than likely we will be running into trouble. At that time the minister did not think we would be running into trouble, but I am pleased to note he has reversed himself and now appreciates the fact that this matter is of some significance. It would be impossible to reach a decision by July 31. Accordingly, I am sure that the chairman, for whom I speak, would give unanimous consent for us to proceed, keeping in mind a subsequent date.


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


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has been sufficient study of this report for it to be accepted unanimously.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question of accepting the report unanimously. A motion is made for concurrence in the report. It is a debatable motion and the debate may ensue forthwith; otherwise, the question is put. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, you will recall the confusion that ensued at the conclusion of the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I wonder whether we might avoid that confusion this evening if an order of the House is made that after the votes on the items of the Department of National Defence are taken, the remainder of the time be devoted to the expression of grievances, on condition that no more than half the time be taken in the statement of the grievance.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, that is quite agreeable to us. I assure you that if any member on this side of the House raises a question of privilege and tries to speak for too long, we will be just as anxious as the government House leader to stop him. We are very anxious to see gentlemen's agreements established in the House and always carried out as agreed upon, which unfortunately has not always been the case.


Walter David Baker: I rise on the same point, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the discussions which we had, this arrangement was to be for this evening alone. We might consider something else at a later time.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are party to this arrangement. I have spoken with my friends further down the aisle and we all agree to it.


Mr. Reid:: Do I understand the arrangement to be that half the time will be taken by someone raising a grievance, and the government having the remainder of the time to reply to the grievance?


Mr. Speaker:: Can it be taken as agreed that at 9.45 p.m. all necessary questions pursuant to the Standing Order will be put to dispose of the items examined in committee of the whole, and half the time remaining between then and ten o'clock will be used for whatever grievance is raised, while the other half will be absorbed by the response of the government? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today; Nos. 1,255, 2,425, 2,426, 2,472, 2,497, 2,508, 2,509, 2,510, 2,511, 2,512, 2,513, 2,514, 2,515, 2,516 and 2,517.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,486?
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Which Ministers of the present Cabinet from constituencies in the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have given public support to national wage parity for government employees since April, 1974 and, in each case (a) what are the locations (b) on what dates?
2.	To what effect have these representations been made?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	The Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald, the Hon. Donald C. Jamieson and the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen endorsed a full examination of existing regional wage policies to ensure a greater equity for all within the Federal Public Service, (a) Halifax, Nova Scotia, (b) June 16, 1974.
2.	Treasury Board has the examination of its regional wage policies under continual review.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works on July 13, 1973, commission Pluritec, Consulting Engineers to do a study on pleasure boat naviga-

June 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions
tion of the Ottawa River west of Ottawa and, if so (a) have they made a report to the government (b) on what date was the report made?
2.	Has the government made any decisions based on the report and, if so (a) what are such decisions (b) on what date will the government release the report (c) how much did the report cost?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes. (a) Yes. (b) Mid-March, 1975.
2. No. (a) Not available, (b) No decision has been made as yet on when or if the report will be released, (c) $50,851.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total amount of money that the government has on deposit in non-interest accounts in banks or other institutions?
2.	Which government departments, agencies or Crown corporations have money on deposit in non-interest accounts and what is the total amount of money for each?
3.	For what length of time are such deposits being held?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
total amount on deposit in non-interest accounts in banks or other institutions to the credit of the Receiver General for Canada, at March 31, 1975, excluding public funds in transfer accounts, amounts held by banks and institutions for forwarding and amounts in transit was $158.5 millions.
2.	Deposit in
non-interest accounts
Crown Corporations	as at March 31, 1975 (thousands of dollars)
Air Canada	4,250
Atomic Energy	1,035
Canada Council	3,234
Canada Department Insurance Corporation 80	
Canadian Arsenals Ltd.	327
CBC	11,218
CCC	-588
CN (W.I.) Steam	I
COTC	1,404
Canadian Patents and Development	11
Canadian Saltfish Corporation	273
Cape Breton Development	1,101
CMHC	4,713
Company Young Canadians	147
Crown Assets	986
Custodian	00
Defense Construction	170
Eldorado Aviation	50
Eldorado Nuclear	0,424
FDC	2,015
Farm Credit	12,810
Freshwater Fish	130
National Arts Centre	450
National Battlefields Commission	80
NCC	2,033
North Canadian Power	290
North Transportation Co. Ltd.	370
Pilotage Authorities	111
Seaway International	13

St. Lawrence Seaway	470
	53,758
CN 11	29,311
	183,009
3.	These deposits are held for varying lengths of time which are subject to daily fluctuation.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the increase in rents being applied by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to owners of cottages, dwellings, etc. located on Rideau Canal land, what are the names and addresses of all persons who have been advised of a rent increase and, in each case (a) what was their previous rent per year (b) what will be their maximum rent when the new schedule is fully in effect?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Rentals on licences or leases for the use of Rideau Canal Reserve Lands are established or reviewed under the following circumstances: (a) the term of the current lease or licence has expired; (b) a five year cyclical review of agreements without a specific term; (c) an existing agreement is assigned; or (d) a new agreement is entered into. As any one or a combination of the above opportunities can occur at any time a list of current agreement holders would not remain valid. The rental received by the Crown for the use of Rideau Canal Reserve Lands is considered to be confidential between the lessor and the lessee and as such is privileged information.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	On what date did the government become the owner of Lower Fort Garry in the Province of Manitoba?
2.	How did the government obtain such ownership?
3.	Did the government make any payment to the former owner of Lower Fort Garry for this property and, if so, in what amount?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. Mr. Speaker, the response to part 1 is January 17, 1951.
2.	The response to part 2 is order in council PC.255 dated January 17, 1951 authorized the acceptance of a transfer of the land on which lower Fort Garry is located from the governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay, commonly called the Hudson's Bay Company. Certificate of title No. 733326, to His Majesty the King, registered January 17, 1951 at the office of the district registrar for Winnipeg refers.
3.	The answer to part 3 is that the land was obtained from the company as a gift, free of charge.


Mr. Cossitt: Has the government given consideration to allowing mortgage payments on homes as an income tax deduction and (a) if so, what was the
June 5, 1975

result (b) if not, will the government give immediate consideration to this?


John Napier Turner: Please refer to question No. 438 posed by Mr. Jones, October 15, 1974 and replied to by the Minister of Finance on January 29, 1975.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What was the total loans granted by the Bank of Canada to the Province of Quebec during the years (a) 1940 (b) 1945 (c) 1950 (d) 1955 (e) 1960 (f) 1965 (g) 1970 (h) 1971 (i) 1972 (j) 1973 (k) 1974 and what were the terms of reimbursement?


John Napier Turner: The Bank of Canada has made no loans to the province of Quebec in the years stipulated.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What was the total loans granted by the Bank of Canada to the Province of Ontario during the years (a) 1940 (b) 1945 (c) 1950 (d) 1955 (e) 1960 (f) 1965 (g) 1970 (h) 1971 (i) 1972 (j) 1973 (k) 1974 and what were the terms of reimbursement?


John Napier Turner: The Bank of Canada has made no loans to the province of Ontario in the years stipulated.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What was the total loans granted by the Bank of Canada to the Province of Manitoba during the years (a) 1940 (b) 1945 (c) 1950 (d) 1955 (e) 1960 (f) 1965 (g) 1970 (h) 1971 (i) 1972 (j) 1973 (k) 1974 and what were the terms of reimbursement?


John Napier Turner: The Bank of Canada has made no loans to the province of Manitoba in the years stipulated.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What was the total loans granted by the Bank of Canada to the Province of Saskatchewan during the years (a) 1940 (b) 1945 (c) 1950
(d)	1955 (e) 1960 (f) 1965 (g) 1970 (h) 1971 (i) 1972 (j) 1973 (k) 1974 and what were the terms of reimbursement?


John Napier Turner: The Bank of Canada has made no loans to the province of Saskatchewan in the years stipulated.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What was the total loans granted by the Bank of Canada to the Province of Alberta during the years (a) 1940 (b) 1945 (c) 1950 (d) 1955
(e)	1960 (f) 1965 (g) 1970 (h) 1971 (i) 1972 (j) 1973 (k) 1974 and what were the terms of reimbursement?
Order Paper Questions


John Napier Turner: The Bank of Canada has made no loans to the province of Alberta in the years stipulated.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What was the total loans granted by the Bank of Canada to the Province of British Columbia during the years (a) 1940 (b) 1945 (c) 1950 (d) 1955 (e) 1960 (f) 1965 (g) 1970 (h) 1971 (i) 1972 (j) 1973 (k) 1974 and what were the terms of reimbursement?


John Napier Turner: The Bank of Canada has made no loans to the province of British Columbia in the years stipulated.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What was the total loans granted by the Bank of Canada to the Province of Newfoundland during the years (a) 1940 (b) 1945 (c) 1950 (d) 1955 (e) 1960 (f) 1965 (g) 1970 (h) 1971 (i) 1972 (j) 1973 (k) 1974 and what were the terms of reimbursement?


John Napier Turner: The Bank of Canada has made no loans to the province of Newfoundland in the years stipulated.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What was the total loans granted by the Bank of Canada to the Province of New Brunswick during the years (a) 1940 (b) 1945 (c) 1950 (d) 1955 (e) 1960 (f) 1965 (g) 1970 (h) 1971 (i) 1972 (j) 1973 (k) 1974 and what were the terms of reimbursement?


John Napier Turner: The Bank
of Canada has made no loans to the province of New Brunswick in the years stipulated.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What was the total loans granted by the Bank of Canada to the Province of Nova Scotia during the years (a) 1940 (b) 1945 (c) 1950 (d) 1955 (e) 1960 (f) 1965 (g) 1970 (h) 1971 (i) 1972 (j) 1973 (k) 1974 and what were the terms of reimbursement?


John Napier Turner: The Bank of Canada has made no loans to the province of Nova Scotia in the years stipulated.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What was the total loans granted by the Bank of Canada to the Province of Prince Edward Island during the years (a) 1940 (b) 1945 (c) 1950 (d) 1955 (e) 1960 (f) 1965 (g) 1970 (h) 1971 (i) 1972 (j) 1973 (k) 1974 and what were the terms of reimbursement?


John Napier Turner: The Bank of Canada has made no loans to the province of Prince Edward Island in the years stipulated.
6468

June 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order somewhat similar to one I have raised on two or three occasions without any response whatsoever from the parliamentary secretary. Therefor I think I am justified and it is appropriate that I raise it again. I refer, first, to question No. 32 placed on the order paper on September 30 in this parliament and standing on the order paper in the previous parliament back to a little over one year ago. It is still unanswered. This question asks for information regarding the use of government helicopters by the Prime Minister to travel on April 25, 1974, to the Ontario Liberal Party annual meeting in Sudbury. It is a very simple and straightforward question asking for facts withheld for a year.
The other question I speak about is No. 69, also on the order paper for approximately one year in this parliament and the last, asking for a list of all trips made by the Prime Minister which in any way included political or pleasure trips. This question has also been unanswered for a year.
I think that having now risen three or four times to ask why these questions have not been answered, I am owed an answer by the parliamentary secretary or by the President of the Privy Council, because it is utterly ridiculous when someone asks for legitimate information that a year should go by, and that it should be raised three or four times with absolutely no response from the government. I can, therefore, only say that if these questions are not answered, or if I cannot receive some assurance that answers will be forthcoming, it is a pure and simple case of the Prime Minister trying to hide the number of times he has put his hand into the public cash register.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, on a similar point of order, I would like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary my question No. 1,283 which was placed on the order paper on January 24. It is a straight forward question simply asking which areas of government make available lists which can be used by commercial firms for direct mail campaigns. I do not think there is anything complicated about it and I am wondering what the reason for the delay in getting an answer might be.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House in committee of supply to consider a certain item for the year ending March 31, 1976, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 58(9)-Mr. Laniel in the chair. NATIONAL DEFENCE
Resolved that a sum not exceeding $2,055,173,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976 (less the amount voted in interim supply) as follows:
Vote 1-Defence Services-Operating expenditures and authority for total commitments, subject to allotment by the Treasury Board, of $6,452,513,000 for the purposes of Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 of the Department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $3,834,333,352 will come due for payment in future years), authority to make payments from any of the said Votes to Provinces or Municipalities as contributions toward construction done by those bodies, authority, subject to the direction of the Treasury Board, to make recoverable expenditures or advances from any of the said Votes in respect of materiels supplied to or services performed on behalf of individuals, corporations, outside agencies, other government departments and agencies and other governments and authority to spend revenue, as authorized by Treasury Board, received during the year for the purposes of any of the said Votes-$2,055,173,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, most of my opposite numbers seem to have disappeared, but I wonder if there have been any arrangements made regarding the time for questions and answers in today's discussion, similar to those made on other occasions.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we are to revert to a form of procedure where hon. members have 20 minutes each and are able to rise again if seen by the Chair. These are the arrangements for today only.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask
whether the 20 minutes allotted to each member includes time for answers from the minister, or what is the plan?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I would be quite agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that we were to have 15-minute speeches and that there would be time within those 15 minutes for questions. It would be a matter of choice for those speaking as to whether they wished to use the full time to talk, or to have questions answered, but either or both would be included within the 15 minutes.


The Chairman:: Order, please. Considering what has just been said, I think it might be worth while for hon. members concerned perhaps to get together and come to some agreement, because the interpretations of what has been said by the hon. member for Victoria and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may not correspond.
If we proceed without any agreement and follow the 20-minute rule, every time an hon. member rises after an
June 5, 1975

answer, he is allowed another 20 minutes. I would like the committee, if an agreement is made, to let the Chair know when an hon. member will be entitled to seek the floor for the second time. The previous agreement allowed an hon. member to speak a second time if other members from his party yielded to him at one time or another. Otherwise this will be difficult to apply if we have to follow the general rule as laid down in the Standing Orders.


Mr. Paproski:: I think the House leaders could meet in this regard while the hon. member for Victoria carries on with his speech. I think that would be the proper way to do it, so that we will not waste any time. I wonder if that is agreeable to all hon. members.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I cannot accept the proposal the minister has put forward, that we have a total of 15 minutes for asking questions and being provided with answers. That would only indicate that the minister does not want a proper examination of his estimates. I hope that when the House leaders meet they will at least allow half an hour for hon. members to make partial speeches and to have proper exchanges with the minister. It cannot be done in 15 minutes.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I was reflecting the practice as outlined to me by the House leader. It is not an invention of mine but it has been the practice previously when estimates have been considered in this way in committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we could, of course, go out and have a meeting, but that takes time and perhaps one or two of the House leaders would have to be found. Since there seems to be resistance to the idea of cutting it to 15 minutes, and since 20 minutes is the time set out in the rules, I wonder if we could agree on the 20-minute formula, which is 20 minutes to a member, with each member being free to speak for the whole 20 minutes or to divide it between himself and the minister for the purpose of answering questions; in other words, the same practice that we followed last time, except that the allotment would be 20 minutes instead of 15 minutes.


Walter David Baker: I presume that as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is concerned, he is saying that the committee procedure mentioned by Your Honour could still be followed and that an hon. member could yield to another member of his own party. I think that is quite reasonable. As we all know, hon. members do have the opportunity to speak more than once during proceedings in committee of the whole and I think that would be agreeable.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Chairman, to avoid discussing this matter of procedure until dinner time, I believe it would be better to favour a 20-minute period for each speaker. During this 20-minute period, if answers are required of the minister, they will be included within that time. But if a speaker wishes to keep the floor to himself during those twenty minutes, he will be free to do so.
Business of Supply


Gérald Laniel: There seems to be at least some agreement at this stage which I will try to sum up and clarify. It appears to be unanimously agreed that an hon. member will be entitled to have the floor for 20 minutes either to make a speech or for the purpose of asking questions. If a member does ask questions, the time used by the minister will be included in his 20 minutes, but the use of this 20-minute time limit will not preclude hon. members from speaking again if their party colleagues yield to them. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, having heeded the Prime Minister's admonition of this past Monday to read Machiavelli, I should like to begin today's debate with a quote from that source as follows:
There is nothing more true than that if there are no soldiers where there are men it is not owing to any natural or local defect but is solely the fault of the prince.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Let us remember this, for indeed the current state of affairs which finds the forces undermanned, overtasked, ill-directed and armed with obsolete equipment is the result of a decade of neglect by the government. Given neither thoughtful direction by cabinet nor the resources needed to maintain an effective, modern force, the Department of National Defence has been allowed to drift to its present state of near chaos.
Canada is not a militarist state. We do not seek to be awesome and feared. Yet an ability to defend one's sovereignty and to fulfil one's international obligations is necessary: it is a prerequisite for even a "just society". Perhaps the Prime Minister would prefer this to be couched in the terms of the classics, and for this I turn once more to Machiavelli, who said:
Neither abundance of money nor natural strength of the country will suffice, nor will the loyalty and goodwill of his subjects endure. For these cannot remain faithful to a prince who is incapable of defending them. Neither mountains nor lakes nor inaccessible places will present any difficulties to an enemy where there is a lack of brave defenders.
It is tempting, Mr. Chairman, to discuss once again some of the specific problems which plague the armed forces; indeed, such an exposition could be continued for days. However, I will instead discuss broader policy questions for I was particularly struck by a statement which the Prime Minister is reported to have made-a statement to the effect that democratic governments cannot expect the people they represent to support defence policies automatically and without question, and that a continuous challenging of tactics and strategies was necessary for the government to be convinced of their worth and, in turn, for it to be able to convince parliament and the people of the worth of those policies.
It was, therefore, with some eagerness that I awaited the Prime Minister's statement on the NATO conference, for major changes are taking place and extremely important decisions are being made within the alliance. I thought he would perhaps outline the government's position and, at the very least, he would surely acquaint us with the issues
29561 -65V2

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply
as he saw them and encourage a dialogue. I was to be disappointed. I use the words of the member for Oshawa-Whitby, who said:
On the question of NATO and the role Canada is to play in NATO, we got absolutely nothing from the Prime Minister.
Given that the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence are unwilling to discuss the current strategic and military situation internationally or within NATO, I feel that it is my duty to give the report that the Prime Minister should have given on Monday and raise this subject in the hope that it will provoke greater discussion of the decision which Canada must make soon with respect to its defence policy.
The past two years have brought great changes in the military situation in many areas of the world. The Yom Kippur war, the ensuing oil embargo and price rise, all have drastically altered the economic situation and consequently the military situation in the Middle East. The seemingly eternal war in Viet Nam seems now to be over. Cyprus has been invaded by Turkey, bringing Turkey and Greece to the brink of war. Finally, Portugal has begun to divest herself of African colonies. These events have not been without their internal causes and repercussions, but more of that later.
The diplomatic scene, too, has been far from quiet. The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks-SALT-have resulted in an initial agreement; the conference on security and co-operation in Europe seems about to produce some accords; talks between Arabs and Israelis continue sporadically. While the age of detente may seem to be upon us, let us not delude ourselves that the world is as we might wish it to be. Consider, for example, this assessment by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute:
SALT and certain other arms control measures have, of course, had very important, far reaching political consequences. In particular, they have significantly contributed to the improvement of relations between some states. But, in general, they have not produced any actual disarmament, nor have they even stopped the arms race.
There are two observations to be emphasized from this statement: firstly, we are in, and are likely to remain in, an era of a balance of terror, one of mutual assured destruction capabilities; secondly, the relations between states and their perceptions of each other's intentions are very important. On this latter point, let me give an example from the structure of forces in Europe. On the NATO side there is widespread concern over the very offensive disposition of the Warsaw Pact troops, a concern heightened by the latter's overwhelming superiority in armoured forces. On the other hand, the Warsaw Pact must be concerned with NATO's reliance on quick reaction aircraft as they are very vulnerable to a pre-emptive attack and, therefore, must be perceived as rather offensive weapons themselves. This intense interest with intentions and capabilities may seem abstract and academic, but in our nervous world it is, quite literally, of deadly importance.
Let us now turn for a moment to see just what the specific outcomes of the strategic agreements have been. The first meeting, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks- SALT I-resulted in an interim agreement signed in 1972. Generally speaking, it froze the holdings of intercontinental missiles, but not warheads, at 1,054 for the United States and 1,618 for the U.S.S.R. The number of subma-

