December 18, 1962


On the orders of the day:


NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position now to answer my questions of last week, as he indicated on Thursday and Friday he would try to do, with regard to whether there are any categories of civil servants for whom pay increases were recommended by the civil service commission but which were not granted by the government?

Topic:   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SALARY INCREASES NOT ACTED UPON
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a report on this matter. I have been tied up with treasury board all week and have not had a chance to look into it.

Topic:   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SALARY INCREASES NOT ACTED UPON
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

May I ask the Minister of Finance if he will do his best to have an answer to these questions before we adjourn on Thursday.

Topic:   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SALARY INCREASES NOT ACTED UPON
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

The hon. member knows that I always do my best.

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

Topic:   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SALARY INCREASES NOT ACTED UPON
Permalink

INTERIM SUPPLY


Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $330,089,511.93 being the aggregate of- (a) one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, finance items 45 and 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources items 10, 45 and 90, public works items 5, 45, 70, 100, 105, 125, 145, 168 170, 180, 190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5, 15 and 25, transport items 35, 40, 60, 80, 85, 100, 125, 222 and 225 loans investments and advances item L20 $292,175,958; (b) an additional one twelfth of the amounts of defence production item 25, external affairs item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 105, of the said revised estimates, $1,842,041.67; (c) one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, except external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, $8,738,178.92; (d) ten twelths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, $27,333,333.34, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.


SC

Gérard Perron

Social Credit

Mr. Perron:

Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned last night, I was speaking of the joy of hon. members of the House of Commons at the thought of being able in 1967 to approach the centenary of our confederation, in a bilingual and bicultural atmosphere in this our Canada, which can certainly give the best way of life to a people who wants security and freedom, which is everybody's aim.

To come back to the budget we are now discussing, I understand that this budget was submitted last spring when there was no Social Credit member in the house, and when those who had had an opportunity of privately discussing monetary problems from the Social Credit angle at the time were also but few. That is why we are now asked to approve a budget which comprises such important amounts as $1,616,412,380, for national defence. We also see there other very large amounts like $788,181,300 for servicing the national debt, and we will be asked at the same time, to vote only $536 million for social security, under the Family Allowances Act.

As do quite a few other Canadian citizens, I consider social security as important as national defence. I also realize that, as in today's tormented world, whole nations have, under the pretext of ensuring their security, accepted to be crushed and dominated by world communism, the democratic countries must come to the fore, and that Canada in particular, because of its immense opportunities for the development of its natural wealth, should show leadership, but Canada should also give security and freedom to the Canadian people, to the fathers and mothers of families, by providing an amount higher than the $536 million which it has earmarked this year for family allowances, so that, thanks to this raise in family allowances, our Canadian families may enjoy a better standard of living, and all our small business people, in our villages and cities, may benefit every month from this increased buying power and keep their businesses at a sufficiently high level to make it worth their while.

I do not want to repeat what I said before on family allowances. But I mention it a second time because I consider this eminently social piece of legislation which was voted several years ago, extremely significant. I shall not quote any figures, this year, with regard to a substantial increase under that legislation, because I want to prevent the present minister from committing the same

Interim Supply

error as the Liberals in 1957, when they increased family allowances by only one dollar, hoping to persuade every Canadian into voting for them again.

Now, as I said a moment ago, we are called upon to vote a budget on the preparation of which we have in no way been consulted. However, I suppose it will be our duty to approve it since we shall have to approve or reject the current expenses, required by this government. However, knowing that another budget will be prepared during January, February or March, I hope that the Christmas and New Year spirit will inspire those responsible for the budget to provide more for family allowances so as to somewhat rejoice the hearts of many mothers who are now suffering from insecurity.

Yesterday, I made reference to hundreds of letters I have received. By doing so, I did not want to discredit certain families in Beauce who are going through hardship. In fact, if the people knew their member a little better in all our Canadian ridings, in the cities, particularly cities like Quebec, in Montreal and Toronto, they would send more letters describing the extreme poverty in which they live, having very little to put on the table, lacking the necessaries of life, and in need of a little more of the comfort and cares required for the better health of a growing generation. And we would not have to see, as we did during the last world war, enlistment in the active army of our country denied to 30 or 35 per cent of our young people because they had been underfed when they were growing up during the 1930-39 depression, under both Liberal and Conservative governments.