rine-launched ballistic missiles, or SLBMs, was likewise frozen at 656 for the United States and 740 for Russia. You will notice that Russia was higher in both cases. The SLBM levels were raised later, however, owing to an ongoing U.S.S.R. submarine building program, to 710 missiles on 44 submarines for the Americans and 950 missiles for the U.S.S.R., on 62 submarines.
In brief, the United States agreed to superior numbers of heavier missiles for the Russians; this was because the United States held a technological lead in the production of multiple independently-targeted re-entry vehicles, or MIRVs, which in plain language means a missile with several warheads.
The next agreement was the Vladivostok agreement of last November. This new agreement limits each side to 2,400 missiles or heavy bombers, of which 1,320 can carry MIRVs. It is my feeling that the Vladivostok agreement, while it sets numerical ceilings on the strategic arms levels, has several serious faults: first, the restriction is on numbers and not on qualitative developments; second, the limits are too high by far. Moreover, many major problems were ignored: for example, the identification of MIRV missiles cannot be done with current surveillance methods. No one will be able to tell whether any country has exceeded the limit of their MIRV missiles. Finally, the omission of the Russian "backfire" bomber, cruise missiles, strike aircraft, bomber standoff missiles and IRBMs from the list indicates how much further the negotiations must go.
Due to the lack of a qualitative ceiling, the Russians are at present flight testing four new missiles. The U.S.S.R. has always had an advantage in weight per missile, and it is estimated that if the new missiles are all deployed the U.S.S.R. would have a "throw weight" advantage of five or six to one; that is, ten million to twelve million pounds for the Russians to two million pounds for the United States. This possible imbalance caused President Ford to indicate that they might try to develop a new rocket motor technology in an attempt to catch up.
I believe that civilization's best chance for survival is for these two superpowers to remain fairly equally balanced militarily. In the short term and over the intermediate term perhaps we can talk them down from the over-arming of the recent past. The limitations imposed by SALT I and Vladivostok are, at best, only a start.
Turning from the global strategic situation, let us now look at the European theatre and in particular at the political pressures within NATO. Over the course of the past few years the relations between NATO states have shifted dramatically. The most obvious example is that of Turkey and Greece; set off by the events on Cyprus and fueled by disagreement in the Aegean, the discord between the two has reached a point where it threatens the very existence of NATO's so-called "southern flank".
There has also arisen a basic difference in attitude between the United States and France. President Giscard seeks to be a bridgebuilder between industrialized, oil consuming Europe and the OPEC group as well as other third world producers. President Ford, in contrast, has sought a common front of industrialized oil consumers to
June 5, 1975

exert joint pressures on the producers. In this pursuit, the Americans have tended to see NATO as an economic as well as a military alliance that should strengthen the western position.
Tensions and uncertainties have also arisen because of changes within certain countries. Perhaps the most important changes are being made within the United States where, occasioned by the collapse of the South Vietnamese regime, a reassessment and debate on basic external policy issues seems to be starting. This debate will certainly be important to NATO simply because of the predominant role which the U.S. plays in the alliance.
Forced to do so by her economic plight, Britain has decided upon a substantial reduction in her armed forces and on a withdrawal from the Mediterranean. This will, like the Turkey-Greece dispute, seriously affect the southern flank, although a recent Italian decision to strengthen her navy may offset the British action to some degree.
Finally, and again on the southern flank, there is Portugal. After decades under a right-wing dictatorship, the majority of the Portuguese people are now trying to establish a functioning democracy. We who have been blessed with democracy for a century-I consider that 1867 to 1975 is more than a century-may not realize how difficult this is. There is the very real possibility that the attempt at democracy will fail and end in left-wing dictatorship. This would be tragic, just as a lapse back to right-wing dictatorship would be tragic.
I was pleased to see that the government has invited a Portuguese mission to Ottawa to discuss bilateral trade arrangements. Anything which Canada can do to strengthen the democratic forces in Portugal is to the good. While in narrow military terms the changes in Portugal add uncertainty to the NATO picture, we must accept this and try to show to the Portuguese people that NATO can be a beneficial economic as well as military organization and that it encourages democracy. In summing up the Portuguese situation, I will quote from an editorial in the Edmonton Journal: It says:
Let Portugal sort out her own internal affairs and work out her own destiny. NATO will be better off with a healthy relationship with whatever new Portugal emerges from the present upheavals, than tied to the forces of reaction and repression that have inevitably provoked their own unpopularity and downfall.
With the conclusion of this brief examination of some of the recent political trends in NATO, I will now turn, Mr. Chairman, to more direct military questions. Just at the time when the developments on the southern flank threaten the viability of NATO as a regional alliance, an unprecedented and particularly worrisome disparity in armoured strength has developed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, while the figures for northern and central Europe are, NATO 620,000 troops versus Warsaw Pact 910,000, in main battle tanks the figures are, NATO 7,000 versus Warsaw Pact 20,000.
It has been the custom over the past three decades to console ourselves in the face of these odds by remembering the nuclear deterrent; that is, if the U.S.S.R. attacked our numerically inferior forces on the ground in western Europe, then we would use tactical nuclear battlefield weapons. This has always seemed to me to be a very
Business of Supply
unsatisfactory answer. I have never been able to convince myself that the use of atomic weapons can be restricted to narrow military battlefields. While the first nuclear weapon might be used on a troop concentration, the next one is as likely to be used on a staging area, and so on, until within hours Washington and Moscow are targets and the holocaust is upon us.
I am certain that I have not been alone in my concern about the practicality or sanity of the atomic deterrent being our only deterrent in western Europe. We have seen NATO progress from the original "trip-wire" theory to the "flexible response", and to "selective targeting" where the targets would be military installations rather than cities. This is supposed to give the President of the United States a broader range of options than existed previously, provided of course that he is still around after the other side exercises its option.
The use of battlefield nuclear weapons has become an important issue of debate within NATO itself. Senator Nunn's amendment in the U.S. Senate requested the U.S. department of defence to examine and justify the 7,000 nuclear warheads in western Europe-the U.S.S.R. in comparison, is thought to have between 3,500 and 7,000. The basic quandary remains unchanged, however. A strong deterrent position on the part of the United States gives their NATO allies a false sense of security and they immediately react by reducing their conventional forces. On the other hand, any evident lack of resolve to use the deterrent encourages the only possible enemy and arouses European fears that the strategic support of the United States would evaporate under the pressure of all-out nuclear confrontation.
Mr. Schlesinger is a strong supporter of "essential equivalence." He has pointed out:
Deterrence is not a substitute for defence: defensive capabilities, representing the potential for offensive counteraction are the essential conditions of deterrence. This simple truth becomes especially evident in a crisis, when forces designed only for "deterrence" are increasingly found to be lacking in credibility both to opponents and to potential users.
This question of the credibility of the deterrence is crucial. As long as we rely solely upon a nuclear deterrent, any aggressor whose objectives are limited can delude himself that his aggression will not provoke a nuclear response. A capability for a balanced and suitable reaction to a wide range of situations is the keystone of any reasonable defence policy.
Given that an effective NATO capable of responding to many different situations is a necessary part of western European stability and, hence, of Canadian security, two questions should be asked of the Canadian involvement. First, are we doing our share in NATO? Second, is the money Canada is spending being used wisely? Our share in NATO, it would seem to a fairminded person, should be based on our resources and our ability to commit them. On examination one finds that our military budget, based on percentage of our GNP, comes in twelfth out of 13, being ahead of tiny Luxembourg only. We are seen to be a wealthy nation acting as the cheapest skate in NATO.
As for the wisdom with which the money is spent, NATO as a whole leaves much to be desired in the way of economic husbanding of funds. A recent study commis-


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the hon. member for Victoria for bringing before this House the subject of defence, a subject which is not particularly popular with the press or with the general public. Yet no one who thinks about the subject can doubt its importance. Our sovereignty depends upon our defence. The maintenance of a stable world and stable peace depends upon methods of defence such as peacekeeping. The economic consequence of an expenditure of more than $2 billion a year of our budget makes it a subject that we have an obligation to consider.
I am afraid that what I am going to say will not very much interest the Minister of National Defence. I am going to discuss a subject which I have previously discussed with him and the House. I do not think the minister will find very much that is new. I believe the major decision that has been made in the field of defence is a wrong decision. I refer to the decision to renew the agreement known as NORAD. I know that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence has made a majority report recommending such action. I want to take this opportunity to say that a minority of that com-

mittee, and I do not know whether it consisted of other than myself and the hon. member for New Westminster-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: And the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The three of us had a different view. I shall briefly try to state that view. We thought the result of the recommendation should be that our government should confer at an early date with the government of the United States, with a view to working out a new, effective means of co-operation in the fields of early warning, detection, surveillance and, where necessary, interception with regard to any invasions of North American air space.
I want to point out again to this House that the stated purpose of NORAD has long been obsolete. That stated purpose was defence against the manned bomber. Although there is lip service paid from time to time, including the majority report of the committee and the minister's statements, to the diminishing, de-emphasized, reduced threat of manned bombers, we continue to say that although that is no longer the principal objective of NORAD it is, in a somewhat reduced form, one of the major objectives. When speaking to the committee on February 27, the minister said:
The first factor to be considered is the bomber threat.
He went on to say that as the Soviet Union has built up its strategic missile forces, the relative importance of manned bombers has continued to decline. The Soviet Union, nonetheless, continues to maintain a sizeable force of longrange bombers, and as long as it does he believes the security interests of this country necessitate our continuing this defence against manned bombers. I am not quoting the minister exactly. Precisely the same view was expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. While he admitted that the bomber threat was of a lesser degree than the missile threat, he still thought that Canada should co-operate with the United States in the maintenance of some form of defence against the bomber threat.
In our view, the time has come to bury this hoary myth and fallacy once and for all, clearly and unequivocally. There is no longer a realistic threat of the use of Soviet bombers in an all-out attack on North America. Expert opinion, common sense and the actions of the U.S.S.R. confirm this opinion. In 1968, the then United States Secretary of Defence, Mr. McNamara, was asked this question in a committee of the Senate, by Senator Miller:
Looking down the road, is it not feasible that they-
That is referring to the U.S.S.R.
-might have as an option the use of selective targets with their bombers and no resort to missiles at least in the early stages of the war?
Secretary McNamara replied:
Completely inconceivable, I think. The reason is that by launching these bombers against our warning systems, they would give us the opportunity to retaliate before they hit us.
I wish to put on record a more recent quotation from James Schlesinger, the United States Secretary , of Defence. I am not quoting obscure, theoretical men, but the people responsible for the defence of North America as
June 5, 1975

a whole under the treaty, and certainly of the United States. He said, in 1974:
Without an effective anti-missile defence precluded to both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. by ABM (SALT) treaty of 1972, a defence against Soviet bombers is of little practical value.
General Guy Simonds, formerly chief of staff in this country, when speaking to the defence committee of this House as long ago as 1964 said that the two or three hours warning of an impending manned bomber attack afforded by the early warning and detection system eliminated the possibility of such an attack unless the Russians were crazy. He said they clearly were not crazy then, and they are not crazy now. Those who continue to speak of the continuing, albeit diminishing threat of a manned bomber attack on North America-as the committee report does, and the minister from time to time-refuse to assess the continued reality of such a threat. They refuse to attribute any degree of rationality to their opponents. Their refusal to meet this argument head-on suggests that it is unanswerable. As a last resort, they state that reality of the threat of the bombers rests in the fact that the U.S.S.R. has continued to maintain some 140 aging intercontinental bombers. It has not increased the number and did not even at the time it was substantially expanding its missiles armoury.
In the Vladivostok understanding arising out of the SALT agreement, the two great nuclear powers set a limit on their delivery systems for nuclear weapons. They included both missiles and manned bombers within the limit. It seems absolutely clear that the U.S.S.R. has no intention of embarking once again on an expanded international manned bomber program. The minister might ask why, then, the U.S.S.R. continues to maintain the present stock of manned bombers. The answer seems to have been given to our committee by Professor David Cox of Queen's University, and I quote:
It is equally plausible for the Soviet Union to take the view that by maintaining a bomber force at however low level a capacity, they can also force the United States and Canada to maintain anti-bomber defences at a much greater rate of financial attrition.
In other words, they maintain them to induce us to continue what we have been doing without any sense for years, that is, maintain under NORAD a substantial means of meeting a threat they would not carry out, as General Simonds said, unless they were crazy. I suggest the survival of the theory of defence against a manned bomber threat is not just a matter of academic interest; it justifies a mentality that diverts Canadian defence from its essential roles. The essence of a sound defence policy, particularly in an era of inflation and the diminishing value of the defence dollar, is to concentrate on essential roles and to provide effective means and equipment to combat real threats. We must discard the mentality that continues to meet threats which, if they ever were real, have long since become obsolete.
I think the real choice before the committee and before the government was, not whether we should renew NORAD or completely repudiate co-operation in defence matters, especially affecting air space, with the United States but whether a better approach might have been to say to the United States: We face a new situation. The
Business of Supply
main purpose of the old treaty has disappeared. We want to negotiate new means of dealing with the threat to our common air space. We no longer believe that joint control is an essential part of these arrangements and we want to see whether we can operate these things on our own with an exchange of information and quite possibly an exchange of weapons. We think that would be a better way of handling this situation.
However, it appears the minister did not even address his mind to this alternative. For him, it was NORAD or nothing. He closed his mind to the alternative which was available, a new arrangement of a different type. He did not ask his staff or his military advisers about it; he told us so in committee. He did not discuss this matter with the United States. Mr. Chairman, we have never questioned the proposition that we should co-operate with the United States in many of these areas. What was questioned was whether we should continue this particular form of cooperation when in our view it is no longer necessary.
The main argument used by the Minister of National Defence and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in favour of the continuation of NORAD was that to do so was essential to satisfactory relations with the United States. We pressed the minister on this contention. We asked him who told him that this was the case. He could think of nothing but vague conversations a long time ago with Mr. Schlesinger.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs assured us that the United States wanted this agreement continued. When we pressed him for reasons, conversations, letters, articles or anything which showed this view to have substance, we drew a complete blank. So the main argument in favour of the renewal of NORAD, the impact or the alleged impact of non-renewal on Canadian-United States relations, was not supported by evidence and the government's automatic willingness to accept the renewal of NORAD without question is an example of mental subservience, an example of the lack of an independent will to make decisions for ourselves.
Given the view which I believe most people share- though not all, I admit-that the NORAD agreement is no longer of military value, why must we defer to the possibly imaginary view that failure to renew it might irritate the United States? The sovereignty of our air space is important and it should not lightly be sacrificed. But even more important is independence of thought in policy-making. This is a basic element of sovereignty and independence. The government tells us from time to time, in foreign policy papers and elsewhere, that this is one of the goals of Canadian foreign policy.
Sometimes we hear talk about the cost element in any new arrangement. We are told it would cost much more to "go it alone" in defending our sovereignty than if there were a joint agreement with the United States. This view is based upon the simplistic reasoning that we would need to duplicate everything that has been done under NORAD before any new approach could be successful. I refer to the defence of our sovereignty, the surveillance of our air space, measures against interception, and so on. As far as I know, the minister and others speaking for him have totally failed to indicate precisely what is necessary in these areas.

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply
After all, we are not trying to defend ourselves militarily against aggression from the United States, even if we feared it. What sort of attack on our sovereignty do we expect? What are the weapons required to deal with such an attack? What would they cost? If this information were given us in a clear form, we might be able to arrive at a sensible answer to these questions. I should like the minister to tell us at some stage in this debate just what is required in this so-called surveillance role. It could be an unlimited commitment or it could be a limited, rational commitment which will meet our needs.
The renewal of the NORAD agreement was said by some to be a justified symbol of good relations between Canada and the United States. My view is that failure to renew NORAD would have been viewed by many people as a symbol of Canadian determination and Canadian sovereignty and it would have been not inconsistent with the closest co-operation between ourselves and the United States. I am glad, however, that the committee and the minister did move some way from arguments in justification of NORAD which have made no sense in the past.
I see I have a minute or two in which to discuss NATO. Here again, we are left in limbo. The Prime Minister came back last Tuesday, I think it was, and made a statement to the House that we would continue our support of NATO and we would not diminish our military contribution. But since he added that some review was in progress, he left the nature of that contribution wide open. Shall we be contributing to the central force, which will require us to buy a whole lot of new tanks, for instance, if ground warfare is contemplated, or new aircraft, as the case may be? Or would it not be better for us to contribute a light, mobile force to be available on the flanks? It is on the flanks that the experts seem to think NATO is most vulnerable. I cannot imagine why we should continue a role inappropriate to our defence capability and means, a role which involves us in extraordinarily heavy expenditures.
I conclude by saying that when this defence structure review, as it is called, becomes available, I hope the minister will ensure that it is sent in good time, before it is finally accepted, to the committee on defence. I am tired of finding that decisions have been made and announced-as was the case in the decision respecting NORAD-before these matters are referred to the committee. "You can look into it if you like", they tell us; but we all know what the answer will be in circumstances of that kind.
The hon. member for Victoria mentioned Portugal. I have had the good fortune to be in Portugal, and I take this opportunity of expressing my conviction of the democratic concern of the people of Portugal. I believe they are willing to co-operate with the western world in any reasonable way that is required. I think the talk we have heard about communist takeovers, and so on, is completely without foundation and I hope it will never be a basis for our policy.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the choice made by the Progressive Conservative party and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) to discuss

the estimates of the Department of National Defence is one which meets the approval of the House. We have rarely, I think, had a discussion on this subject in the committee of the whole in recent years.
These estimates have of course been discussed in committee, but we had got out of the habit of debating them in the committee of the whole, and the new procedure allows us to discuss the estimates of a department, those estimates we feel are the most important. Yet our discussion of the problems of this department this afternoon has shown us that there is something to be said about both sides.
Having heard the speech made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I wonder what Canada would become if the country was run by his party. Perhaps there would be some savings in national defence, but I wonder if those savings would be worthwhile in the short or long run. Yet, Mr. Chairman, we know that any country wishing to have its sovereignty respected must have an army, even a token one. In the present situation, judging by the way roles are played in the world, we have witnessed for some decades the establishment of blocs on both sides. It is a well known fact that every country's military expenses take a large part of governmental budgets. It has practically become inevitable.
We know it is a very costly proposition for a country like Canada which has vast boundaries to defend and a population of barely 22 million inhabitants. Maintaining adequate defence forces is quite an expense.
In the last few years, we have seen the government, mainly in response to pressures from the Canadian public, try to limit its defence budget, with the result we see today. By restricting expenditures, replacement of obsolete equipment has been neglected. Now, today, we are faced with the situation where land equipment, some trucks, are older than the troops that drive them. A few years ago, I visited a military base and saw trucks burning out their fourth engine. At that point, drivers hesitate to venture any distance from camp, for fear they might have to walk back.
Mr. Chairman, when a situation reaches that point, one can have qualified troops, well trained troops, but I wonder how we could defend ourselves with such equipment if we really had to use it one day.
The same applies to heavy artillary. And what about our planes? Our maritime patrol and search planes such as the Argus are already obsolete, and we are told it would cost some $400 to $700 million to replace them.
Of course, this will not be in this year's nor in next year's; I imagine the amount will have to be spread over several years. On the other hand, if we want to go on patrolling our coastline, we will have to provide for the replacement of this plane and for the amounts required in the estimates of the Department of National Defence.
Our fighters are also very old, and we wonder if they would still be effective in case of conflict. They can still be used to train our pilots but, then again, they train on planes which are easy to handle, it is true, but sometimes they must use blank ammunition for their training.
In that sense, our soldiers also complain about not having the necessary equipment to complete their training
June 5, 1975

adequately. Mr. Chairman, generally we have to support the enemy or opponent with regard to the maintenance of a defence army, a well-equiped army. It is a known fact that at the Aeronautics Show in France, big manufacturers vie with one another in selling the most sophisticated aircrafts to NATO. Now if Canada lags behind, it will quickly be out distanced. Those are the facts that face us.
According to press reports today, the U.S.S.R. has just launched what is called a string of satellites. Indeed, they have put into orbit around the earth eight Cosmos satellites, probably for the purposes of setting up a world communication network for Soviet navy units. We also know how fast the USSR is building boats of all kinds, military or other, which are sent to sea all over the world, and I do not think they are playing that game for the tourist trade.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as long as Russia will keep in action and develop a conventional striking force, we shall have to take the same means to defend ourselves. If the Warsaw Pact bloc had only nuclear weapons, NORAD and NATO could also have an all-nuclear defence. But as long as the Warsaw Pact nations, led by Russia, will maintain, for instance, conventional bombers-and we know that it still has the most sophisticated long-range bombers-we never know when Russia will use them to launch a conventional attack on the North American continent or elsewhere. So, as long as Russia will maintain that kind of weapons, I think we must do the same.
Given these facts, the problem is this: Since on the communist side, be it Russia or its satellites, when they need funds to make weapons, they do not care much about what the Russians, the Poles, the Turks or the Hungarians think, they just go ahead. If they have to call in engineers and technicians, to use the smelting works and the plants to manufacture these war weapons, they do, whereas on the side of democracies it is not the same thing, not the same tune.
If the Canadian government, for instance, makes any mention of increasing its national defence budget, cries are heard throughout Canada. Newspapers get hold of the story, especially those that support the kind of speech heard before mine and want Canada and the United States, or any other country, to get rid of their armies. I wonder why. They probably know why, but if we were to do that, we would probably be in difficulty. There lies the question. Must we restrain our military expenses, or must we equip ourselves with arms, or with what I would call good quality tools, capable of being used by our servicemen? Such is the choice we are faced with.
Another very important point must also be brought out. Notwithstanding the nature or size of the national defence budget, be it at the top, or in fourth, fifth or sixth position in the overall Canadian budget, everyone knows there is always some waste. That seems anchored in the minds of our citizens, of our industrialists, of our businessmen and even of our civil servants. When it comes to spending for national defence, there is no hesitating. There are no reduced costs. It seems that such a business has no competition. Full prices are charged, and no thought is given to any reduction, because there is no competition; on the contrary, prices are inflated. It is mostly with that in mind that I want to draw the minister's attention, and I ask him
Business of Supply
to be very careful, to make several checks and to be demanding towards all officials and divisions of his department, in order to prevent that wasting we are aware of, especially during certain periods.
Mr. Chairman, I would not like anyone to say I favour undue expenditures for defence. Neither would I like our defence system to be in danger and within easy grasp by just about anybody. That is, I think, the target every Canadian should have when dealing with expenditures and estimates in a democratic country.


Mr. Dupras:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity given us by the Conservative Party and the first speaker of that party, the hon. member for Victoria, to speak on the subject of defence. I agree to a certain extent with the suggestion that perhaps here in Canada defence is not a popular subject. There are reasons for this. I am sure there are other activities in our lives that would not win popularity contests. But if you spoke to the people of France, Germany, Poland or Russia you would find that defence is a popular subject. Perhaps it is not popular here because those of us with the experience of living through the second world war and the Korean war are in a minority today.
Canadians do not have a strong instinct to protect themselves from wars. That is why it is much more difficult for us to sell the idea of defence in Canada than it is in France, Germany or Britain where the people have experienced war once, and some even twice. To them defence is a very vivid and popular subject.

Most of all Mr. Chairman, I want to seize this opportunity to join others who have already paid homage to the members of the Canadian armed forces and I welcome this new opportunity to do so. I indicated earlier that I also served in the Canadian armed forces, as several of my colleagues. But we are now a minority which does not belong to the medium age group of members of the House of Commons or the Senate.
Indeed, we are a minority in two different ways, only, the Canadian armed forces have for very many years, surely since the 40's and even before, greatly contributed in building Canada's and the Canadians' reputation. They are a Canadian presence in Europe as well and in Egypt and elsewhere. Every time the Canadian armed forces were called to serve or help, they performed with the greatest distinction. To refer to statements often made about the members of the Canadian army, I should like for instance to recall what NATO Secretary General Joseph Luns sais following a tour of our armed forces in Europe. He mentioned how himself and the council members were impressed by the ability and competence of Canadian troops, also the excellent condition of their equipment and their typical flexibility in combining with our allies's forces.
I heard similar comments, Mr. Chairman, during the symposium on defence which I attended last February. The ministers of defence and the parliamentary delegates who attended were constantly repeating how the members of the Canadian armed forces had distinguished them-
6476

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply
selves by their abilities, their merits, their eagerness in their profession and their devotion.
I do not wish to deal more particularly with this issue, but it is the first opportunity given to me to recall also how valuable for the Canadian people of my province in 1970 was the support of the excellent members of the Canadian armed forces.
You have seen the films which are being distributed throughout the world showing the reactions in Canada and in Quebec to the 1970 events. Most of those who distribute those films are criticized, the government and those who took that decision. Surely this is because they were not witnesses. Those who make that insidious propaganda did not witness what happened in 1970. After the event, it is indeed very easy to claim that we had overestimated the gravity of the situation. It is like the manager of a baseball club who must decide whether the runner should try to steal home. When the play fails, 15,000 spectators can stand up and say: "Well, I could have told him that it would fail". In retrospective it is very easy to express an opinion and criticize the decision taken.
However, when we refer to the situation as it existed in October 1970, very few people, as far as I know, came forward voluntarily to give information as to the number of revolutionaries and their intention. I suggest that all those who criticize the government should say so. If someone had the information, why did he not reveal that this small group of hot heads wanted only to call the attention of the world on a situation which existed in the minds of a few people who have hang ups and who are living in a very special kind of anguish. There were a few enlightened people who could have informed us at the end of September or in early October and who ventured, came forward and volunteered information, saying it was a small group. And thanks to the federal government's action, and especially that of the Canadian Armed Forces, members of the armed forces very ably performed that awkward work. And I am referring here especially to the Canadian Armed Forces members who did not speak French and who were on duty in the province of Quebec facing the problems I just mentioned.
Therefore there were no regrettable incidents and those people deserve our congratulations, and against the whole world, those who are trying to spread false impressions as to what happened in the province of Quebec are making a mistake. I can say that as I lived through it and in a much more intense way, Mr. Chairman. One may recall that it was at the time of my election campaign to replace my predecessor, the Hon. Leo Cadieux, who was then Minister of National Defence. Therefore being a candidate in a federal election during September and October 1970, travelling through a constituency where people were known for hiding revolutionaries, one can be sure that I have a good idea of what happened and I am convinced that the Canadian government did not overreact to the situation existing then.
But those are not the remarks I wished to make, Mr. Chairman. What I wished to point out mainly is the Canadian troops' participation in NATO and also in NORAD. My colleague from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) recalled the renewal of the NORAD agreement with our neighbours to the south. Others will surely want to deal

with that particular aspect of national defence activities. As for me, I should like to say a few words on NATO and point out that as much as the Marshall Plan was the cornerstone of the economic reconstruction in Europe after the war or immediately after, so did NATO contribute to ensure the military security that led to Europe's unification. And the role of NATO troops. The current situation in the world is such that it is absolutely essential to maintain some stability in Europe, a balance of forces between the two superpowers.
I do not mean here to question the intentions of the Soviets and the allies of member countries of the Warsaw Pack vis-a-vis western Europe; but we know the policy, and it is not a mere question of morality or good intentions. I feel there cannot be true, peaceful security and co-existence in the most positive sense without some equality of military forces, or-and it is utopia to think about it-total disarmament.
We have the responsibility to make sure with our European allies that any attempt to score by a surprise attack in Europe or America is checked by the second strike- that of response. So, if by that strike, that threat, the second strike, we eliminate any possibility of war, then we are maintaining a deterrent force that checks those who would have any intentions of attacking Europe and North America.
And it is that equality of forces that must be absolutely maintained, and on the basis of the information we have on purchases of equipment by member countries of the Warsaw Pact, equipment that is being built, the striking power of that equipment, the size and the number of the troops stationed in central Europe, it is absolutely unthinkable to consider the possibility of withdrawing from the commitment made with our allies and it is absolutely essential that NATO participation be maintained. Such was the intention of the right hon. Prime Minister when he went to Brussels recently. He stated unequivocally that Canada intended to remain present and active within the NATO alliance, and did not intend to reduce the effectiveness of its contribution.
I will give you my interpretation of what in my opinion the Prime Minister meant, and I will also tell you how I would imagine the Canadian contribution in Europe. I believe our Prime Minister first wanted to reassure our allies and those who criticised the Canadian participation. I do not think the expression "part-time partners" of NATO was an allusion to us. But our "unobstrusiveness" in Europe has often been criticized. Of course, when considering the distribution of troops, you realize that we have an important air force. Although I do not want to minimize the importance of the air force-which I belonged to in 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945-1 think that if we are to reassess the contribution of Canada in the light of the recent statements of the Prime Minister, our first aim, considering the vast territory under our care, should be to protect that vast territory whose sovereignty is to be upheld. Maybe the activities and efforts of the air force should be maintained precisely to protect our country, supervise our land, and also meet the engagements we are about to enter into under an agreement which is expected to be signed very soon with respect to the limits of the
June 5, 1975

territory which will be placed under our surveillance on the eastern, northern and western coasts of Canada.
In view of this responsibility, of that vast tract of territory that we have to control and protect, given the changes brought about in the NORAD agreement so that the surveillance of the western sector of Canada be assured exclusively by Canadian forces, I believe that we should rather seriously think of limiting our participation in Europe to land forces, which would require less investment and could be achieved by an increase in our forces and in our visibility in terms of equipment, movement and also in terms of Canadian presence. We know that there are no fewer than 16,000 or 18,000 Canadians now living in West Germany. That figure might be increased.
Thus we could contribute to the acknowledgment of the fact that Canada already belongs to the European community. If it is true militarily speaking, if we are a member of the European military community, there only one step more to convince our allies that we should also be part of the economic, political and social community. I believe that a greater presence of Canadians in Europe could largely contribute to the achievement of that purpose. There is also the matter of the rationalization of equipment. In a symposium which took place in Munich last February, we dealt at great length with the use of the dollar that every country must spend for its defence. We know quite well that it is not easier here than it is in Europe to convince taxpayers that an important part of the budget must be devoted to defence. Here this share amounts to 10 per cent in England, it is 14 per cent. In France it is more for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
If only Canadians could be convinced of all the advantages that an intense presence in Europe can represent! We do not have to give lengthy explanations, for I think that Canadians can understand as well as we do the advantages of such a campaign to convince people that we are already part of the political and military community of Europe, why not make the last step and join the economic community?
As for equipment it might be visible but less expensive. The possibility has been and will be considered, hopefully not for too long, of repeating Israel's experience and modernizing our existing tanks. I am told the upgrading of one tank, the Centurion type, with modern diesel engine and armament to our allies' standards, and with heavier track to carry the equipment, might cost from $200,000 to $250,000. With the number of tanks we already have, and considering that we would have to buy new units as replacement, the investment would be lighter than if we were to buy modern tanks, as the American type now selling between $500,000 and $600,000 apiece. We are assured by experts that an updated, modernized Centurion tank might very well meet central Europe's present needs.
For these reasons, I feel it is urgent that Canada's participation be converted to ground participation. Considering the intentions stated by defence ministers of many European countries at the symposium, where the accent was on equipment rationalization, I believe we will not experience too much difficulty convincing our allies of the importance for Canada to keep mainly our air activi-
Business of Supply
ties, for the reasons I already submitted, and develop ground activity expertise.
I am convinced that if we have a good case to put to our allies, if it is well put and if the members of the committee share my views on the direction that might be given to our participation in Europe, I believe this could contribute to promote both in the cabinet and among our allies the idea that the Canadian participation could very well be a land participation.
Mr. Chairman, those are the comments I wanted to make. There is often mention of reduction as concerns the cost of maintaining forces in Europe by our allies and by Canada. People often talk about reduction and I was astounded to find that the word reduction seems to have hypnotized people. There are some who have a strange conception or definition of the word reduction. If we look at what is going on around us, in my opinion, the word reduction is outdated. Let us look at what happened in Asia. People may condemn and judge our American neighbours for not having kept their word when they had made an official commitment to protect South Vietnam.
The word reduction was perhaps used excessively and we, who have responsibilities, may also have been hypnotized by this word. In my opinion, it was used abusively. I consider that reduction is a thing of the past. We should be much more careful and ensure that the events of last April and May in Asia will not have a domino effect, like some are saying, and that Africa and other countries will not suffer the consequences.
Mr. Chairman, those are the comments I wanted to make, and I am very happy to have been able to make some contribution in clarifying somewhat Canada's participation in the NATO forces.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I, along with other hon. members, wish to participate in this debate which is basically, in theory anyway, on the estimates of the Department of National Defence. It gives an opportunity to hon. members interested in defence to either question or to make statements on this very large subject. I share the general feeling not only of my colleague from Victoria who led off for the loyal opposition, but also my hon. friend from Greenwood with whom I quite often differ on specific points. Often he goes one way and I go the other. But that does not detract from his sincerity and conviction, even though I sometimes think there is a lot of wool wrapped around his arguments.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle. He is the very distinguished chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and as such he is somewhat handicapped in advocating any views. That is why I found it most delightful to listen to some of his views on the overseas situation. I say without hesitation that I hope I do not have to eat those words if we ever find ourselves in confrontation on the hustings. I think he is a worthy successor of his very illustrious predecessor who I think was minister of defence back in 1968 and 1969 and has now gone on to greener pastures and larger challenges as the ambassador to France. I wish the Prime Minister had been

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply
in the chamber this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Labelle. I hope he will read the report of this debate in Hansard so that some of the very cogent thoughts of the hon. member for Labelle can somehow percolate through the inner crustation of the Prime Minister.
I do not intend to be too provocative this afternoon. After all, it is a day in June. We welcome on the floor of the House the new deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, with his minister. The minister has been before the committee many, many times. I am glad the hon. member for Victoria brought on this debate and I welcome the Minister of National Defence, for whom in a personal way I have great fondness and affection, though sometimes in a parliamentary sense we do differ.
I was most pleased when I picked up the paper, long before the Prime Minister returned from his trip overseas, to read what he said when he left Brussels last week at a press conference he held after the NATO summit meeting. He said something which I have been advocating to the Minister of National Defence since I have been involved in the committee, and that goes back several years. Actually, I was involved in the committee before the minister became Minister of National Defence.
There is a former minister of defence sitting in this House. Part of my story goes back to 1968 and 1969, because we have had five ministers of defence in eight years under this government. No wonder there are real problems and questions up in the air about the direction in which we are going and what our objectives are. I read with interest that the Prime Minister said, quite properly, that our democracy is quite different from the countries behind the Iron Curtain which have a monolithic approach to defence. In those countries the leaders or the chairmen of socialist republic committees do not have to worry about public opinion. Any massive contribution to defence or offence is made by a highly organized monolithic group and there is no necessity to inform and educate the public.
I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Labelle and the hon. member for Victoria that in peacetime defence is not the most popular subject. Even in wartime when there may be patriotism, marching bands and national fervor because of the instincts of self-preservation which are prevalent, it is only a necessary subject.
I sympathize with the Minister of National Defence today, as I have for some time even though I am getting quite cross with him. How can anyone in this world who reads newpapers think there is the blissful peace of Christmas lore or the goodwill on earth toward all men after what has just happened in Southeast Asia and the tinderbox of the Middle East?
It has never ceased to amaze me that some in this House wonder if we should support the North American Defence Agreement, NORAD, or whether we should stay in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. I am too young to have served in any theatre of war, but I was a cadet in one of the wars. It is the success of some of the defence pacts such as NORAD and NATO which gives members of parliament and the scribes and pundits out-

side this House the luxury of pontificating about whether we need a treaty or defence pact.
Look at the reality of the world today. Even though we would love to be able to say that we do not need to spend a dollar on defence, we know that is not possible in view of what is happening in Southeast Asia and what is going on in the Middle East, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just visited, or in Africa. We know the situation is not stable. There was the SEATO pact in Southeast Asia which did not stabilize the situation there. Because of decisions taken by North Atlantic countries in the late 1940s and 1950s, a former prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, once said of NATO that it was long overdue. The government had no conviction before that and no commitment to defence.
The Prime Minister has said that there should be, and has to be dialogue and debate with the Canadian public to get support for alliances. I was pleased to hear that. As the Minister of Defence knows, I have been trying to get him to go across this country and talk about defence. I do not mean just to the inner circles, to the messes and the base tours-which of course are necessary-but to go on the Canadian Club circuit, the Rotary Club circuit, and so on. He should be able to talk about defence in an intelligent way, recounting the dilemmas that confront him, without trespassing on the sacrosanct area of security. He could speak about the options that confront him although not, of course, about the recommendations that he makes to cabinet. I am not going to overstress the minister's role today, however.
There is an irony in the statement that the Prime Minister made in Brussels about how you need debate and dialogue with the people in a democracy in order to get support for any alliance. Since the first major overt act of the governement in 1968 when the NATO forces were cut in half, the Prime Minister has had nothing to say. I have looked very quickly through some of the research offices of this House to find when the Prime Minister next spoke on defence, in terms of a substantive contribution to any debate in this House or across the country, and I have yet to find anything. Granted, there was the NATO meeting here last year when he spoke in general terms, there was the Commonwealth conference in Singapore when he pledged allegiance to the Commonwealth, and at Brussels he said we were committed to the NATO concept. Obviously, on his tours of the capital, he has spoken the odd sentence about Canada's role and what our concept is in terms of defence. In terms of any meaningful debate or dialogue, however, there has been nothing.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman-I could make a speech on this, and some day I may in this chamber or outside-the paradox of this Prime Minister in so many areas of policy is almost beyond belief. If he really believed what he said in Brussels last week about informing, educating and dialoguing with the people, why is he absent when the question of defence is being discussed and such large areas of policy have to be defined? Almost every year since 1968-69 there has been a white paper on defence. The minister knows that those papers have been changed almost before the ink was dry. In the white papers of 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 there was a brand new physical formula for defence. Not a year goes by without an inflation
June 5, 1975

factor and the whole thing has to be checked and reworked. The forces in Canada and overseas have been crippled because of the new, dynamic formula that had been developed!
I am not pretending that there have not been semantic statements on defence. The priority which evidently the Prime Minister agreed to in 1968-69 was sovereignty first, NATO second, NORAD third and peacekeeping fourth. Those are the priorities set out in the white paper. Since 1968 there have been five ministers of defence who have had something to say about the subject in debate. There has only been one prime minister since 1968, however. In 1968-69 he made a statement in the House on the changing role of NATO, justifying the change and slicing in half our NATO commitment overseas at that time.
Perhaps the minister or his officials can confront me with a meaningful statement on defence which has been made by a minister in this House. I suggest meaningful statements have not been made; the Prime Minister has not seen fit to become involved in any dialogue on defence and that has made the role of the minister more difficult. I do not want to excuse the minister. Granted, we face economic difficulties; granted, we live in times of pseudo peace; granted, the Prime Minister says many contradictory things: nevertheless, the Canadian people are entitled to be told the government's position on defence. There should be some dialogue on defence, and the lack of dialogue has made the minister's position difficult.
The Minister of National Defence should not be content merely to react, merely to acquiesce in the restraints which have been placed upon him. He should go out to the people and carry the message. He should take a leaf from the book of other ministers and do as they did when they carried their message to the Canadian people. The people are entitled to know what the government's conception is of our role in NATO. The hon. member for Labelle was glad the Prime Minister said there is some commitment to NATO. But, Mr. Chairman, admirable though that sentiment may be, hon. members want to know the specific form of that commitment.
At the recent meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, certain members asked the Minister of National Defence what he means by "level of commitment." For example, we want to know what it means in terms of aircraft, men, tanks, destroyers, and so on. Of course, the minister said, as his predecessors in office and the Prime Minister had said, "These things are under review." This reminds me of Alice in Wonderland. I think Alice asked the caterpillar what a word meant and the caterpillar said, "It means anything I want it to mean." Alice said, "Good gracious, what happens if two words mean the same thing?" The caterpillar answered, "If they mean the same thing, I pay double for them." That just about sums up what has been happening in this House and what happened last week before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. We asked the minister to define our commitment in a meaningful way; so far, we do not have an answer.
Believing that one should say in this House what one has raised in the press-although one is motivated by
Business of Supply
sentiments of rhetoric when writing in the press, which may be of advantage from a political standpoint-I say to the minister that in this country there is consternation arising from policy decisions the government has taken in the field of defence. That being so, I consider it the minister's duty to go across this country and tell the people of Canada what the government's point of view is, and to put that point of view across. Let him imitate the Minister of Finance.
For several months after the election, the Minister of Finance was invisible; he was like a shadow. He was everywhere, trying to explain how the economy works and trying to sell something which he called consensus, even though my leader had raised the subject during the election campaign. The Minister of Finance accepted speaking invitations. I say nothing as to how successful he was and how much wiser we are for all his effort to sell the illusive concept of consensus. Perhaps we know a little more about it today. I say nothing of what happened in the election campaign, because my leader, if you remember, was in favour of a consensus and of a 90-day period after which laws would be passed. No, I will not talk about election dishonesty which involves the Prime Minister.
I am talking about our defence commitment. I do not understand why the minister cannot come clean with the people of Canada and explain exactly what our commitment is. What are the various factors we must consider, apart from money? How many aircraft does the commitment involve, how big a force, what supply machinery, and so on? These factors need to be worked out and we should be aware of the results.
Let me ask another question. When will the government make up its mind on a replacement long-range patrol aircraft-LRPA? We have been asking this question for years and it has been under study for years. Away back on March 16 and 17, 1969, the then minister of national defence, Mr. Cadieux, said that the question of a replacement was being considered. Good heavens, it took us less time to fight and win the second world war, which lasted about 51/2 years, than it will take to find a replacement LRPA. After spending $14 million in trying to decide between two prime contractors for the long-range patrol aircraft, the minister injects the Phoenix proposal into our discussion but does not tell the Canadian people what this involves. How many departments will it involve? Will it involve Defence, Fisheries, the Department of the Environment? I see you are about to rise, Mr. Chairman, and I have hardly begun.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
Before proceeding further, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton-Bilingualism-Possible reference of Quebec's Bill-22 to Supreme Court-Government position; the hon. member for Northwest Territories-Health-Request for reconsideration not to test for mercury poisoning among natives; the hon. member for Vancouver South-Finance-Excise tax on private aircraft and pleasure boats-request for report on effectiveness in limiting consumption of petroleum products.