I hope that 1963 will bring more than an austerity budget, a budget which has been prepared last spring and which is being brought forward in slices of two twelfths, six twelfths or eleven twelfths-as one of our hon. friends opposite was telling us yesterday -thus forcing us to vote it or to accept it by piecemeal. I hope that the next budget which will be brought down when this session reconvenes, after the holidays adjournment, will include a more adequate sum as regards social security for fathers and mothers, as well as for children, these children who are growing up and who need to be better understood than we were when we were 16, 17 or 18 years old.

In 25 years from now, we should not have what are still being called, in 1962, children of the depression of the thirties.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that those wishes are shared by many of us. I know that hon. members sitting on the government side have been hoping for many years to see a substantial increase in the family allowances under this eminently social piece of legislation. I have also had the opportunity to discuss privately this family allowances problem with members from the party sitting next to us in this house, and they too believe there is urgency for a substantial increase in family allowances which are now distributed in this country.

I hope that after the discussion on this budget, putting aside all political partisanship, it will be realized that tomorrow's economy will have to be directed more and more towards a distributive economy.

Let us then start by improving the legislation we already have. I therefore hope, speaking for myself and for the people of the county of Beauce, that the next federal budget will provide more than $536 million for family allowances and social security in our country.

(Text):

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

Bruce Silas Beer

Liberal

Mr. Beer:

Mr. Chairman, I assume it is obvious or soon will be obvious that this is my initial contribution to the twenty fifth parliament of Canada. Since it is alleged that the life of this parliament hangs in the balance, I am at a loss to know whether I am making my maiden speech or delivering my farewell sermon. In any case, I believe that can only be decided posthumously.

By way of personal introduction I wish to say I have the honour and the responsibility of representing the constituency of Peel. To many of you my constituency will be known as the constituency that was so well represented by the late Mr. Gordon Graydon, who sat in this house and served this country well for 18 years and who occupied the seat immediately in front of the one from which I speak today. Of his enormous talents he gave unselfishly and without regard for his own health or his own wealth. Peel county and Canada were greatly enriched by his service, strengthened by his honour and his personal integrity and encouraged by the warmth of his personality. His passing left an insatiable vacuum in the public life of Peel county and indeed in the public life of Canada.

By way of further introduction I wish to remind this committee that Peel county is known to those of us who reside in it as the banner county of the province of Ontario. We believe we have some justification for thinking this way because Peel is a very rich and

productive agricultural area, and in addition there is a very large urban population. There has been, or there was up until 1957, a very rapid industrial growth in this area. I am pleased to suggest also that this industrial development had attained such momentum prior to 1957 that it has continued at a reasonably satisfactory rate until the present.

The purpose of debate on interim supply is to provide hon. members with an opportunity to question and criticize the government on its policies. It is a great pleasure for me to participate in this debate even though we have not as yet had an opportunity to debate a budget. Today we are asked to approve of ten twelfths of the over-all appropriation without having had a real look at some of the forward looking measures that were supposed to be envisaged-and I use that word advisedly-in the speech from the throne.

I wish to deal with three main headings in my remarks, two of a general nature and one specifically directed to eastern agriculture. Speaking in this house some few weeks ago the hon. member for York South suggested that the Liberal members were acting as though they had been out of power for 50 years instead of five years. In reply I wish to suggest that the economic decline was so great in the last five years and unemployment was so severe, and with five whopping deficits in a row, that it would not require a lot of imagination to believe in fact that the Liberals had been out of power for 50 years.

The government seemed to take considerable pride in its introduction of the Farm Credit Act and the amendments thereto, and I suggest this was a very appropriate and responsible action to take. I would remind the committee that this is a measure which makes a larger sum of money available for loans to farmers, and I say it was a very responsible and appropriate action because farmers always need more credit under a Tory administration than under a Liberal administration.