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Chairman, defence is an important subject. Since we are debating an opposition motion moved on an opposition day, I am disturbed to note that there are only nine members of the official opposition in the chamber. I expected to see more opposition members here. I am sorry the hon. member for Greenwood is no longer present because my comments on defence will centre mainly on the NORAD agreement. If the hon. member were here, I would say to him that unfortunately we live in an imperfect world. In a perfect world we would not need defence commitments, the NORAD agreement or NATO. Since we live in a world beset with dangers, it behooves the Government of Canada to take all necessary steps to protect the sovereignty of our land.
The hon. member for Greenwood discussed one aspect of NORAD, defence against Russian bombers. He contends that as that threat no longer exists, we should end our commitment under the NORAD agreement. I suggest the hon. member dealt with only one small aspect of that agreement. He singled out one aspect, said it no longer applies and suggested, in so many words, that we should throw the agreement in the garbage can, so to speak. I am afraid the hon. member was being one-sided because he referred to only one minor part of the agreement.
I wish to go into a bit of the history of the NORAD agreement and bring it up to date. The original NORAD agreement, signed in 1958 between Canada and the U.S.A., involved an extension of the air defence co-operation that had developed between the two countries since the end of the second world war. Hon. members will recall, I am sure, that during this period the world tensions arising out of the cold war and the continuing growth of an already formidable Soviet bomber force underlined a North American need for protection. It was not something that Canada and the United States dreamed up. They did not just decide it was good to sign a few agreements. There was a threat that existed in 1948 and in 1958 which Canada and the United States realized. Defence planners in both Canada and the United States were convinced that the only strategic threat to North America lay in the possibility of attack from manned Soviet nuclear bombers. That was some years ago.
The NORAD agreement, setting up an integrated command structure for American and Canadian air defence, was thus a natural outgrowth of the times. In simple terms, it established a co-operative defence against Soviet bombers and at the same time provided protection for the United States strategic air command, the western world's main cold war deterrent. The agreement did not commit either country to allocation of military forces, leaving each government to determine the size and nature of its contribution.
The Canadian contribution to NORAD has always appeared minuscule when compared with that of our giant neighbour to the south, even though we have always striven to maintain our proper proportional commitment. Even if Canada supplied 10 per cent of the total interceptors available to the commander-in-chief of NORAD to meet this requirement, it would not fulfil our purely national interests. It was evident, in fact, even in 1958 when our armed forces had reached their post-war peak in
[The Deputy Chairman.]
terms of numbers, that we were unable to span the breadth of the country with interceptor aircraft. United States' interceptors were, and are, effectively carrying out what we now recognize as protection of our national sovereignty.
The original ten-year agreement, renewed in 1968 for five years and extended in 1973 for two years, was obviously aimed at defence against the manned bomber threat. However, North American air defence policy has been under constant review during past years, and mainly as a result of missile development and strategic arms limitation talks between the United States and the Soviet Union has undergone a dramatic change in priorities. Defence against the manned bomber has been de-emphasized in favour of surveillance and control of each country's sovereign airspace. I submit it is a radical change which the hon. member for Greenwood has not noticed. I hope he has, because it is a radical change in NORAD'S commitment.
Since this matter has been raised, I would also like to mention a few facts about the manned bomber threat as it exists today. While, with the growth of missile inventories, the relative importance of the manned bomber as an intercontinental threat has declined, it remains a potent weapons system. Compared to the ICBM, the bomber is more flexible and accurate and is capable of carrying a larger payload. Despite contrary opinion, the number of heavy bombers in the U.S.S.R. inventory has not significantly declined. Moreover, the capability of the Soviet fleet has been improved with the introduction of air-to-surface stand-off missiles and in-flight refuelling.
For the past several years we have been following the development of the new Soviet supersonic swing-wing bomber, nicknamed the "backfire". Several squadrons are in operational service with long-range aircraft and numbers are likely to increase with the phase-out of obsolete types. Even though the major strategic threat is from missiles, we cannot afford to let the strategic balance be upset by ignoring the bomber. We must prepare our defences against what the potential enemy is capable of doing, not against what our analysts assess his intentions to be. It should be stressed that the capability is there. They have introduced new supersonic bombers. We can only assume that these are being brought in as part of their reservoir of weapons, and not merely for show. Because we have analysed the problem as one of supersonic missiles, we still must take into account that this is in their inventory.
To take our defence apart because we analysed it as a missile threat would be leaving our gate partly open. The hon. member for Greenwood is correct that this is not the major impact of the U.S.S.R. Nor, as the old cliche goes, should we ever consider giving them a free ride. The best incentive to Soviet bomber development would be the disbandment of NORAD air defence forces. Small though they may be, and in Canada's case relatively ineffective against bombers such as the "backfire", NORAD's air defence squadrons provide a counterbalance to a known threat.
With regard to nuclear weapons, it is probably in the context of air defence that I should put the question of nuclear weapons to rest. There have been many discus-
June 5, 1975

sions in this House and elsewhere about the fact that we still have nuclear weapons on the CF-101. The minister has stated on several occasions that we have a replacement for it. It will more than likely have conventional weapons. Because of the age of the CF-101, it would be impractical at this time to spend many millions of dollars converting it from nuclear to standard weaponry. We will see the day in Canada where we will not have nuclear weapons. The day of the Bomarc is over. The day of the CF-101 will be over in five years. We will soon see a new generation of fighters which will be equipped with standard weaponry.
I also wish to discuss Canadian sovereignty and independence with regard to the NORAD agreement. While Canadians should appreciate the large American contribution to Canadian defence, our inability to "go it alone" has to some extent raised questions as to Canadian sovereignty. There is little doubt that Canada's participation in NORAD has enhanced our ability to ensure surveillance and control of Canada's airspace. On the other hand, most of the forces required to exercise sovereignty control are American, which to some extent compromises Canadian independence. However, the minister has announced that the western sector of NORAD in Canada will come under Canadian control with the establishment of new headquarters in Alberta.
One of NORAD's long-term objectives has been for us to acquire the ability unilaterally to carry out our own detection and identification functions. I welcome the minister's statement. I welcome it in the context that it will give Canada sovereignty over its own airspace in the foreseeable future. With regard to the renewal of the agreement, it is significant to note that the new agreement indicates the changing emphasis on sovereignty and air defence by according precedence to national sovereignty. In future, the primary objective of NORAD will be to assist each country to safeguard the sovereignty of its airspace, to contribute to the deterrence of attack on North America by providing capabilities for warning of attack and for defence against air attack and, should deterrence fail, to ensure an appropriate response against attack by providing for the effective use of the forces of the two countries available for air defence.
The priorities as set out here have been under study ever since publication of the white paper "Defence in the '70s". In essence, some of the proposals put forth as a result of the study suggested that the surveillance requirements of MOT and DND be integrated into a single national system and that our interceptor force be redistributed to provide an interceptor capability throughout the whole of Canada, rather than the limited areas now protected. Over a year ago DND entered into an agreement with MOT for joint acquisition and use of new, three-dimensional radars. These radars would replace current DND heavy radars, and with complementary MOT terminal radars would stretch across the country to provide surveillance and control for both military and domestic air traffic.
At the same time, and in conjunction with this requirement program, Canada and the United States are reconfiguring the present NORAD regions to emphasize the sovereignty role spelled out in the NORAD agreement.
Business of Supply
Four regional operations control centres will be established in the U.S.A. and two in Canada, one in the east at North Bay and one in the west at Edmonton. The ROCCs will replace the present NORAD regional control centres, processing all the radar detection data and controlling NORAD interceptors. The basic difference between the present regional set-up and the proposed ROCC plan is in the areas controlled. For the first time, control of Canadian airspace will rest solely with Canadians. I like that change.
As to the interceptor force, I have already addressed to some degree the inadequacies of the CF-101. We now rely on the U.S.A to provide interceptor aircraft to prosecute sovereignty violations between British Columbia and Sault Ste. Marie, but with the establishment of purely national ROCCs we will not have the same easy access to U.S resources. I might say, without being parochial, that the 409 does a fine job on the west coast of B.C.
Since the white paper recommendations were made, we have also been forced to reduce the size of our CF-101 fleet, both for reasons of economy and to enable us to stretch the life of this aircraft to 1980. However, it is no secret that our fleet of 36 operational Voodoo aircraft is now outdated and worn out. In fact, at the moment we have only a fraction of them serviceable due to engine fatigue breakdowns. These aircraft, at the best of times, can patrol only a small portion of Canadian airspace and though still possessing a capability for limited surveillance and control, will have to be replaced in the near future. I believe a lead-up time of three or four years is needed, and I sincerely hope the minister will give active consideration to the replacement of the 101 within the very near future because there is no question that the 101 has a very limited number of years of service left.
What particularly concerns me is that the breakdown of parts of the engine, caused by fatigue, has caused numerous fires in the past several years, and as a former member of Air Defence Command I consider it behooves the government to provide equipment which at least does not expose our personnel to unnecessary danger. The aircraft has served very well to this point, but we could very soon be running into serious problems associated with its age.
Looking to the future, what do we foresee for NORAD? It is likely that the integration of the civil and military radar and data assessment items will continue. The data will continue to feed into the NORAD computers as command control facilities are updated with the establishment of the ROCCs. This is simply a warning system which can be used in an emergency because of the nature of the ground installation being open to attack. It is something which the United States has studied, and perhaps in the future we shall have to look at the same thing. The extent to which Canada will be involved in this program or in the use of these facilities has not so far been determined, to the best of my knowledge.
Unfortunately, the high cost of defence is something which is extremely difficult to justify to the public in times of peace. I am speaking of peace in our own area; we all know that somewhere or other wars have been going on for a generation or so. It is very hard for the military to justify the expenditure of many millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money even for such an object as the preserva-
29561 -66'/2

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply
tion of the sovereignty of Canada. The Canadian people have shown in many ways that they want additional housing, improved medicare benefits, and so on. All these things are important, of course, but as a member of the committee on defence I am conscious of a moral tug-of-war between the need for expenditure to protect the sovereignty of Canada and the desirability of spending money in areas of social need.
Looking toward the Arctic, for instance, it is obvious we need to establish surveillance arrangements in this region, one which I regard as an increasingly important part of Canada. This is necessary if we are to claim sovereignty over the Arctic, but, as I say, we are dealing with intangible propositions and it is not always easy to convince Canadians that the heavy expenditures involved are justified. Nevertheless, it is surely our responsibility to see to it that a highly effective surveillance capacity exists and that measures can be taken to deal with aircraft entering our airspace. In opposition to the hon. member for Greenwood, I do not believe Canada should abandon its role of establishing sovereignty over its airspace.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I never suggested any such thing.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I am glad to see the hon. member back in his place. I am sorry I missed his earlier remarks.


B. Keith Penner: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Chairman, as a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak this afternoon in this debate on the 1975-76 estimates of the Department of National Defence. In the estimates for 1975-76 there is listed under the words "Currently estimated total cost" the sum of $53,200,000 covering the cost of Canada's experimental hydrofoil, HMCS Bras D'Or. In the next column is an estimate of $230,000 which will be set aside to cover the maintenance costs of this mothballed ship during this fiscal year. When I questioned this figure before the committee as being excessive, I was informed that only $70,000 would be required for maintenance, while the balance of $160,000 is to provide for studies related to the possible application of hydrofoils in future ship construction programs.
This reply brings into question the research and development policies of the present government, especially as they apply to Canada's defence department. Obviously, if suitable studies had been made prior to the construction of the hydrofoil Bras D'Or, the $53 million spent on this experimental ship could well have been utilized in a more productive manner. It seems to me that from the very beginning we Canadians have been sold a bill of goods by the government on the value of fixed hydrofoils, and the fact that it has not been possible to date to sell this concept to any-and I emphasize "any"-of our NATO partners would indicate there is something radically wrong with this particular ship.
In light of the tremendous original cost of this project to Canada and its continuing cost even though the Bras D'Or is in mothballs, I think it is advisable to review the facts

leading up to its construction. The idea for this type of ship is, of course, not new. Half a century ago, on Cape Breton's Bras D'Or Lake, Alexander Graham Bell and F. W. Casey Baldwin were experimenting with one of their projects which they called Hydrodrome 4. When it rose from the water, supported by finlike devices attached by struts to its hull, it zoomed to 61.5 knots and established a world water speed record. Hydrodrome 4 was an early version of the present day hydrofoil, the flying ship that achieves remarkable speeds when the hull rises above the surface, reducing the friction of the vessel's contact with the water.
The present Canadian hydrofoil, Bras D'Or, named in honour of two pioneering Canadian scientists, was to be constructed for $9 million when the keel was laid at Sorel, Quebec, in 1963. However, a fire during construction added $6,500,000 to the cost and expenses skyrocketed upward from that point in time. Other setbacks occurred during construction, and the ship was finally commissioned around July, 1968. During sea trials in July, 1969, the ship reached a speed of 62 knots, which made her the fastest submarine chaser in the world. However, after a record performance near the mouth of Halifax harbour, a small crack in the foil put the ship out of commission for a year while a new centre foil was built. Following further tests, other hairline cracks developed, with serious ones occurring in the horizontal cross-member in the main hydrofoil located at the rear of the flying ship. Tenders were called for replacements costing in the vicinity of $500,000, while less serious cracks were repaired by welding.
All of these problems caused the government to decide in the fall of 1971 to put the Bras D'Or in mothballs for five years because, in the view of the then minister of national defence, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, "There appears to be no market for that type of ship". When expressing that viewpoint, the minister was obviously unaware of the opinions expressed by leading navy spokesmen concerning ships in the hydrofoil category. Commander G. L. Edwards, skipper of the Bras D'Or at that time, stated that three hydrofoils could be built for the price of one destroyer; and although the ship is designed for anti-submarine operations, he said; "You can name almost any mission for it-put missiles on it, search and rescue, fisheries protection or area surveillance. There's no way a torpedo is going to hit it when foilborne, and it goes so fast a torpedo couldn't catch it".
With all of these well founded opinions by highly placed navy personnel in favour of the hydrofoil, I cannot help but ask the question: Where did we go wrong? Obviously, officials in the defence research establishment were so keenly interested in the development of the Bras D'Or that they turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to all previous hydrofoil developments. For example, a 110-ton experimental hydrofoil, 115 feet long, with retractable foils-and I emphasize retractable foils, not fixed foils-was built by Boeing Aircraft Corporation and JM Martinac at Mar-tinac's Tacoma yard, and launched on August 17, 1962.
It was completed, named Flagstaff and placed in service on September 3, 1963, with sonar equipment installed, two guns and four 21-inch torpedo launchers, at a cost of $3,700,000. It had a forward speed of 48 knots. All of this, I point out to the committee this afternoon, was accom-
June 5, 1975

plished in the United States at a period of time before we ever started our experiment. That is why I say, Madam Chairman, that we have been misled by our government in regard to this particular project. When you compare the costs and date of completion with the track record of the builders of the Bras D'Or, you begin to understand why our NATO partners are reluctant to get involved with purchasing this type of ship in Canada.
Other models followed the Flagstaff, and the concept of a common fast patrol boat was studied by NATO officials. In September, 1970, it was decided that a retractable submerged foil craft of 140 tons, known as the PHM, as proposed by the United States navy was the vessel most suited to NATO mission requirements. In October, 1971, the U. S. indicated it would proceed at its own expense with the design of the vessel and share the results of the studies with those nations wishing to purchase PHM's. It also offered to conduct all aspects of design and development, contracting and management in co-operation with governments entering into project membership.
Since Canada is a NATO country, the results of all this research would have been freely made available to us and, what is more important, the hydrofoils developed by the United States are in constant service since the foils are retractable. The benefits are obvious, for a ship with fixed foils like the Bras D'Or draws too much water when in shallow harbours and is highly vulnerable, as the minister and his officials have found out, when it is cruising in the North Atlantic and happens to come in contact with ice pans or other obstructions.
The Boeing PHM is an all-weather, high-speed, highly-manceuvrable, missile-firing patrol craft whose development was undertaken jointly by the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Italy. The construction of two lead ships was provided for by Boeing's $46.5 million design and development contract with the naval sea systems command. The American navy plans originally called for funding a total of 30 of these vessels through fiscal year 1977. Germany is planning to initiate a ten-ship procurement next summer and has awarded Boeing a contract for the phase 1 development of the German variant of the PHM. Italy has announced its intention to procure four PHM's but has not yet awarded a design contract for its distinctive version.
It should be pointed out that the Boeing PHM became an authorized NATO program project under a memorandum of understanding signed in 1972 by the three nations currently sponsoring the ship. I think that is an important fact, a point that has never been brought to the attention of this House by the government or the minister. We are still being told, "Let us wait; let us wait". While we are waiting the cost to Canadians is skyrocketing.
In view of all these facts, I believe there will be hydrofoils in our future, for we have vast areas of oceans to patrol and surveillance will have to be maintained over foreign fishing fleets. However, we cannot carry out this work with a ship like the Bras D'Or and its fixed foils. The government should face up to the fact that it has blundered badly in pursuing this type of design, and co-operate with our NATO partners in providing our navy with a hydrofoil that has been proven and operational under almost any conditions. The time and money presently
Business of Supply
being wasted can never be regained, and the opinions of our leading navy men concerning the need for operational high-speed hydrofoils should be given every consideration.
From my studies on hydrofoils, I learned that the biggest share of the hydrofoil market is military, and the biggest share of the military market is overseas. However, Boeing is moulding its hydrofoil marketing and production plans to an emerging market dominated by international military requirements, but which also involves passenger-carrying ships and those in the utility class. Admittedly, without the military programs, Boeing's commercial jet foil program could not continue, since the two programs share personnel and facilities for greater efficiency and economy.
It is difficult at this stage to predict the market for commercial hydrofoils. Some of the people in the hydrofoil industry talk of a market of a couple of hundred ships over the next ten years, but this market will have to be developed. Obviously, it is a matter of getting the boat's capabilities into areas where they are really needed and can be fully utilized. A major segment of the market will be high speed hydrofoil utility vessels to serve offshore marine operations. As this phase of offshore activity develops, non-passenger utility ships could ultimately account for as much as 90 per cent of all commercial sales.
What is Boeing doing at the present time? It is promoting the concept of regional final assembly centres around the world as a means of assuring itself a profitable production base, while meeting the worldwide sentiment for greater participation in industrial programs. The centres, which would not be owned or operated by Boeing, would purchase basic hulls from Boeing and then complete the ships for local customers.
The major prospects for these regional centres include Greece, Iran, Japan, Taiwan, Scandinavia, and the Caribbean. You will note that I did not mention Canada. It seems that everyone in every part of the world is aware of the technology that has been developed, that is, everyone except Canada and this minister who sits opposite me with his oficials.
For these reasons it seems to me that Canada is missing the boat when it comes to hydrofoil development. It is missing the boat if it continues to pin its hopes on its expensive but obsolete prototype called the Bras d'Or.
I have a couple of questions I should like to ask before I sit down, and I hope there will be a few minutes left in which the minister can answer. I should like to ask the minister why we continue to spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, money which I submit could urgently be used in other areas on other projects, on this Bras d'Or project? Why have we not taken advantage of the experimental work done by our NATO partner, the United States? In that way we could participate in a workable hydrofoil like the PHM, because the hydrofoil will be required for surveillance of our economic zones and for the protection of our sovereignty and our marine resources. This is a program which would in addition provide an opportunity for all our shipyards to begin production of these highly technical and versatile craft. Why have these things not been done?

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply


James Armstrong Richardson: Madam Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for South Shore for his comments, and congratulate him on his personal knowledge and information about the hydrofoil. I think he has divided his presentation into two parts; first, the failure we encountered many years ago with the Bras d'Or, long before I had any responsibility in this department I might say; and second, he is looking to the future.
In answer to the first part I should like to point out, as he did in part himself, that the high costs in respect of the Bras d'Or were partly due to the fire he described, and partly due to the fact that this was an experiment. It was new and we were trying to achieve new technology in Canada. I would agree with the hon. member that in looking to the future we should work with our NATO partners and use the technology that has been developed.
I personally find attractive the idea he has raised of a regional assembly center which is being developed by the Boeing company. In view of his remarks, and the remarks he has made along these lines earlier, I will be following this matter with greater attention as I think the hydrofoil concept has great merit. I thank the hon. member again for bringing this to the attention of the House.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I just say that I was referring to the retractable hydrofoil concept which has great merit, not the fixed concept because it is not truly operational in all seasons in the north Atlantic.


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, I had noted particularly the reference to the retractable hydrofoil and its advantages. I did not use the word in my reply but I did make note of it in the notes I made while the hon. member for South Shore was speaking.


Mr. Turner (London East):: Madam Chairman, I trust that all members will agree that the realization of the Canadian aims of political independence and prosperity depends on a state of international peace and security. It is assumed, therefore, that it is in Canada's direct interest that war be prevented but, if unavoidable, that it should be halted before it can escalate into a broader conflict. I also believe that hon. members will agree that large scale hostilities in any nuclear context would mean very serious results beyond our wildest imagination.
As we know, the maintenance of peace remains a United Nations' priority. It is also our belief, however, that this cannot be entrusted solely to the super powers but that other countries, including Canada, must accept and share some of the responsibility.
Canada has come to be widely respected as a country having not only the capability but, equally important, the trust and goodwill of others, which enables us to play an effective role in the maintenance of peace. No matter where our forces travel in this world the Canadian soldier is highly respected, highly trained, and a highly relied on person because of this trust. The Canadian forces military role in international peacekeeping is a vital and important aspect of the total Canadian effort.
During recent world events it has been demonstrated that this Canadian role of peacekeeping can involve a high price. However, imperfect as peacekeeping may appear to be at many times, we must realize that as long as men are

prepared to resort to force to settle disputes, Canadians must, especially in today's world, stand by to restore and maintain peace between nations.
The humanitarian role of Canada's peacekeeping forces in many areas of conflict, in alleviating suffering, and providing assistance and protection to the unfortunate innocents caught in the conflict, must also be appreciated. This Canadian role has been played very effectively in Cyprus where the United Nations force is actively involved in keeping the peace. All Canadians are deeply concerned for the safety and security of our Canadian troops and, therefore, our Canadian peacekeepers are instructed never to take chances with their lives.
Canada's experience has provided us with considerable insight into peacekeeping operations. Governments of Canada since 1946 have accepted every request the United Nations has made in this field. In addition, we have responded to requests to participate in peacekeeping type missions outside the United Nations; two in Indo China and one in Nigeria. Our 1971 white paper on defence, and the government's foreign policy review with regard to peacekeeping emphasize the continuing objective of the government to co-operate with other United Nations member countries in efforts to improve the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations, and to continue to contribute to those in which Canada can play a useful role, preferably under UN auspices.
The responsibility of carrying out these peacekeeping tasks has fallen, in the main, to our armed forces. They have served us well and have earned us an international reputation par excellence as peacekeepers. Their experience has ranged from large scale operations such as those in Korea and the Congo, down through the whole range of the peacekeeping spectrum to small United Nations observer missions. Their work has often been uncomfortable and dangerous, and some have failed to return.
I know all hon. members are proud of the troops representing Canada under the flag of the United Nations. Every member in this House today probably has constituents serving with United Nations forces in the Middle East and Cyprus, or with the UN missions in Korea, India or Pakistan. As you know, these are drawn from bases all across Canada and reflect at the same time the diversity and unity of our country. For example, a unit from my constituency, the first battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, 1 RCR, based in London, Ontario and commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Phil Spencer, returns tomorrow from Cyprus, having completed a six month tour. The battalion replaced the Canadian Airborne Regiment from Edmonton last December, and was replaced in turn this week by a unit from Quebec City, the second battalion of the Royal Twenty-Second Regiment.
Although the events of the past six months on Cyprus made fewer headlines than the crisis situation faced by the Canadian Airborne Regiment last summer, the tasks assumed by 1 RCR last December were no less demanding. The battalion was required to man 24 observation posts between the belligerents in Nicosia, in addition to carrying out numerous patrols in jeeps and armoured person-
June 5, 1975

nel carriers. Their area of responsibility included the capital city of Nicosia and the nearby Nicosia airport.
It was no easy task to try to maintain a ceasefire between two armed forces whose positions are in such close proximity, while coping with such hazards as poorly marked minefields. The battalion also provided humanitarian relief to many thousands of refugees made homeless by the fighting. Their efforts during the period were successful but, unfortunately, at the cost of the lives of two members of the regiment, Captain Ian Patten and Private Steven Kohlman.
The work of 1 RCR was typical of many other Canadian units on UN service. The Canadian public has come to expect that its troops will always perform in a manner which brings credit to Canada, often without thinking why this should be so. I think one of the main reasons why our troops do so well is that they are dedicated professionals, organized, trained and disciplined to carry out conventional military operations. Their high standards allow them to adapt quickly and competently to, such operations as peacekeeping activities, or giving aid to the civil authorities in areas where natural disasters have occurred, or search and rescue operations. We would do well to maintain this professionalism, not only in peacekeeping, as history has shown that our forces are often called upon to perform tasks unidentified in advance by either political or military planners. I think it important, therefore, to maintain a well trained, balanced, conventional force capable not only of meeting our current defence priorities but also any other unforeseen commitments which may arise.
In summary, peacekeeping is a difficult and often frustrating task, with results that are often not readily apparent. The value of peacekeeping has been and will continue to be questioned. It must be acknowledged, however, that both peacekeeping forces and missions have been able to calm troubled waters in situations which otherwise might have escalated into uncontrolled hostilities. We hope this has been a significant contribution to world peace.
I have always stated that Canadian soldiers, indeed Canadian veterans, policemen and firemen, are entitled to receive more money because they never know when they will run into trouble in their line of duty. We all know that this is part of their job, but I still say that they are entitled to a little extra share out of our affluence.
Furthermore, I believe that the retirement benefits of our soldiers and widows should be thoroughly updated so that they reflect the true cost of today's standard of living. At present pensions are too low, and after a soldier has served his 25 years he finds that he cannot survive on his pension and therefore is forced to seek other employment immediately. We should either allow him to stay in the service for a longer period of time or pay him a higher pension.
Canadian soldiers receive excellent training in the services, but when they are retired we have no system whereby a man could be given full credit for his training in any trade, such as by being awarded a trade certificate upon retirement. We train the man, give him expert supervision, but when we retire him we allow him to go into a no man's land, with all the knowledge he has gained in the
Business of Supply
services but with no certificate which would allow him to make a living and to compete in the private sector.
We should have agreements with provincial governments across Canada which would take into account the many years of schooling and training which soldiers have undergone so that they can receive trade licences upon retirement.
All Londoners, and in fact all Canadians, welcome back the first battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment to their base in London, Ontario, after a well done job of six months' duration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Robert Turner: A new mandate in international peacekeeping and supervision undertaken by the Canadian forces in 1974 was their participation in the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, in the Golan Heights area on the border between Israel and Syria. Recently this mandate has been extended in Egypt until July 24, 1975, and for UNDOF until November 30, 1975. A major increase of the contingent in Cyprus was also carried out at the request of the United Nations' Secretary General following the Turkish military intervention in July. There were no changes in other supervisory or peacekeeping operations by Canadians elsewhere during the year.
Currently Canada participates in the following operations: In the UN Truce Supervisory Organization in Palestine we have 20 officers. Their role, established in 1948, is to observe the ceasefire and to assist the parties in the application and observance of the agreements concluded between Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Israel. Canada has provided personnel for this operation since 1954. Also, this group provided an early United Nations presence during the October, 1973, war and assisted in the establishment of the UN Emergency Force, subsequently deployed in the Suez Canal area. Since the establishment of UNDOF in June of 1974, 90 TSO observers, including six Canadians, have been placed under the temporary operational control of UNDOF.
In the United Nations military observer group in India-Pakistan, nine Canadian forces officers were on the staff which was established in 1949 to supervise the implementation of terms of the ceasefire agreement in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Canada also provided an air detachment of one Twin Otter aircraft, three officers and five men of other ranks.
In the United Nations Command Mixed Armistice Commission, one officer represents Canada. He is also the assistant Canadian liaison officer to the commander in chief, UN command. A sergeant assists him in his duties.
With regard to the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, on October 6, 1973, renewed hostilities broke out between the Arabs and the Israelis. On October 22 the United Nations Security Council passed a joint USA-USSR resolution calling for a ceasefire. A similar resolution sponsored by the non-alligned countries was passed on October 25, 1973, and a ceasefire was established between Israel and Egypt.
Planning then began for the formation of a UN emergency force numbering 7,000 personnel to be deployed in

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply
the ceasefire area. Canada and Poland were requested to provide the logistics support for the force. In early November of 1973 Canada provided a signals unit and Poland an engineer unit. Negotiations over the division of the remainder of the responsibilities continued in New York.
On November 23, 1973, it was agreed that Canada would provide a supply company, a maintenance company, a postal detachment, a military police detachment, a movement control unit, and an air transport unit consisting of two Buffalo aircraft. These elements were all in the action area by January of 1974. Poland, in addition to the engineer unit, provided a road transport company and a field hospital.
In June of 1974 the United Nations requested that Canada supply a third Buffalo aircraft to add to the two already serving with the air unit. The Canadian government agreed that additional aircraft be put into service in the Middle East, as was done in mid June. On August 9, 1974, one of the aircraft was shot down near the Syrian-Lebanese border killing nine persons on board, all members of the Canadian forces.
During July and August the headquarters of both UNEF and the Canadian contingent were moved east from Cairo to Ismailia on the Suez Canal. The majority of the Canadian forces personnel serving with UNEF are now located in this Suez location.
The present strength of the Canadian contingent which continues to provide support for the force, numbers over 900, all ranks. In the United Disengagement Observer Force until the end of May, 1974, the operations of UNEF were limited to the border area between Israel and Egypt.
Although UNDOF was established as a separate force, to date it has operated largely as an extension of UNEF. The current over-all strength of UNDOF is 1,100 with Canada providing 130 personnel from UNEF and six observers from UNTSO.
I think the armed forces are doing a wonderful job. God bless them!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Chairman, there are a few questions I would like to ask the minister. Prior to the July 8 election there was a Liberal political document put out in my riding and in it was stated:
It is estimated that 800 new jobs will be created as a result of James Richardson assigning all the Department of National Defence Boeing 707 work to the Winnipeg facility ...
I wonder if the minister could explain how he arrived at the figure of 800 in regard to overhauling the Boeings. In this document it says 800 new jobs.


James Armstrong Richardson: Madam Chairman, the figure of 800 jobs was arrived at because that was approximately the number of employees in the former Air Canada base in Winnipeg. That figure was not related in any way to the Boeing 707 work, although the sending of the 707 to Winnipeg was in part to meet the commitment of strengthening the aerospace industry. That work, incidentally, is going ahead, as the hon. member knows.

The figure of 800 jobs was also stated by the Prime Minister and by me as an objective, and it has been confirmed since that time by my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, as an objective which we still have. It has not been given up or changed in any way, but there was not and could not be any time frame or any date by which we would achieve that objective.


A. Daniel McKenzie: In this document there is no mention of time frames. It just mentions that there will be 800 new jobs created, and I do not know what the minister means by that. Some existing aerospace employees will continue working because the Boeings are going to Winnipeg; they are going to Transair, as we now know, and all Transair is doing is taking on 20 additional employees from CAE to work on the Boeings. We are getting nowhere near this 800 figure.
I would like to read from a press release, issued by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which says:
From the present total employment of 160 (98 union, 62 management), there will be continuous layoffs until the total employment target of 69 (48 union, 21 nonunion) is reached on August 1, 1975. To reach this goal there will be 91 layoffs within the next two months.
We are not reaching an additional 800 jobs. We are continually dropping, and these men were told they would get the Boeings to overhaul and that there would be work for them. The majority of them have stayed on at CAE, and now they are being laid off. If they had not had these endless promises that there were going to be government contracts, and if there had been some honesty from the government in regard to statements to CAE telling them that the government would do its best to get them jobs but without definite promises, many of them would have left a long time ago and taken jobs elsewhere. The government will have to be much more careful in the next election because it does not appreciate the effect of such loose statements as that 800 new jobs will be created.
In a letter from the Minister of Transport dated-


James Armstrong Richardson: On a point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is referring to documents or statements which he apparently saw during the election, but he should observe statements which are made by the government or by me as distinct from whatever it is he is referring to now. In the election there were three distinct and clear promises in this area, all of which are in the process of being fulfilled. There was a commitment to build a new Air Canada hangar. There was a commitment to have the 707 major repair and overhaul work done in Winnipeg. There was an objective to build up to 800 additional aerospace jobs. We are still continuing to achieve all of those political promises.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I do not understand how the minister is achieving the additional 800 jobs since there are continual lay-offs. We are discussing statements made during an election. The minister made a number of statements during the election. For example, "Mr. Richardson has achieved something. He is going to be bringing back the Air Canada overhaul base." These statements appeared often in election material, and completely misled people. As far as I am concerned, it is false information.
June 5, 1975

I will go back to the letter dated March 26, 1969. It is from the Minister of Transport, and it was sent to the president of CAE Industries. May I call it six o'clock, Madam Chairman?


B. Keith Penner: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6 p.m. the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, the minister is missing. Is he not returning this evening? I want to continue with my questioning, Mr. Chairman, and the minister is required to be here while his estimates are being examined. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can enlighten us as to whether the minister will be returning this evening.


Mr. Hopkins:: The minister is on his way and will be here shortly, Mr. Chairman.


B. Keith Penner: Perhaps the hon. member would like to proceed with his questions. They could be noted by the parliamentary secretary and the minister could respond as soon as he arrives.


A. Daniel McKenzie: That does not sound too good, Mr. Chairman. I spoke to the parliamentary secretary this afternoon regarding the safety amnual, the document which the Department of National Defence uses. I wonder if he was able to obtain that.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Perhaps the hon. member should carry on with his questions and I will take note of them.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we were discussing the creation of 800 new jobs in Winnipeg as a result of the Boeing 707s being overhauled there. That is not really the problem facing us today, however. What we are trying to do now is save the CAE plant in Winnipeg from being completely closed down. I have a copy of a letter from the Minister of Transport dated March 26, 1969, which is addressed to Mr. Reekie, President of CAE Indus-tires Ltd., at that time. The letter states as follows:
The Department of Defence Production can guarantee no more than 40,000 to 50,000 direct labour man hours per year in the period 19711976-
In a news release issued by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers from which I quoted this afternoon, it is claimed that this commitment has not been met. I wonder if the minister can tell us this evening whether these 40,000 man-hours of work will be provided to CAE in Winnipeg?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I think the most appropriate answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would be to refer him to Hansard for June 2, 1975, page 6369, where my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, gave a very complete answer to his question. I could read it back into the record but I think a reference
Business of Supply
to it would be all that is required. It is very complete and tells in clear terms the volume of aerospace work being directed to Winnipeg and the number of jobs being created. I am sure it answers fully the matter about which the hon. member is concerned.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, apparently the minister did not understand my question. I am referring to this letter from the Minister of Transport in 1969 which claimed that 40,000 hours of man-work would be provided to CAE in Winnipeg. This was a commitment to keep the plant going. I should like to know when these 40,000 hours of work are going to be provided to CAE because, if they are not provided in the very near future the plant is going to be closed. Can the minister tell us when he is going to live up to this? That is my question. It has nothing to do with any other firm in Winnipeg; it specifically refers to the CAE plant in Winnipeg.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I have the letter that the hon. member refers to in front of me. It is the Department of Defence Production that is referred to in paragraph (c). That department was taken over by the new Department of Supply and Services. The responsibility for following the matter up lies with that department. It is not related to the responsibilities of the Department of National Defence.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, does the minister have no other knowledge of work being provided for CAE? Is he making any intervention to see that work will be provided to CAE before it folds up? Does he have any defence contracts, or knowledge of defence contracts that can be directed to CAE in Winnipeg?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I am always interested in defence contracts but they are let by the Department of Supply and Services, not by the Department of National Defence.


An hon. Member:: What about the old home town- Winnipeg?


James Armstrong Richardson: A lot of aerospace work, as my colleague made clear, will be going to a number of companies in Winnipeg and Manitoba. CAE is capable of bidding on this work. It has bid on some, although unsuccessfully I believe. I cannot assume responsibility for this. I do not think anyone in the government should assume responsibility for the success of any company's bid. Those bids are assessed by the Department of Supply and Services.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Minister, it is interesting to note the promises made to CAE prior to the July 8 election. As you will remember, their business agent was your seconder at your nomination meeting. I guarantee that no member of that union will nominate you in the next election. I gather from comments made this evening that you are not going to intervene. You cannot supply any information about what is to happen to the CAE plant in Winnipeg. As far as you are concerned, it can fold up.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They will be waiting for you next time, Jim.

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply


A. Daniel McKenzie: I want to discuss outside consultants whom the Department of National Defence hires, despite all the expertise available in the department and the department's limited working budget. I ask this of the minister: are you intervening directly in this matter? Are you considering why all this money should be pouring out to outside consultants? Do you agree that this money ought to be directed to outside consultants, and is there an actual need for their services? In other words, have you, yourself, investigated whether all these consultant studies are required? Could you give me some explanation?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, yes I have. I look at every submission which comes forward to me concerning outside consultants. I examine each one and have asked myself exactly the same questions the hon. member is asking me. I want to know if we can do the work within the Department of National Defence for which we are engaging consultants. I ask these questions, at least, on every major contract. I believe we should be able to do more "in-house" than we have in the past. In fact, we have tried to do any work for which we are competent "in-house" rather than go to outside consultants.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I gave notice that I should be asking questions about a certain national defence safety manual which is allegedly a bilingual one, or will be. Has anyone been able to obtain a copy of this document?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we did obtain the document. What is the question?


A. Daniel McKenzie: My question is this: is this document being withdrawn from the armed forces? It has to do with explosives, and apparently you are experiencing difficulties with the translation into French. I hear that the French version does not give the same information as the English version. Can you tell me if this document has been withdrawn from the forces, and did it have anything to do with the tragedy at Val Cartier, Quebec, in which some young cadets died as a result of hand grenades exploding?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, the document has to do with the handling of explosives. It has been written in English and it is in the process of being translated into French, but the French version is not yet in use.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Do you intend to withdraw the document, and did that particular safety manual have anything to do with the tragedy at Val Cartier in which hand grenades killed some cadets?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, the document has not been withdrawn. It is being revised from time to time and is, as I said, in the process of translation. To my knowledge it was not related in any way, directly or indirectly, to the tragic accident, to which you referred, which took place at Val Cartier.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Minister, are you experiencing many difficulties in translating technical documents from English into French? Is this a problem in the Department of National Defence?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I do not translate technical documents myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Armstrong Richardson: There are understandably some difficulties in translating documents of a technical nature. We are making progress and increasing each week, and each month, the number of technical publications available in both languages.


A. Daniel McKenzie: May I ask one final question, Mr. Chairman. It was announced some time ago that the minister, who is responsible for the status of women, will bring forward Bill C-16, which will amend the national defence legislation and allow girls to be enrolled officially in the cadet movement. As this year, 1975, is International Women's Year, can the minister say if the government will bring forward Bill C-16 this year?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, that is a question for the House leader. Certainly the government gives that bill high priority. I think the government House leader will try to move Bill C-16 forward as quickly as the pressure of other legislation allows. We have made other provision, quite apart from Bill C-16, to meet the point to which the hon. member referred. We will, as a result, be able to pay girl cadets at the same rate as we pay boy cadets. Also girl cadets will be able to attend summer camp this year.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. Before I recognize the next hon. member I should draw to the attention of members of the committee that there seems to be a lapse on the part of some hon. members, making comments or asking questions, in observing the rules, in that they are addressing the minister directly instead of making their comments to the Chair. I am sure that hon. members will agree that, in committee of the whole, we ought to maintain proper decorum. I am merely reminding hon. members gently of how we ought to proceed.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to direct to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) on Vote 1 of the Department of National Defence.
Mr. Chairman, I think this day is very instructive for us and it will provide information to the people of this country because they will have an opportunity to know the views of parliamentarians on the defence system of this country, the amounts invested, because the national defence estimates now amount to over $2.5 billion. It is an important department from a monetary and social standpoint.
When we talk of defence we think in terms of security and peace for all citizens of this country and if we want peace at home it must be effective elsewhere as well. If we had no potential aggressors there would be no need for us to talk of defence, armament, but such is not the case in the world. So we must accept the world as it is and stop hiding our heads in the sand to detect the enemy where he is to be found and not be afraid to point him out. That is
June 5, 1975