As a farmer I am not only interested in making money available to farmers at 5 per cent. I am interested in seeing to it that all our people, our small business people and home owners, have money available to them at lower rates of interest; because you cannot bleed people white with high interest rates and then expect them to buy all the manufactured articles which you wish to sell them. If the people are not able to buy the manufactured articles then the manufacturer has no choice but to discontinue manufacturing them, and if he does that he has no further choice but to discharge or displace some of his employees. These high interest rates, which go back to the conversion loan

Interim Supply

policy of the government, have had a very substantial effect on the decrease in our economic growth and on the high unemployment we have experienced since that policy was introduced.

In my opening remarks concerning the constituency of Peel I should have reminded this committee that Peel was the home of the Avro Arrow before its untimely demise in 1958, and as a farmer I suggest to the government that I am just as much interested in economic growth and development as I am in agriculture. There used to be a saying that if the agricultural community was prosperous then so also was the rest of the country. That is not true in Canada today, and as a farmer I suggest that if our economic community is prosperous, and if our business community is active, then so will our farmers be reasonably prosperous. I also suggest that the government cannot throw important industries out the window and expect our economic growth to continue at a high level.

Dealing briefly with the Avro Arrow affair, I say that no one on this side of the house would question the right of the government to cancel government contracts. Certainly the government has information at its disposal which we do not have, information on which to base its decisions; but where there is right there is also responsibility, and I believe the government had a responsibility, before cancelling the Arrow, to endeavour to find other projects which would employ the people they proposed to displace.

Second, I believe it is incumbent upon the government to endeavour by every means possible to retain our young and skilled people in the country in order to make our country grow. As I said earlier I, as a farmer, am as interested in seeing substantial economic development as I am in the policies which affect me personally, and I wish now to deal with eastern agriculture.

First I want to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture for performing his duties to the very best of his ability, but I think eastern agriculture has been conspicuously absent so far from our deliberations in this house. I have not the exact quotation with me and if I misinterpret his remarks I would apologize and endeavour to make a correction, but speaking in Calgary some time last summer the minister made a statement to the effect "that now everything is in good shape in western Canada I am going to devote all my attention to eastern Canada." In substantiating that statement I would refer to page 688 of Hansard for October 18, 1962, where the minister is reported as having said precisely what I have indicated, and I think it is not necessary to read it into the record.

Interim Supply

The minister has made a few speeches concerning agriculture in eastern Canada, in one of which he told the farmers "If you fellows don't cut down on your dairy production we are going to cut off your supports," and his second suggestion was that a lot of the farms now in dairy production should be transferred into beef production. I learned two or three things as a youngster, and one I remember particularly was that when young folks talk to old folks they should know what they are talking about. I suggest that when the Minister of Agriculture starts telling farmers they should transfer from dairy production to beef production he is making a very dangerous recommendation. It is quite possible for a farmer with a few cows to milk those cows and make a living for his family, whereas if he transfers into beef production he gets involved in securing more capital and a lot larger acreage of land to engage in one of the most highly specialized games I know of. Therefore I say that his suggestion to the farmers of eastern Canada to transfer from dairy production into beef production is a very dangerous one indeed.

I am surprised that someone has not found an opportunity to address the committee on the parable of the prodigal son. We all remember how the prodigal son dissipated his reserves through irresponsible spending and, because of his ill conceived policies, was confronted with austerity and what are now known in this house as emergency measures. These austerity measures have had a far reaching effect on eastern agriculture, and time will only permit me to mention two of the ways in which they have this effect.

I first want to mention the recognized need for the government to reduce the premium on grade A hogs. This was a premium for the production of quality hogs, and its abolition is going to take between $2.3 million and $2.4 million out of the pockets of many farmers in eastern Canada. In my opinion this austerity measure will hurt farmers in general.