why tonight I will be very clear. I will deal first with NORAD and then say a few words about NATO.
After listening to the speeches made this afternoon and among others the NDP member I realized that one must really be misinformed about the intentions of the Soviet Union or be among its accomplices to talk like the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) did this afternoon, when he candidly admitted that the NORAD agreement no longer served any purpose because the U.S.S.R. is no longer threatening today. I will say, Mr. Chairman, that the U.S.S.R. is more threatening than ever in all North America. For example, we know that the quieter the U.S.S.R. is, the more it presents a velvet paw, the more it is preparing to jump on its unsuspecting victim. When we think of its conquests of Slavic countries which led to the Warsaw Pact, when we visit Germany and walk along the 35-mile long Berlin wall cutting the city in two, with only one door, and that is taking place in the 29th century, in the era of astronautics and electronic transportation systems, it is unimaginable for someone who has not seen it. Today, not daring to attack North America as it did its satellite countries for fear of the United States, it fights a psychological and tactical war faking to come to the rescue of countries surrounding North America. You have seen them in Cuba, China, Vietnam, Egypt, and you will see them again elsewhere in the hope that one day all its missiles will be pointed towards America in all directions.
I do not mean to make any prophecies, Mr. Chairman, I am just witnessing what I have under my eyes and what every member may check for himself. Hon. members who read papers have heard of the series of Russian Cosmos satellites launched by just one rocket, as announced by the TASS Agency. Those rockets circle the world in 115 minutes. I think we should be more careful than ever to protect efficiently not only Canada, by the North American continent as a whole.
I read with deep interest the statement of the Minister of National Defence to the Standing Committee on National Defence on May 1, 1975 with respect to the new territorial limits of NORAD. Part of it reads as follows:
The establishment of new territorial limits for NORAD in Canada and the United States would result in each country controlling its own air space.
Since the implementation of NORAD in 1958, the limits of air defence areas overlapped the international border; surveillance and control were exercised by both member countries.
Under the new agreement, Canada will be divided into two geographic areas of fairly equal size, each with a regional operations control centre established in Canada. A new control centre which will cost $25 million once equipped, is to be established near Edmonton, Alberta. The other one is already in operation in North Bay, Ontario.
Each of those control centres will have a staff of some 250 people. Work at the Edmonton centre will start next year, and the equipment of both centres will be chosen next year too. Computers will be used to detect, identify and control aircraft that would enter the Canadian airspace.
Since 1958, and particularly during the 60s, when I visited with the committee the general headquarters of NORAD in Colorado Springs, the crux of our whole continental defence, I had been somewhat concerned that the U.S. military authorities had supreme control over our defence system. After 17 years, the minister decided to assume greater responsibilities and to have Canada
Business of Supply
behave more as an independent country vis-a-vis its American partner.
An addition to the new control centre in Alberta, we will have near Chatham, New Brunswick, a Baker-Nunn photographic facility. This will supply information to NORAD's detection and tracking system in Colorado Springs. I believe this is a step forward in North America's air protection.
Coming now to NATO, which was created to counter the Warsaw Pact, a number of my fellow citizens wonder why we should still be keeping over 3,000 troops in Europe. Obviously, our constituents do not see the point in maintaining that European force at the same level as the domestic one, and a number of them do not understand why we should keep forces in Cyprus, in Corea and elsewhere.
I am happy that we should go on cooperating with nations requiring our participation, in the interest of peace. But I am forced to ask questions in the face of France's position. That country took its troops out of NATO. It may be argued that she is still a member in principle. But surely, if every country were to rely only on principles for its defence, we would be engulfed in principals. We are told the French government will not act as a buffer to any new attack anymore, that it will rather defend itself. These are serious enough suggestions that invite reflection.
Looking back, I would not condemn the French authorities. They did more than their part during World War II. And I wonder whether the delay by allied countries to help France is not one reason for the withdrawal. Therefore, it may be because of delays in NATO decisions that France is losing some of its confidence. In fact, in some araes, even if we maintain our forces, a great part of the arms or military equipment used belongs in another age.
At certain times, especially when I went there for a visit, I wondered if our men were not there to serve a museum caretakers. Fortunately, the minister in his statement has brought new hope of modernization, without which our army would be nothing but Canadian folklore in Europe. The minister said that the defence budget has increased, but I would like him to note that the major part of the increase if due mostly to salary increase. The minister also talks about the quality of our men; we never doubted their quality. But it is useless to proclaim that one Canadian soldiers is worth five Russian soldiers; the most important thing is that he should be as well equipped as the Russians.
It is about the same situation as in hockey; we are constantly repeating that we have the best athletes in the world, but this does not prevent us from taking humiliating beatings at the hands of the Russians. We should profit from this lesson at least in the military area.
I would also like to call the attention of the minister on useless spendings, when the money is not simply thrown away, as my colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) mentioned. I know that this is a delicate subject for the minister and that it is his major source of concern. But this should not stop him from being even more careful. Our military forces, whether at sea, on land or in the air, which have the duty to protect Canadian sovereignty, to

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply
help civilian authorities to ensure the control and the security of our national territory, to cooperate with the American forces in the joint defence of North America, in maintaining peace in Europe and elsewhere, have no right to disappoint Canadian taxpayers by taking part in schemes which are unworthy of their mission.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the few comments I wanted to make tonight.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, during this debate on the Department of National Defence estimates the question of the requirement to safeguard Canada's sovereign interests must be kept in the forefront of our deliberations. Of great interest in this respect is the government's current review of the need for a new long range patrol aircraft. I would like to comment briefly on this subject which will have such a major impact on DND expenditures.
The potential for challenges to Canada's sovereignty and security take both non-military and military forms and arise principally from Canada's vast size and relatively small population, her abundance of natural resources, the length of her shores, the size of the water areas which are of direct concern to her and the fact that historically we have identified and allied ourselves politically and militarily with those nations which share our perceptions of individual freedom and justice and our way of life.
One important component of the military and civilian resources devoted to monitoring and defending against both military and non-military threats has been the Argus aircraft of Maritime Command of the Canadian forces.
The Argus was introduced into service in 1958 and was a good maritime patrol aircraft in its day; its equipment was among the best available at that time, and its range made it possible to conduct long patrols over the far reaches of the Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans. Over the years, more modern and effective surveillance equipment has been developed and the Argus is now limited in capability compared with other aircraft in this role. The capability of its surveillance devices is relatively limited, the aircraft is slow, and the long flight times required for patrols results in high crew fatigue because of noise and vibration. The aircraft engines, and installed equipment are getting old and are expensive to maintain. The standard fuel used by the aircraft is now available at only four locations in Canada.
Therefore, on the basis of the policy outlined in the government white paper "Defence in the Seventies", extensive studies of maritime force capabilities conducted within the Department of National Defence, and the fact that continued operation of the Argus was not cost effective, the Minister of National Defence obtained cabinet approval in May, 1972, to examine in detail the possibility of obtaining suitable replacement aircraft. An interdepartmental office was established in September, 1972, and initial studies were concluded with five aircraft companies, including Canadair.
Upon receipt and evaluation of the proposals received, it was recommended that studies be continued with the two most suitable contractors, Boeing and Lockheed, and cabi-

net agreed. The studies are in their final stage at this time and it is expected that a submission to cabinet will be made in the near future. It is now timely to review the challenges facing Canada which the government must weigh in arriving at its final decision on the LRPA proposal.
With respect to non-military challenges to Canadian sovereignty, of paramount interest is the enforcement of Canadian laws and the ability of Canada to maintain its sovereignty and jurisdiction over land and sea areas of Canadian interest. The challenge, therefore, lies in any attempt to infringe upon these laws, particularly as such infringements would affect the resources of the sea and the seabed, and as they would affect the marine environment in waters of Canadian interest, including the Arctic, coastal and continental shelf areas.
While other government departments are charged with the task of policing violations of Canadian law in Canadian waters of interest, DND has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that Canadian sovereignty and jurisdiction are maintained. With respect to these challenges, therefore, it is necessary for DND to conduct surveillance of these areas, to assist other departments in their surveillance tasks, and to provide a control capability to back up other departments in their enforcement of Canadian laws.
The potential for external, non-military challenges to Canada's maritime and Arctic sovereignty and jurisdiction is very real and recent developments have heightened awareness of this potential. The U.S. decision to proceed with construction of a pipe line across Alaska and to ship North Slope oil from Alaska to U.S. West Coast ports in supertankers has increased the prospect of major oil spills off the coast of British Columbia. Current and prospective shortages of energy and other basic world commodities have heightened national and international interest in the resource potential of the Canadian Arctic and the continental margin.
The basic concern, nevertheless, remains that of the possibility of foreign infringements of Canadian laws establishing the extent and governing the use of Canada's territorial sea, internal waters, enclosed fishing zones, pollution control zones, and regulating exploration for and exploitation of the resources of the seabed subject to Canadian jurisdiction, and of Canada's Arctic territories.
Infringements of this kind are most likely to occur in areas where Canada's right to exercise jurisdiction is not fully accepted internationally and, at least at the outset, would probably be non-military in character. They would, therefore, be of primary concern to those civil departments and agencies of the federal government to which, under Canadian law, responsibility for regulation and enforcement has been assigned. The possibility, however, cannot be excluded that a determined challenge could be supported by the display or limited use of military force, as occurred in the recent fisheries dispute between Britain and Iceland.
These concerns are growing, as evidenced during the recent Law of the Sea Conference, as a consequence of the concept of an exclusive economic zone or patrimonial sea extending not less that 200 miles off a state's coast. Within this zone the state would exercise the sole responsibility for resource management, and enjoy either exclusive or
June 5, 1975

preferential rights in the exploitation of both living and inanimate resources. The implications for Canada of such a broadening of its rights and responsibilities as a coastal state are important. Law is seldom self-enforcing; it is for consideration whether the greater range of interests and greater geographical extent of the areas subject to Canadian jurisdiction would lead to a larger requirement than at present for surveillance capabilities to detect infringements of Canada's legal rights, and also for control capabilities to ensure that those rights were respected.
An area which must be considered as a special case when discussing challenges to Canadian sovereignty is the Arctic. At first glance there appears to be little possibility of direct threats in Canada's Arctic; far more concern is expressed over the possible unauthorized exploitation of the resources of this area, and of the possibility of pollution which is far more damaging in its ecological effects in the Arctic than it would be elsewhere. The non-military challenge in the Arctic includes such things as the unauthorized drilling of oil wells and the unauthorized use of Canadian waters by foreign vessels.
Although a number of federal agencies are on the ground throughout Canada's Arctic, a military force, showing its presence in that area on a regular basis, does much to re-affirm Canada's sovereignty. Further precise definition of the various challenges in Canada's Arctic will evolve in time, but it is evident that a possibility exists for a variety of challenges in this area, and a capability is required to meet these challenges as they arise.
Turning to the essentially military challenges to Canadian sovereignty, the government has outlined four objectives for the Department of National Defence. In order of priority, these are the defence of Canada, the defence of North America, contributions to the NATO alliance, and contributions to international peacekeeping operations.
During discussions on the requirement for an LRPA, much has been said of the ability of this aircraft to support national development by doing tasks for other government departments. However, Canada's armed forces provide, to the extent possible in this interdependent world, the means by which Canada can assert its sovereignty through an ability to defend itself. In addition, through representation on international military councils and contributions to international military forces, the armed forces also contribute to the defence of a wider area, and make it possible for Canada to influence the decisions, military, political and economic, of her allies. It is also true, in a military context, that providing for the defence of North America and contributing to the NATO alliance are the most effective ways of ensuring we can fulfill the first priority task, the defence of Canada.
The balance of forces between the U.S.S.R. and the United States is predicted to act as a stable deterrent to major war because both nations possess the capability to inflict upon the other an unacceptable level of destruction in retaliation for a first strike attack. Various agreements have been made, and negotiations are now being conducted which are designed to preserve this balance of power
Business of Supply
and to ensure that neither nation believes it necessary to enter into further expensive arms build-ups.
A Canadian long range maritime patrol aircraft would contribute to the stability of this situation, because for a deterrent to be credible its military components must be effective. An LRPA would also give Canada the capability to maintain its national security posture by enabling her to detect potentially hostile subsurface activity of any kind in the water approaches to her shores, including the very large continental shelf area.
Canada must continue to review its requirement for maritime forces to act as a deterrent against threats to its security and challenges to maritime jurisdiction and sovereignty. The fundamental need is for maritime surface and air forces possessing a range of capabilities and the degree of flexibility in employment which will permit them to respond promptly to sudden changes in the intensity or magnitude of particular threats or challenges. Because of its speed, range, and equipment capabilities it would appear that an LRPA would form a most important part of the air element of this force. Its speed would permit it to respond quickly to detected or suspected challenges, its range would permit it to reach any part of the vast areas which are of national interest, and its equipment would permit it to detect and, if the government decided, to control activities which are not acceptable to the government.
It is also clear that such an aircraft would have an inherent capability to contribute effectively to the support activities of other departments by the addition of a few specialized sensors for a wide range of activities, such as ice reconnaissance, wildlife determinations, and special agricultural problems. Thus there is great flexibility in such an aircraft.
Finally, I wish to say a word about industrial benefits. It is apparent that if the government is to spend the large sums of money required for a new long range patrol aircraft, such a purchase must be arranged so as to maximize the benefit to Canadian industry,-in particular the Canadian aerospace industry for which the government continues to express concern. We on this side of the House will continue to give full support to the ministers during their deliberations on this very expensive program, because it will have such an impact on Canada's long term capabilities to ensure that we do retain the control of our resources, our sovereignty, and our way of life.
Canada has been blessed with many very capable leaders within the ranks of our armed forces. I would be remiss in this debate if, as an example, I did not mention people such as General Donald Holmes, his officers, and men and women of all ranks who are giving Canada an outstanding image throughout the Middle East. They are held in the highest esteem by all parties in the present dispute in that area. They are respected and looked up to by all other United Nations contingents present in the Middle East. Their expertise, discipline, and fairness tempered with firmness, have won for them the respect of all.
General Holmes is a soldier, a statesman, a diplomat, a politician in a sense, and a gentleman all wrapped up in one man. As commanding officer of our United Nations contingent in the Middle East, he is setting the pace for his personnel. He is setting an example for everyone, and

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply
above all he and our military personnel have done more than any other government department could possibly do to promote the image of Canada abroad and to give Canada a tremendously favourable rapport with all national groups. It is my hope that when General Holmes returns next fall we will be able to invite him into the Speaker's gallery and have parliament give him the recognition he deserves.
Many people have told me, both Israelis and Egyptians as well as members of other United Nations contingents, that without our 1,037 military personnel in the Middle East the United Nations would not be able to operate nearly as effectively as it does. There are 37 women in that number. Dedication is also the name of the business of our armed forces. One has only to think of men like General Clay Beattie in Cyprus who, with the loyalty and integrity of all those who have served under him, has given so much of his life to bring about peace on that troubled island.
No matter where our armed forces go in the world they retain their excellent discipline, perform their jobs effectively, put their expertise to work, exercise common sense, and keep cool heads. This can be largely attributed to the fact that we have a volunteer force, that our personnel are in the armed forces because they want to be there and because they are interested in what they are doing. In Europe our NATO forces are respected by all NATO partners and are well received by the local people. Military attaches in capitals around the world form another group who uphold Canada and build a constructive image. This parliament owes the members of our armed forces our sincere plaudits and a wealth of national gratitude.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might ask the parliamentary secretary one question. I listened to his treatise with great care. Does he really think, in view of the background that commenced in 1968 when the Prime Minister first became Prime Minister of this country and said he had decided to withdraw from NATO-in fact, at one time we thought there was going to be a complete withdrawal in view of the way the armed forces have been downgraded-that we have any chance of defending ourselves by air, land or water?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, if I may answer the hon. gentleman's question, we do not intend to downgrade the forces. We have exceptional expertise in our armed forces in this country. Contrary to the unbalanced thinking that some people have been expressing, new equipment has been ordered for our armed forces to help them do the job, and more is on order. I have just discussed one of these major programs. I am not a pessimist when it comes to the Canadian armed forces. I am a strong supporter of them, as are many people on the benches of this party over here. I know I am speaking for many members on these benches when I say they have our full support.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about a matter which is not easily computed in terms of dollars and cents, or specifically included in any vote or even allowed for in the estimates. I want to talk for a few minutes about the reduction in the morale of our armed forces, and to ask a few questions about how it can

be restored to the high level which used to be an integral characteristic of the military.
We have heard discussions as to whether the major roles of our armed forces are as valid today as when they were first enunciated and, indeed, whether the troops we have, greatly reduced in strength, are adequate to the tasking. These are not new questions. I have heard them raised many times by members of the armed forces, certainly during the time I was a member of the National Defence College, and subsequently. Obvious to me on a recent visit to our bases in Lahr and Baden-Solingen were the unease and anxiety felt by many in the forces as Canada's role in NATO undergoes another of its perennial reviews-anxiety and unease about the maintenance of our NATO contingent and its possible reconfiguration.
I want to suggest that lack of information and inadequate communications significantly undermine morale, but much can be done to correct this problem without increasing expenditures from the public purse.
People in the military, and in military communities, are anxious and uneasy mainly because they do not know what is going on, where they are headed, and if things will improve, change radically, or further deteriorate in the months ahead. What is being looked for is not information of a highly classified nature vital to the security of the country, but day to day routine explanations that would make day to day living much easier.
I just want to mention a few of these agents that attack morale in armed forces communities. When departmental expenditures are reduced, or when there is no growth in real dollar terms as at the present time, the first area to be short changed is the maintenance of living quarters.
Time and again I have heard and seen legitimate complaints about living standards in PMQs' homes which, because of their shortcomings, cannot help but depress the occupants. These are not very happy homes for wives and children when they are much below the standard of other living accommodations in the general area. I know this to be particularly true at the Kingston base. Painting and refurbishing of homes, the fixing of appliances, and general improvements to property may seem like small items when compared with the acquisition of new LRPA or tanks, but from the over-all point of morale they are vitally important.
I would suggest that the minister should be in a position to let people know, certainly well in advance of steep rent increases, when they can expect some improvement in their living quarters. What about future plans for PMQs?
An armed forces base and the inter-relationship it has with its neighbouring community or communities have a very direct bearing on morale. Let me cite an example. A few months ago in an effort to economize on what was obviously considered peripheral and superfluous by the minister and his staff, the order was given to reduce the number of regular armed forces bands from nine to five. This was done with little or no thought to the incalculable value that accrues to the armed forces because of the high esteem in which these bands are held by men, women and children throughout neighbouring communities. Fortunately, after sufficient pressure was brought to bear, and sufficient reasoned argument was put forward, the minis-
June 5, 1975

ter saw the light and reversed the decision, enabling the bands to remain to contribute to the military and cultural life of Canada. Once again the intervening months of uncertainty, procrastination, and lack of communication added to morale problems among the forces.
The military educational establishments are another example where the future is uncertain and cloudy. It is estimated that it costs five times as much to send a student through Royal Military College as through Queen's University. Anyone who has had any exposure to RMC will know it is a fine institution with proud history and tradition. Nevertheless, one must wonder if it will continue to be operational at a cost five times that of public universities.
The people in these military institutions, staff, students and civilians, are all understandably uneasy. Perhaps there are those in the inner circle who know the long-range plans for these educational institutions, but how much better it would be to communicate that knowledge to the community at large, thus avoiding speculation and rumour which can so easily lead to distortion of the real objectives. It would not take much in the way of public expenditure to supply that information, but it would net incalculable benefits in public understanding and support, and in strengthening of morale. So I would ask, what about the future for military educational institutions?
Primarily because of the reduction in the strength of our armed forces over the years our military hospitals are not being fully utilized. For the most part these are well equipped facilities capable of handling much more traffic than they presently bear. Because of under-utilization the future of some of these hospitals is in doubt.
I am not unaware of the difficulties that arise in working out federal-provincial fiscal relations to make these hospitals available for the needs of dependents of members of the armed forces, but through you, sir, I would urge the minister to press ahead with this kind of arrangement. In any event, I would urge that he make the civic officials in neighbouring communities aware of all the facts so that adequate advanced planning can be carried out jointly with DND to make the most effective use of these hospitals in the future. Open lines of communication would dispel a lot of the doubt and uncertainty that surround the future of these hospitals. So, I would ask, what about the future of our military hospitals?
Better communications, better programming, and better reporting to our armed forces abroad on what is taking place in Canada would do a great deal to boost the morale of people in the service. I know we have CBC outlets in Lahr and Baden-Solingen and elsewhere, but I am surprised that the amount of programming from Canada is so limited. Better mail service, if such a thing were possible, and distribution of Canadian newspapers and magazines would work wonders. It all seems so obvious that it should not need saying. The same is true for the students in our schools on bases abroad. They are interested in what is taking place currently in Canada. They are thirsty for information and keen to get up-to-date material, something which they so consistently lack. So I would ask the minister about better communications to our armed forces personnel overseas.
Business of Supply
These things, I have mentioned do not require elaborate redirection of huge sums in these estimates, but homes, hospitals, educational institutions, and communications are just as important to the members of our armed forces and their dependants as they are to other Canadians. I hope that when the minister speaks he will have something to say on how the maintenance and operations of these facilities can be improved because the outcome has such a bearing on the improvement of morale.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are just two subjects on which I should like to make a few comments. If I gave the minister a dozen guesses, I am sure he would guess correctly on the first two.
As I am sure he realizes, I listened with interest to the conversation between the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the Minister of National Defence with respect to certain promises that were made in Winnipeg during May and June of 1974.
I think what I enjoyed most tonight was hearing the minister make so many references to the Department of Supply and Services. I have a fairly good memory of what goes on in election campaigns, but I do not remember the Department of Supply and Services being mentioned in Winnipeg last summer. It was the Minister of National Defence, with the assistance of course of the right hon. Prime Minister, who was going to protect and restore the aerospace industry in Manitoba. As the minister realizes, he is not only the only minister in the cabinet from Manitoba but he is also the Minister of National Defence, and he is in a position to try to do something about those promises that were made last summer.
I should like to emphasize in particular that in those tragic days when we were losing the Air Canada overhaul base from Winnipeg, we were assured that there would be certain replacements. One of the replacements was the work to be given to CAE Industries. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is quite right in protesting about the way in which CAE Industries are being allowed to phase out of the picture, for it looks as though that is what will happen because of the direction in which the government is moving.
I ask, therefore, that the Minister of National Defence recover some of that enthusiasm for strengthening the position of the aerospace workers in Winnipeg that was so evident in May and June of 1974.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We need another election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Leader of the Opposition has a suggestion which I think many people in this country would welcome. Many are wondering whether the vote went the right way last July 8.
When I speak of the minister's enthusiasm for the promises that he and the Prime Minister made, I am doing this not just from what I read in the papers, saw on television, and heard on the radio, but it is also based on the fact that he and I were on the same program one night in a television studio and I sensed close at hand that he really believed that if he got re-elected, and the Liberals with

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply
him, the aero industry in Winnipeg would be in a much better position.