Because of austerity some of the essential services to farmers are being curtailed and discontinued. I want to mention the dairy industry in particular. The dairy industry of this country is a very substantial one, and I do not believe that any phase of livestock production in this country has made a greater contribution to our economic well-being than has dairying. The inventory of dairy cows in Canada runs to approximately $6 million. Our milk production last year amounted to well over half a billion dollars-$616 million. Our exports amounted to $14 million. Then we have the slaughter value of the dairy cattle. Somebody is probably apt to ask me "Well, how can you get $14 million worth

of exports out of a $6 million inventory?" The answer to that question is simply this, that according to the Canada Year Book the average value of all cows in milk production is $198 per head, which is how we arrive at a $6 million inventory, whereas the cattle exported to other countries are much more valuable and probably average in the neighbourhood of $500 each.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose the dairy cow has not been dignified by having been mentioned in the House of Commons since 1957, but I make no apology for mentioning it at this particular time. A dairy cow is an animal which gets a lot of pleasure out of consuming large amounts of feed and providing milk to feed the human race. As in all animals there is a difference in the degree of efficiency, so yardsticks have been established for measuring the efficiency of a dairy cow in turning feed or fodder into milk. There are three main yardsticks in use. One is known as ROP or record of performance. This is used by purebred breeders. There are two plans, A and B. They weigh the milk from these cows daily. At regular intervals government inspectors come in and check the weighing of the milk. They also draw samples, and it is on this basis that the butterfat content is computed. Then we have a system known as DHIA, which is dairy herd improvement association. This is used largely in Ontario as a yardstick for measuring the efficiency of grade herds. Then in Quebec, in addition to the systems I have mentioned, there is another system known as the mail order record whereby the farmer weighs the milk regularly and sends in his statement, and an unofficial record is submitted.

Some hon. members may wonder what this has to do with a debate on interim supply. Well, in the first place I want to say that the backbone of the livestock industry is the purebred breeder. This is the man in the dairy business who is using the ROP system or making ROP records. It is suggested by animal geneticists that at least 25 per cent of all our dairy cattle should be under some system of record of performance. For example, in the United States their average is much higher than ours. The number of dairy cattle on ROP in some states in that country runs as high as 47 per cent of all dairy cattle. There are other states which grade down from that figure to 25 per cent, and so on. In Europe all countries, excluding France, test 24 per cent of all their dairy cattle, and in Canada we test 8.2 per cent. The value of these records has been ascertained through a study which extended over a three year period in which 9,000 cows were sold at public auctions, and it was established that the cows which had ROP records sold

for an average of $100 more than the cows which did not. So I suggest that records of performance have a very real value to the dairy producer in Canada, especially in view of the fact that we export tremendous numbers of dairy cattle each year.

It is my information that this government, as a result of austerity, has found it necessary to cut down or curtail this service. I have been advised that it has issued instructions that if any ROP inspector retires or passes out of the picture for one reason or another he is not to be replaced and will not be replaced until such time as this service is cut down to 75 per cent of its present volume. At the moment 95,000 cows in Canada are tested, and we have engaged in this particular type of work 188 inspectors. There are 102 in Ontario. The total cost of this service is approximately $1 million per year, so that if it is cut down to 75 per cent it will involve a saving of $250,000. I think this is probably false economy. I suggest to the government that in this way our austerity at this particular time is hurting farmers in Canada by limiting these essential farm services, and this is important business for us.

Therefore, in summing up, I am disappointed that austerity has made it necessary to reduce premiums on better quality hogs and that it has made it necessary to reduce these essential services to farmers. I also regret that this government has not embraced the problem of marketing agricultural products on a national basis; that it has not brought up for review the standards and grades affecting all farm products, and in particular livestock products. I am equally disappointed that there does not appear to be any recommendation regarding the health of animals and meat inspection, which was so widely mentioned in the press not many months ago. In fact this government has proven itself quite incapable of presenting to parliament any comprehensive plan for agriculture.

One of the things I learned in my youth was that it is a pretty poor concern about which you cannot say something good. I want to say about this government that I think they did a wonderful job in 1957 and 1958 in promising their way into power. I also suggest that they were fortunate in being able to purchase a short term lease of life in 1962. This reminds me of a little story. I had an Irish neighbour who said he had a hired man who was such a poor planner that he could not plan his way out of a pigsty even if both ends were open. I do not think that is true of this government, but 27507-3-176

Interim Supply

I am suggesting that in the event of fire they might have difficulty in deciding which exit to use.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
NDP

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

New Democratic Party

Mr. Douglas:

Yesterday we had a useful discussion on the need for a better appreciation and understanding of the fact that Canada is a binational, bicultural and bilingual country. I think all of us were glad there was general unanimity in recognizing that if we are to have and preserve national unity in this country it can only be done by recognizing that there is a partnership in confederation which brought together the two great races, the two great cultures, which make up this country of ours.