James Armstrong Richardson: It is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that these things are being achieved. The trouble is that it is a long, slow process, and I am afraid that we will not really get the enthusiasm back until the next election, and then of course it will depend on who nominates the Minister of National Defence in Winnipeg South.
The other item about which I wish to have another word with the minister-and he knows it very well-is the question of the pensions of retired members of the armed forces.
I was pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works say this afternoon that this is an area in which we should do a lot better for the members of the armed forces. I was pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence say more or less the same thing in the speech that he made this evening. I suspect that in the armed forces in pension matters probably the most prevalent grievance is the fact that when members of the armed forces go on retirement and draw their pensions, if they are not yet 60 years of age there is no annual cost of living supplement for them as there are for public servants and for many other persons in receipt of pensions.
This is a subject that I have raised repeatedly. I also raise it with respect to retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I receive from the ministers responsible for both of these departments the assertion that these things have to be kept in line with other pension plans, and therefore they have to discuss the whole matter with the President of the Treasury Board. I also get the assurance every time from the Minister of National Defence or from his parliamentary secretary when he answers my questions on "late shows" that the matter is still being studied.
Perhaps this was not as serious an issue some years ago when inflation was not quite so rampant, and I understand the argument, about retired members of the armed forces being in an age bracket when perchance they can get other employment if it is available to them, but in these times of rapid inflation when most of the pensions which come under the aegis of the government are escalated in accordance with the rise in the cost of living-it is significant that in most cases they lag behind it-there is nothing for the retired armed forces individuals who are not yet 60 years of age. The minister writes letters to these people, and then we get copies of the letters, in which he points out that when such an individual reaches the age of 60, he may have five or ten years of percentage points to collect and by that time he may, in the year in which he is 60, pick up an escalation of 30 per cent or 40 per cent. But it is "the meantime" that bothers the retired armed forces individual when inflation is rising so rapidly.
I wonder tonight if the minister can say anything that is more hopeful about this matter than he has said on previous occasions when all he has told me the matter is still under study.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to respond to some of the statements-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria wishes to rise on a point or order.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a little misunderstanding. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to delay his remarks for another five minutes, unless he plans to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at present. In that way, we will have more time in which to put questions. Two members of my party have been waiting patiently all day to ask some questions. I would be appreciative if we could squeeze them in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I sat down leaving some of my time, hoping that the minister would answer me. He is on my time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think he has to speak.


James Armstrong Richardson: I will answer as many hon. members as I can, but I would be pleased, pursuant to the understanding I reached earlier with the hon. member for Victoria, to wait until 9.15 to begin my remarks.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let's get the Winnipeg picture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just give me an answer about the pensions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And Winnipeg too, Jim.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I have to recognize hon. members who stand up, and I will recognize the hon. member for Medicine Hat at this time, unless the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who had not completed his time, wishes to pursue the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: From the understanding we had earlier I thought that any of us who did not use our full 20 minutes could ask for a reply, and all the minister has to do is stand up and say yes.


Walter David Baker: That was my understanding as well.


Gérald Laniel: It is my impression that the minister did not hear the point raised by the hon. member at the end because the parliamentary secretary was talking to him. I believe it was about pensions and inflation.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me about the aerospace industry and indicated that statements had been made during the election to the effect that, if the Liberal government was re-elected, the aerospace industry would be strengthened and enlarged in Manitoba, and I can assure him that that commitment has been achieved. So that we do not take more time, I refer him to the answer given a few days ago by my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, in which he outlined, at some length in a late show here in the House, all of the figures on the creation of jobs and volume of work which is now being placed in Manitoba.
June 5, 1975

Concerning the armed forces pensions I can only say to the hon. member, as I have on other occasions, that these pensions are at the maximum we are able to achieve at the present time. It is a subject, however because of the representations which he and others make, which is always before us. If more can be done, it will be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister discussing the matter of escalating pensions, beginning the year after retirement, with his colleague, the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and with his colleague the President of the Treasury Board, who is involved in these matters? If he is having discussions with those two colleagues, how is he getting on with them?


James Armstrong Richardson: We do have those discussions, but there is no encouraging answer other than that which I gave to the more general question.


Mr. Hargrave:: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief comment to make, and it relates specifically to a question to the Minister of National Defence. I refer to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence hearing of last May 6 when the minister was a witness, and I raised certain matters relating to the Suffield Defence Research station. I am sure the minister is well aware of this matter. I asked him if he would give me a written reply to a rather detailed letter I wrote to him last October 31. To date I have not received an answer, and I thought it was significant that at the following committee meeting the acting deputy minister led off in his opening statement and made reference to my request for that answer, which has still not been received. I just want to focus attention on this matter by reading one short paragraph out of that letter, and I think this will bring to light my special concern. It reads as follows:
I would like to now ask you to very seriously consider the possibility of allowing the Suffield Research Establishment to continue in its traditional and "new look" type of operations indefinitely. Such an announcement would do much to restore confidence, morale and esprit de corps to a very dedicated and able staff, who sincerely want to continue doing a top job at Suffield and remain in the Medicine Hat-Redcliff community and eventually retire there.
That is just one paragraph, and I would appreciate it if the minister would respond.


James Armstrong Richardson: The hon. member for Medicine Hat and I have discussed this matter many times, both privately and in committee, and I can assure him that the detailed and very thoughtful letter he has addressed to the department is under consideration. My reply is being prepared in the department, and he will receive answers to the questions raised in his letter very shortly.
As I was saying a few moments ago when I thought I could have the floor, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the statements which have been made on both sides of the House today and to answer some of the questions to which I have not been able to reply while hon. members were addressing them to me.
First, I would like to say that I particularly welcome the very keen interest in national defence which has been evidenced on both sides of the House. It was clear to me this afternoon, and again this evening, that whatever
Business of Supply
deficiencies there may be in our equipment or in the amount of money available to the Department of National Defence, there is one matter on which all hon. members seem to be agreed, and that is the quality of service and the dedication to Canada provided by the men and women of the Canadian armed forces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. member for London East, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, when he said earlier today that members of the Canadian armed forces on peacekeeping duties are men who can be trusted:- those were his words-by all. This thought, and the high degree of professionalism which the Canadian armed forces possess, is something which has been evident to me and which I have seen whenever I have visited the Canadian forces on peacekeeping duties, on their NATO responsibilities in Germany, on basis or across Canada. I am pleased that this was reflected in the debate today.
In opening the debate the hon. member for Victoria referred to the obsolete equipment of the Canadian forces. This is a subject to which there is reference quite often, both in the media and by members of the House, and I think there is a good deal of misinformation about the standard of our equipment. For that reason I would like to name just a few items on the approved capital program. Out of a list which I have here of some 33 major capital programs, I will mention only the following to indicate the very considerable extent of our new equipment purchases.
In the sea element we have approved the Sea King helicopter, improvement and modernization, for some $41,600,000. We have purchased a diving tender for some $6,600,000.
In the land element there are a number of major purchases. I think those hon. members interested in the land forces will want to know the extent of the modernization of our equipment. The program includes some 2,848 1 !4 ton trucks for a total cost of $69,960,000; 489 5-ton trucks for $27,353,000; heavy anti-armoured weapons, the TOW missile for $30,097,000; the Blowpipe air defence system $38 million; very high frequency radio $9 million, and high frequency radios $6 million.
I am not going to read the whole list, Mr. Chairman, but for those such as the hon. member for Victoria who say our equipment is obsolete I ask them to look at these figures. They will then realize that although some of our equipment is getting old we have a lot of new equipment which members of our armed forces are using in an increasingly effective way.
In the air element we have added five Hercules aircraft, the C-130, at a cost of $30 million, and eight Chinook medium helicopters for $42 million. Replacement of LORAN navigation system for selected aircraft is $6,800,000. In a more general category the Samson system, the strategic communications system, will cost $45 million. This is what is going on week by week and month by month in National Defence to improve the standard of our equipment.

June 5, 1975
Business of Supply
As I said in committee the other day, I am disappointed that hon. members keep talking about obsolete equipment. Certainly there is some, but from now on we should keep a more balanced outlook. If we talk about the old, let us also talk about the new.
I should also like to point out that we are continuously endeavouring to increase the proportion of the budget going to capital expenditures. The proportion for new equipment and construction in 1974-75 was 10.55 per cent, and in 1975-76 we estimate it will be 12.3 per cent, or some $346 million.
In relative terms, although our over-all defence expenditures are slated to increase by 11.6 per cent, the capital expenditures will be boosted by some 31 per cent over last year. I would ask hon. members to think about that figure when talking about capital expenditures. It is up 31 per cent over last year. I particularly want to point out that a large portion of the capital expenditures, about 72 per cent, will go to the purchase of new equipment.
We have approved major capital equipment programs amounting to some $530 million over the next few years, and over 43 per cent of this will be to re-equip the land forces; sea will receive 16 per cent; air 29 per cent, and capital equipment programs common to all will amount to 12 per cent.
The hon. member for Victoria made reference to the Callaghan report. I should like to point out that where allied military trade and co-operation are concerned, the Callaghan report recommends using the United States-Canada defence production sharing program as a model.
We should all be proud of the fact that Canada has been a leader when it comes to NATO industrial co-operation and standardization. For example, we are acquiring the TOW anti-tank missile from the United States and the Blowpipe anti-aircraft missile from the United Kingdom. Both these purchases were made against offsetting sales of Canadian equipment to our NATO allies.
Our allies are increasingly using Canadian manufactured equipment, mainly in the field of electronics, such as aircraft simulators, sonars and sonobuoys, crash position indicators, and computing equipment, a significant proportion of which was developed by and for the Department of National Defence.
I should like to make a brief reference to the comment of the hon. member for Greenwood. He asked me for a definition of surveillance. I would say in brief reply that airspace surveillance is the means of determining what is going on in Canadian air space. It is accomplished primarily through the use of radars. Positive identification in abnormal circumstances can only be achieved by visual observation by a pilot in a high performance aircraft.
I should also like to say to the hon. member for Greenwood, who expressed concern about the number of our interceptors, that we are now using 44 101 Voodoos, a reduction of 12 from the 56 that were in use last year.
I should like to thank the hon. member for Abitibi for his very obvious understanding of the needs of national defence and his recognition of the importance of the armed forces to Canada.

I want to turn to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I have had only a few moments to obtain information and to think about the questions, which are of very great importance to the armed forces. I would agree with her that the subject of morale is perhaps one of the most important matters that all of us who are concerned with the armed forces should be thinking about. In the widest sense I believe that morale is achieved by having a sense of purpose, a sense of the importance of the work that has to be done. Personally I hope to be able to convey to the armed forces, if they do not already realize it, that their work is doubly important-not only in their duty of protecting Canada but also as I have said many times, their work in a number of other ways-in improving Canada and bringing out all of the hidden benefits of their training and education, and their development of the north, assistance to youth, and so on.
Looking at the rather narrower but still important areas mentioned by the hon. member, I think she has raised very valid questions. The first is housing our PMQs. I am able to say that we have a program for improving and renovating PMQs which will amount to some $4,758,000.
It would take me too long to go into each item in detail, but military colleges were also mentioned. I have been aware of the fact that the cost per student is much higher at RMC, College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean or Royal Roads than at Queen's University or other universities. I think the answer partly is that universities do not provide military and academic training, but that military colleges provide everything which universities provide and a lot more, including board and living accommodation. It is really not possible to compare what it costs to train a cadet at RMC, a cadet who is provided with meals, housing, and athletic and military training, with what it costs to educate a student at Queen's, a student who attends lectures from 9 to 5, or 10 to 3, or whatever the time may be, but who pays for everything else outside. We must consider these differences.
In addition, we must look at the quality of instruction at military colleges and realize that the quality of training, and the training in leadership, cannot be measured in terms of dollars per student. Therefore, to answer the question, I think that military colleges have an important place and a good future, as we have confirmed by our dollar commitment. We will be spending on the three military colleges some $17,376,000.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands mentioned hospitals. I realize they are underutilized and we must examine their best uses in Kingston and other locations. I can only say that our belief in the usefulness of the hospitals is demonstrated by our commitment to spend some $9,445,000 on improving military hospitals.
I think the hon. member's last question concerned communications. I am proud of how Air Transport Command provides mail, parcels and communications of all kinds to our personnel in NATO and on peacekeeping duty. That is the report I usually receive, although there may be isolated instances of complaint. As I have said before, I think the mail service we provide is perhaps better than that provided to civilians in the rest of Canada.
June 5, 1975

I am afraid I will not have time to answer all hon. members who have spoken. Earlier today the hon. member for Annapolis Valley said that it is necessary to build a momentum of public opinion behind national defence and in support of national defence. I agree with him on that point. In a democracy such as ours, public opinion in the long run determines the size of our defence budget. As an example I should like the Canadian public to be far more aware than it is of the growth of the number of weapons and armaments in the Warsaw Pact countries. A number of hon. members touched on this point today. I want the Canadian public to be as aware as we are of that growth in military capability, which is well beyond that needed for defence needs. Only if the public becomes aware of this can we generate the kind of public support needed for a larger defence budget. I agree with what was said in this respect.
The suggestion of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley that we have not made our defence options known is not correct. We have made a number of defence options clearly known. They have been reported in the press. I have talked about the options in Europe and said that we would either maintain land forces and an air capability, or an all-air, or an all-land capability. We are studying those options in the structure review which is now before the cabinet. We have not been reluctant to discuss our options.
I see that my time has nearly run out. I think it would be appropriate for me to conclude with the statement made earlier this year by the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Dextraze. It is a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree, and which I believe describes the Canadian armed forces.
General Dextraze said:
The Canadian forces continue to meet their assigned commitments in a highly professional manner. The operational readiness of the Canadian forces continues to be maintained at a high level; morale is good; we have effectively met all the challenges presented to us. Our forces, whether serving in Canada, with NATO in Europe, or with the United Nations around the globe continue to contribute to the maintenance of world peace and stability.
To conclude in my own words, I want the Canadian armed forces not only to respect their heritage, which I know they do, but also to be convinced in their own minds that the tasks which they perform today and the responsibilities that they accept today are of vital importance to Canada and to all Canadians. I should like all Canadians to be convinced, as I am, that the armed forces are important and, in fact, essential not only to the protection but also to the improvement of our Canadian way of life.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to those members who participated in today's debate, which was long overdue. It is good that we came out of our secret committee rooms, and said in public what we think about defence. Perhaps we can create some interest on the part of the population or on the part of members.
First, I should like to reply to the Minister of National Defence, who criticized me for saying that we use obsolete equipment. I can tell him why I said our equipment is obsolete. Take the Centurion tank, which was first produced in 1946, but is still our main battle tank in Europe. When I was thinking of obsolete equipment I was thinking
Business of Supply
of the Bofors gun which forms our perimeter defence at our airfield at Lahr. The Bofors was not a good gun in 1942.
I was also thinking of the Voodoo aircraft which, according to another hon. member who spoke, has been grounded. The Voodoo, or CF-101, is our first line of defence at home. It is not in use with the United States regular forces, but is used by the national guard. They are going to drop the aircraft next year, because it is obsolete. The minister told us in committee that it would go out of Canadian use some time in the early 1980s, at least five years after the United States National Guard considered it too obsolete to be used. That is why I used the word obsolete when talking about our equipment.
Also, I was thinking of the Argus aircraft, which has been flying faithfully and well, but for far too many years. Right now, in the estimates we are considering, not one dime has been set aside for the new LRPA. The long-range patrol aircraft is a long way off.
I was also thinking of our naval forces when I talked about obsolete equipment. Although our navy has four very sophisticated new DDH 280s, it has no other ships under construction. As the lead time for new ship construction is between five and six years, I assume that within five or six years we may, if we start now, equip our naval forces with new equipment. That is why I said that our present equipment is obsolete.
The minister boasts that we are increasing our equipment from 10 per cent to 13 per cent, which he translates arithmetically to be an increase of 30 per cent. That is correct. The equipment budget is up from 10 per cent to 13 per cent, as he said.
Let me read one paragraph from the Thomas A. Callaghan report to which the minister referred. It says:
The percentage of the British defence budget spent on equipment has fallen from 42 per cent in 1965-66 to 37 per cent in 1973-74. The German defence budget shows a steady decline in the investment ratio, from a peak of 46.2 per cent in 1967 to a low of 29.0 per cent in 1972, with only slight improvement to 29.3 per cent in 1973. The American investment ratio has fallen almost 20 percentage points, to 29.8 per cent in the 20 years from FY '54 to FY '74-
This is the reason our equipment is obsolete. We are in the 8, 9, 10, 11 per cent bracket. In order to keep a modern force, the others are in the 30 to 40 per cent bracket. Moving from 10 per cent to 13 per cent is nothing to boast about.
Today we covered in general terms a lot of the problems of defence. We did not go into great detail because we have done that in committee. I would like the general public to know that we have asked questions in committee. We have had eight committee meetings on these estimates. They were noted for our inability to get the information we requested from the department.
We do not yet know where the Falcon aircraft are; or the terms of reference for our senior officials at NORAD. We do not know if we are going to sign a contract for LRPA or not. We do not know what the minister or Prime Minister means, but they say we will keep up our commitment. The commitment will be what they think it will be. They

June 5, 1975
Fort Garry
reserve the right to translate that word, and will give their meaning of it at some later date.
When we ask point blank if our manpower and soldiers in Germany are going to be reduced, we cannot get an answer yes or no. We get the weasely answer that we will keep up our commitment to suit our allies.
I see my time is almost up. I want to thank again those who participated. I want at this time to thank the distinguished chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, the hon. member for Labelle, who has done a great job. He capped it today by contributing positive suggestions. I personally thank him, and those members on my side who did so much work preparing for and participating in the debate today.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 9(a) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings.
Shall National Defence-Vote 1 carry?


Walter David Baker: On division.
National Defence-Vote 1 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in, on division.


ADMISSION FEES TO LOWER FORT GARRY-RIDEAU CANAL TOLLS-TERRA NOVA PARK TRAVEL
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I hear someone across the way saying this is new members' night. In accordance with the agreement that was reached this afternoon, I wish to raise a grievance. The understanding is that I shall take not more than half the time between now and ten o'clock, leaving the other half for a response by a representative of the government.
There are times when I wish it were possible to put on Hansard something other than words, some appropriate picture or, perhaps even better, an appropriate cartoon. There is no question but that the Printing Bureau could do this, but of course it would take unanimous consent or an amendment to the British North America Act to make it possible.
At least I can describe the cartoon which I have in my hand. It appeared some weeks ago in the Winnipeg Tribune. The cartoon shows the wall of Lower Fort Garry down the Red River from the city of Winnipeg. There is a Canadian flag flying from it. Standing on guard in a uniform of some decades ago is an officer. Across his chest are the words "Judd Buchanan".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: On his officer's cap there is a dollar sign.


An hon. Member:: How many?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is only one dollar sign, but it stands for quite a few dollars. The caption on the cartoon reads as follows: "Let's all salute history! That will be two bucks, please!"
My grievance with respect to the fee or fees being charged for admission to Lower Fort Garry was underlined this afternoon when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mrs. Campagnolo) gave an oral answer to my question No. 2,486, which has been on the order paper since May 16.
The question had several parts to it having to do with when the Government of Canada became the owner of Lower Fort Garry, and so on. In particular, I asked from whom the Government of Canada obtained the property known as Lower Fort Garry. The answer was that it was obtained from the Hudson's Bay Company. I asked how much the Hudson's Bay Company charged the Government of Canada for the acres that comprise Lower Fort Garry. The answer given this afternoon was that there was no charge at all, that it was a gift.
Although this piece of property that is important in the history of Manitoba was given to the government free of any charge, and even though the government says that it wants Canadians to appreciate and salute our history, it is now imposing charges for admission to Lower Fort Garry which work against any appreciation of that historic site.
The figures vary. There is a $2 fee for a single admission for any person who is 16 years of age or over. There is a 50 cent fee for persons below that age. There is a $10 annual fee. That is not a very realistic proposition. There are some fees for student groups, families and so on. The point we do not seem able to get across to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) is that Lower Fort Garry is not a national park like Banff or Cape Breton Highlands; it is an historic site of limited area somewhat like Parliament Hill. We do not charge people two dollars to get on to Parliament Hill.


An hon. Member:: We shall pretty soon!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the hon. member is warning me that I should not suggest such a thing because the government might go for it.
I see my time is almost up. I plead with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that in line with the view he has expressed that we should salute history, he withdraw the admission fees to Lower Fort Garry.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I share the hon. member's regret, Madam Speaker, that he cannot put cartoons in Hansard. That is one of the kindest cartoons I have seen of myself. I share his concern in that area as well.
As to the question of the property being a gift, as I have drawn to the attention of the House on several occasions this is irrelevant since, as far as these fees are concerned, they represent only approximately 18 per cent of the operating costs and contribute nothing whatsoever toward the capital costs.
June 5, 1975

We find that only 5 per cent of the Canadian people visit our historic sites and national parks, yet 100 per cent of the capital costs and approximately 80 per cent of the operating costs are borne by the other 95 per cent which do not go near our parks at all. The feeling was that some contribution should be made by the users of the parks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you don't apply that to visitors to Parliament Hill.


J. Judd Buchanan: No, but I do not have responsibility for Parliament Hill. The hon. member will have to take that matter up with Mr. Speaker.
Basically our feeling was that some contribution should be made by those who use the parks. It is a minimal contribution. In the case of the canals it works out at only 7 per cent, and in the case of the parks and historic sites it works out to approximately 18 per cent, so we feel it is not exorbitant or unreasonable.
We have endeavoured, in the case of Lower Fort Garry, to respond in a positive fashion to concern raised in that area. As the hon. member mentioned, we set an annual rate of $10 for families who go fairly frequently to Lower Fort Garry. We have introduced a special $2 fee for buses which transport students or other special groups. A family consisting, say, of a mother, father and three or four offspring, will not pay the sum of the regular charges but a maximum of $4. Thus we have endeavoured to respond to some of the concerns of the hon. member.
As I say, however, we do not feel it is unreasonable to expect the users of our canals, historic sites and national parks to make a contribution. They enjoy the good fortune in many cases to be near them, so they have the advantage of proximity which is not shared by the majority of Canadian people, as shown by the fact that only 5 per cent of them visit our historic sites and canals.


Walter David Baker: The minister referred to the canals. One of them is the Rideau Canal. He and I have corresponded about the tolls on this canal which came into effect on June 1, 1975. There has been marked public reaction to these tolls. I have heard the minister state his case and I have questions to ask about the attitude he takes, particularly in terms of the effect on those who live on the Rideau system and those who use it regularly.
If the minister could remove these tolls immediately, I think his action would be appreciated. This would allow time for further consultation with the Rideau Lakes and Thousand Islands tourist councils, the government of Ontario, and the people generally who are interested in this matter.
If the minister cannot withdraw these tolls-and I wish he would, at least to allow these long range consultations to take place-would he consider gathering the facts and figures with respect to them and meet with those tourist councils and others so there could be an exchange of views? This is an important matter, particularly for those who live along the Rideau Canal, and I am sure there are others who are equally affected.


J. Judd Buchanan: I would be happy to take a look at the situation after the first year. Arguments have been put
Adjournment Motion
forward that we should give special consideration to the people who live on the canals in the sense that we already give special consideration to those who live in the parks. For instance, the residents of Banff and Jasper do get special consideration. This is an idea which I am prepared to consider.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I should like to put a question to the minister with respect to national parks through which the trans-Canada highway passes. I am thinking specifically of Terra Nova Park and those who use it in the sense that they travel over the trans-Canada highway. Madam Speaker, those who have occasion to pass through the park in such circumstances should not be made to pay. Indeed, they should be permitted to stop if they wish to enjoy the beauties of the park and perhaps take a picnic lunch without having to pay these tariffs.


J. Judd Buchanan: I am very receptive to the first part of the question. We are now in the process of arranging the road passing through Terra Nova so that resident traffic can go down one lane in such a fashion that they will not be called upon to pay any charge.


James Aloysius McGrath: There is only one lane now.


J. Judd Buchanan: There are two lanes being put there, or under construction now, so that the through traffic will not have to stop.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, on May 9 last I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) some questions. One was this: had he received the brief of the Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards and others dealing with Bill 22, the Quebec Official Language Act, and would he refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada? Secondly, how could he, who is supposed to be so committed to bilingualism, continue to ignore a bill so committed to a contrary view? He said he would not refer it, and then he tried to slide out of his dilemma by saying that he had no jurisdiction to do so, that his government only had jurisdiction with respect to areas under the authority of the federal government.
Such an answer is patent constitutional nonsense, and one cannot be more direct than that. If he meant that it
6500

June 5, 1975
Adjournment Motion
was clear that Bill 22 did not encroach into the federal jurisdiction, then with respect he is equally wrong.
I want to draw your attention to a few sections of that bill. Section 1, which makes French the sole official language of Quebec, violates section 133 of the British North America Act, which makes both French and English official languages in Quebec for the legislature and courts. Section 2, which makes the French text of Quebec laws prevail over the English text in case of conflict, also violates section 133 of the British North America Act.
The sections dealing with the language of instruction in education violate section 93 of the BNA Act, which prohibits any provincial law that "prejudicially affects any right or privilege with respect to denominational education which any class of person had by law in the province" at confederation. All Quebec public schools are denominational. Pre-confederation provincial acts vested the "management and control" of denominational schools and the right to "choose the language of instruction" and to "regulate the course of study" in the denominational school boards. This right, therefore, the province cannot take away. Eleven other sections, in so far as they apply to schools, also violate section 93 of the British North America Act.
The sections dealing with the language of communications with other governments of Canada, language of labour relations, and language of business contracts, are unconstitutional in so far as they purport to apply to the federal government or its institutions, or to any other employers covered by the federal Official Languages Act, or to interprovincial trade and commerce.
The sections dealing with the language of public utilities are unconstitutional in so far as they purport to apply to interprovincial telephone, telegraph, air, ship, railway, gas pipeline and autobus operations, since all such operations come under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
The sections requiring the use of French in company names are unconstitutional in so far as they purport to apply to federally incorporated companies.
The section requiring the use of French labels on products is unconstitutional in so far as food and drugs are concerned, because it conflicts with the federal Food and Drugs Act. It is also unconstitutional in so far as it purports to control the import or export of products without French labels, or their sale.
The sections requiring the use of French in advertising and public signs are unconstitutional in so far as they purport to apply to television, and to interprovincial and international trade and commerce, which are under exclusively federal jurisdiction.
The next question that arises is whether the government ought to disallow the bill. The national interest calls for the promotion of our two principal cultures, French and English, on a basis of equality. This is accepted by all federal political parties. The Official Languages Act of Quebec undermines the whole concept of two equal cultures, and employs coercive measures to impose the French language on, and government control over, some of the chief institutions of English culture in the province.
English is the language most often spoken in the home by some 900,000 Quebecers, and by some 700,000 in met-

ropolitan Montreal alone. Quebec is the fourth largest English-speaking province, and Montreal the third largest English-speaking city, in Canada. Of the 112 provincial acts disallowed since confederation, 32 have been disallowed partly because they were considered contrary to the public interest of Canada as a whole.
Second, the act is contrary to constitutional principles and sound principles of legislation. It reaches down into the minutest details of daily life, as none of the legislation designed to limit the use of French in other provinces in the past has ever done. It vests in the provincial government and its agencies an unparalleled degree of discretionary power, and makes their decisions, in many vital matters, absolute and uncontrollable, denying to the citizen recourse to the courts.
Third, the act is contrary to reason, justice, and natural equity, a ground given for disallowing five acts of other provinces.
Fourth, it is contrary to federal policy as set forth in the federal Official Languages Act. Fourteen provincial acts have been disallowed partly for this reason.
Fifth, it is discriminatory. It discriminates against members of the professions who do not have what the provincial government considers an adequate knowledge of French; against business firms which, in the opinion of the provincial government, have not "francisized" themselves; against the English language universities. Its educational sections discriminate against the ethnic groups, and against French Canadians who may wish to send their children to English language schools. Fourteen acts have been disallowed partly because they are discriminatory. Ten acts have been disallowed because of the vagueness of their terms, and this bill is certainly vague. Madam Speaker, this is a burning ember in the fabric of our national unity, and for that reason alone this bill ought to be referred or disallowed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Match that last sentence, if you can!


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I would like to accept the challenge offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I regret that my oratorical ability does not come anywhere near that of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Mr. Fraser:: That's right.


John Mercer Reid: One can only sit, listen and marvel at his felicity with words, and the way he is able to argue the form without having the substance underneath.
I should say that the hon. member has given us his legal opinion of the impact of Bill 22, and he quoted extensively from a brief which the Protestant School Boards as well as nine other signatories submitted to the government. Fortunately, however, the document was received and immediately referred to the legal advisers of the government for a legal opinion. Their judgment has not yet been received by the Cabinet. I am told it will be received imminently.
The original petition is some 200 pages in length, and the synopsis of it runs in the order of 30 pages. In preparation
June 5, 1975

for tonight I had the opportunity to read it briefly. I agree with the hon. member that it is a complex document and requires a great deal of work before the government will be able to make a decision.
I can say that the document will be referred to the Cabinet imminently, probably by the end of the month of June, at which time the Cabinet will consider it and make a judgment as to what position it will take.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton gave a precis, as much as one can give a precis of the document in respect of government activities. It basically argues that the official languages act of Quebec is unconstitutional on a number of grounds in those areas where it is alleged to violate the British North America Act and a number of statutes of the Government of Canada.


Walter David Baker: What is the date you said for referral to the Cabinet?


John Mercer Reid: It ought to be before the Cabinet by the end of June. Presumably at that time discussions will take place and the Cabinet will come to a conclusion in the ordinary way.
On an issue of this nature I do not think we can look forward to an easy answer, because the issues in this particular reference are complex, delicate, and have to do with the over-all position of legislative powers in our system. For example, I can think of a number of premiers who would be very upset if the government were to use its powers of disallowance-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


HEALTH-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION NOT TO TEST FOR MERCURY POISONING AMONG NATIVES
Walter (Wally) Firth: Madam Speaker, I have asked for this time to clarify for myself and for many other people who are involved just exactly what the position of the government is in relation to the question of arsenic and mercury pollution in Yellowknife.
Several times in press releases and in speeches the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has indicated that the survey results released last week by his department represented only a part of the testing program. He said, as reported at page 6379 of Hansard, that "more thorough studies have been launched, particularly on established cases showing what appears to be a high arsenic rate."
The only source the government has of finding high arsenic rates is its own study, and frankly I find that study suspect. The difficulty lies with the sample on which that study is based. I believe 700 people volunteered for the survey. Roughly speaking, less than 20 per cent of the samples were from mine and mill workers, and only 8 per cent were from native people. By my calculation that means only 28 per cent of the samples were from people most directly connected with arsenic.
It is the workers, for obvious reasons, and the native people who are most directly connected with arsenic
Adjournment Motion
because many of them have been using Back Bay in Yellowknife as their source of drinking water, and Back Bay is polluted with arsenic and mercury. The point I am trying to make, Madam Speaker, is that if the minister is going to base his next round of tests on his first study, then he is going to miss a lot of people who potentially have high readings of arsenic in their bodies.
Let me illustrate this with an example. You have heard mention of a study commissioned by the Indian Brotherhood. The testing for this survey was conducted by the University of Toronto. Their sample is suspect because it only contained 18 individuals. However, they did find two children with mercury readings. One had a reading of 180, the other of 90.
The minister's study also found some examples of mercury, but they were very low. Let me quote from a department press release dated May 27:
Since the presently accepted maximum safety level for mercury is 60 parts per million it is not considered necessary to do any follow-up studies on the mercury levels at this time.
One of the two children I mentioned had a reading three times what the minister's department calls the maximum safety level. Because his first survey was not relevant to the matter at hand, his department missed this one example. And because they missed the one example, they are not going to test for mercury.
My worry is for the other ten year olds and their families whom the minister's survey did not find, and I think that the life and health of these people are worth any effort the minister might have made to design and carry out a survey that will give a more accurate picture of the situation in Yellowknife. Armed with relevant data, he should then proceed with further studies.
The second point I would like the minister to take to heart concerns the attitude of some of his staff, and the staff of other departments, when they are dealing with the public in these matters.
As I remember it, .last January when the CBC made public the allegedly secret document which revealed the levels of arsenic present in the environment of Yellowknife, a great number of attacks and counter-attacks were made about whether the document was indeed secret. The upshot of the whole thing was the announcement of the survey that came out last week, and what appeared to be a pledge that every pertinent fact on the subject of arsenic would be made available to the public.
I have a memo, dated February 6-a time when the commotion had died down somewhat. It is from Mr. H. Veldhuizen of the air pollution control section of the Environmental Protection Service. It went to Mr. C. A. Lewis of the EPS in Yellowknife. Copies went to Dr. R. D. P. Eaton in Edmonton, who is an employee of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
It deals with the recommendation of a body in the United States charged with evaluating standards for health in working environments. It seems that this body now recommends that the industrial hygiene standards for in-plant environmental conditions be lowered from 500 micrograms per cubic metre to 4 micrograms per cubic metre. Mr. Veldhuizen explains this change to Mr. Lewis in some detail. Then he says:
295 61 - 6714

June 5, 1975
Adjournment Motion
It would be advisable not to release this information to the public as it may cause undue concern at this time.
I would like to ask the minister to justify that kind of attitude in a person hired with public money to protect the public.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, in response to the question of the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) put to the minister this afternoon on the National Indian Brotherhood survey, I would like to say the following.
During the survey on arsenic levels in hair samples of residents of the Yellowknife area which was carried out in February of 1975 by the department, tests for mercury were also done on 20 per cent of the hair samples. These tests were done because a study carried out by researchers of the University of Iowa some time ago had indicated the possibility of mercury contamination also occurring as a result of the processing of gold ore at Yellowknife. The study of arsenic levels provided an opportunity to obtain up to date information on the possibility of a mercury problem, since the presence of mercury in human hair is a good indication of whether, and to what extent, it is present in the body.
All the hair samples tested for mercury revealed levels of less than 10 parts per million (ppm) with one exception, which was 25 ppm. Since the presently accepted maximum safety level for mercury is 60 ppm, it was concluded that further follow up studies on mercury levels were not necessary at that time. This conclusion was the one made known in the press release of May 27, 1975.
Since that time officials of the National Indian Brotherhood have contacted officials of the department to inform them of the results of a survey carried out for the NIB on arsenic and mercury levels in some hair samples of residents of two native communities very near Yellowknife. As reported to the department, this survey was of 18 hair samples, but levels of mercury were reported on only two of the samples. Both of these samples are reported to have revealed significantly elevated levels of mercury.
When told of these results, the department immediately requested the National Indian Brotherhood to provide it with a full report on the survey because it wished to follow up with further tests on any individuals found by the NIB to have significant arsenic or mercury hair levels. We have not yet received the report from NIB, and are therefore not yet able to draw any conclusions about the two mercury levels reported, or on the methodology used in the tests.
In the meantime, however, the results reported by NIB have already been reported to the northern health services with the instructions that they are to contact the individuals concerned and ask them to have clinical examinations during phase II of the Yellowknife survey which will start on June 9.
Whether still further tests or surveys should be conducted at this time in connection with mercury is something which will be assessed when the department has had an opportunity to study the full report of the NIB survey and these clinical examinations have been done. The fact remains that the much larger survey carried out by the

department did not reveal any mercury levels of significance, and the two high levels reported from the NIB survey must be examined in that light.
Despite this fact, I want to assure the hon. member and the House that in addition to the immediate steps I have described, the department will follow up with whatever further work we find to be necessary to monitor the health of the residents in the area and to enable us to take measures to protect it.


FINANCE-EXCISE TAX ON PRIVATE AIRCRAFT AND PLEASURE BOATS-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS IN LIMITING CONSUMPTION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, in Hansard for May 30 at page 6280 is recorded the question I asked of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), as follows:
With respect to the 10 per cent excise tax on privately owned aircraft and motor driven pleasure boats, which was part of the November budget, will the minister now advise as to what degree this tax has limited oil consumption in Canada?
The Minister of Finance replied:
-I will have to consult with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but I would hope it had some result.
On January 9 I wrote to the Minister of Finance, and I quote from that letter:
Regarding the 10% tax on non-commercial aircraft and pleasure boats I am forced to ask whether anyone really believes this is the way to cut down on the consumption of oil. Surely this move is unnecessary and, for that matter, not based on any real programme for energy conservation. Ration gas, tax gas, or let the price rise, if you really want to cut down on consumption, but why try and pretend that this tax is going to help to maintain Canadian self-sufficiency in energy?
On February 19 the Minister of Finance replied, and wrote the following:
The special excise taxes on energy-consuming vehicles constitute one of several programs the government has introduced to deal with the critical question of conserving Canada's energy resources.
In the following paragraph it is stated that:
... the government is aware that the impact of the new taxes on industries directly affected will result in some short-term dislocations in those industries. However, it must be emphasized that disruptions in industries directly related to the consumption of petroleum products will inevitably occur, and the government must take action now to encourage such industries and consumers to adjust their production and consumption in the direction of more conservative energy-consuming products if even greater dislocations are to be avoided.
I want to say quite frankly that if that is the result of this tax, then of course the public must have some sympathy with it, but I wish to record tonight my own severe doubts that that tax has had any effect on the consumption of oil in Canada.
I want to quote from some letters which I have received, as a member of parliament, from people operating in the marine industry in my own province. I quote from a letter dated May 12, 1975, from Leo Edwards Sons, Ltd. as follows:
The imposition of the tax has resulted in decreased sales, lay-offs and has contributed to inflation rather than otherwise.
June 5, 1975

The letter also says:
I would like to point out that less than Vi of 1 per cent of the total fuel used in Canada is used for boating.
I have a copy of a letter sent to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines), a member on the government side, on April 16, 1975, by Taylor Pearson & Carson (B.C.). It reads in part:
We feel that the discriminatory additional 10 per cent tax is having a bad effect on the profitability of our independent marine dealers in British Columbia.
I should also like to quote from a letter from Capstan Marine of Richmond, British Columbia, dated May 14, 1975, as follows:
This new policy has been very detrimental to the marine industry. The excise tax is not the type of lavement our industry needed.
May I quote again, this time from a letter dated April 29, 1975, from Allied Boating-Canada which is located in Ontario. The letter reads in part:
It is estimated that gasoline sold through retail outlets in Canada is well in excess of five billion gallons (no penalty).
It is estimated that gasoline for the use of snowmobiles in Canada is 57 million gallons (no penalty).
It is estimated that gasoline sold for the use of small boats in Canada is 77 million gallons (penalized).
When you add in industrial, farm, aircraft and heating fuels, it is estimated that the small boat consumption of fuel is less than '/j of 1 per cent of the Canadian fuel consumption.
This can hardly be classed as an area of high energy consumption!
A letter dated May 14 from Simpson Power Products, Ltd. reads as follows:
The subject tax has now been in effect for approximately six months, and, from our company's own experience, if your goal was to kill the pleasure boat industry in Canada, you have succeeded 100 per cent.
We know this was not your intention. You stated it was a fuel conservation measure, but you chose to pick on an industry that is the smallest in the luxury market, and, due to competition from the large mass producers in the U.S.A., has always had a struggle to keep out of the red.
I want to say to the minister that there are plenty more letters along these lines. I hope the minister can satisfy us tonight that this tax has had a degree of success in conservation of the total amount of oil consumed in Canada. If that were so then I would say to all hon. members and to the public that we have to look upon it sympathetically.
I put on the record as early as January, Madam Speaker, that I doubted the real conservation effects of this tax. I ask the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) to tell us tonight whether the tax
Adjournment Motion
has had any appreciable effect on reducing the consumption of oil based fuels in this country. I ask him also to tell us exactly the amount of that reduction, and if the figures are not available I would ask him to give an estimate.
Unless it has some significance this tax is not only foolish, it is clearly discriminatory against owners of boats and airplanes in relation to a great many other users of gasoline products in this country. There is no justification whatsoever for visiting a tax on one particular industry unless it has a very significant effect in terms of conservation. Unless it can be clearly justified, this is a discriminatory tax and ought to be removed in the coming budget.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the introduction of special excise taxes on privately owned aircraft and boat motors in excess of 20 horsepower is only one measure in the government's over-all program to conserve energy. You will recall that at the time of the introduction of these measures, special excise taxes on other high energy-


John Allen Fraser: You are not answering the question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -the hon. member read his letters, and I listened quietly. I think he can do me that courtesy- consuming vehicles were also introduced, specifically on large cars and motorcycles. In addition, the government has made significant changes in taxation of the petroleum industries, and a phased reduction in the exports of oil has been initiated.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacDonald) introduced a comprehensive package of energy conservation proposals in February. These will be found in Hansard, page 3005. Included were specific proposals for energy conservation both within the government and in the private sector.
The combined effect of these measures has been to indicate to industries and consumers the urgent need to adjust production and consumption in the direction of products which consume less energy. Although the excise taxes referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) constitute a modest step in this direction, the effect of these taxes has been to make both consumers and producers more conscious of the need to conserve energy.
It is difficult to isolate the precise effects of these special excise taxes. The government is satisfied that its over-all policies to encourage energy conservation will have the desired results. I should like to assure the hon. member for Vancouver South that the government will continue to monitor developments in the field of energy conservation very carefully.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Friday, June 6, 1975