Last night my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre pointed out that the New Democratic party has long advocated this approach. I will quote a paragraph or two from the platform which was adopted at the founding conference in August, 1961. Under the heading "Co-operative Federalism" it says:

The New Democratic party strongly affirms its belief in a federal system which alone ensures the united development of the two nations which originally associated to form the Canadian partnership, as well as that of other ethnic groups which later made Canada their home. Canada's constitution particularly guarantees their culture. The New Democratic party will fully maintain and respect these guarantees. Canadian federalism must provide for the protection of cultural, religious and other democratic rights, permit the vigorous and balanced growth of the country as a whole, and assure provincial autonomy.

It goes on to say:

Immediately following confederation, a federal minister was given special responsibility for relations with the provinces. It is time to revive this post. The New Democratic government will create a department of federal-provincial relations to maintain and extend co-operation with the provinces, to co-ordinate and act as a special secretariat for joint committees and councils.

Then on February 20 last, in the city of Montreal, I issued a joint statement along with the president of the provisional council of the New Democratic party for the province of Quebec. Again I should like to put on record a paragraph or two from that statement because at that time we advocated what is now being suggested, namely the setting up of a royal commission to look into how we might better implement the idea of a binational, bicultural and bilingual society. This is the statement:

Canadians must face the fact that, almost a hundred years after confederation, our federal-provincial and French-English relations continue to be seriously unsettled and unsatisfactory. The New Democratic party believes we must not permit this situation to drift until it gets out of hand. We believe there is urgent need for a thorough study of our experience of Canadian federalism and for a careful rethinking of the relations between the two nations which together make up the basic partnership in confederation.

Interim Supply

To this end, the federal and Quebec executives of the New Democratic party propose that a federal-provincial commission on Canadian federalism and biculturalism be immediately constituted. Such a commission should bring together and draw upon the experience and knowledge of outstanding Canadians from all parts of the country. It should hold public hearings throughout the country and invite representatives of every section of the Canadian community to present their point of view and make recommendations for appropriate action.

The New Democratic party believes that a new approach is necessary on the important problem of Canada's unity. We believe that the program adopted at our founding convention, with its pioneering conception of co-operative federalism, presents such a new approach. True Canadian unity depends on equal recognition and respect for both the main cultures of our country and this is the basis on which the New Democratic proposals are formulated.

However, the task we face as a country must be understood by all our people and this requires much more intensive thought and study.

The commission of inquiry proposed in this statement will provide the fullest opportunity for such further study. Naturally, the personnel of the commission is a matter for the government in power to decide. To illustrate the calibre of Canadian we have in mind, we mention such outstanding people as the following:-

M. Andre Laurendeau, editor in chief of Le Devoir; Professor W. L. Morton, chairman of the department of history of the University of Manitoba; M. Gerard Pelletier, editor of La Presse; Dr. N. A. M. Mackenzie, president of the University of British Columbia; Professor Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, professor of public law, Universite de Montreal; Mr. Kurt Swinton, president of Encyclopedia Britannica of Canada; M. Jean Marchand, president of the confederation of national trade unions; Dean F. R. Scott, of McGill's faculty of law; M. Jean-Louis Gagnon, editor of Le Nouveau Journal; M. Claude Jodoin, president, Canadian Labour Congress; Dean H. E. Read, faculty of law, University of Dalhousie; Mr. Blair Fraser, editor, Maclean's.

Canadians of this stature-and one could name many others-would make a lasting contribution to the constitutional and cultural future of Canada. The New Democratic party urges that the commission should be appointed now, without delay, so that Canada may celebrate the hundredth anniversary of confederation as a united country, with clear guide lines for the future.

We should like to see such a commission established, and we hope the government will give this suggestion serious consideration. But there are many things which could he done now. The civil service commission could review its whole policy of recruitment. I have been appalled, as have many other hon. members, to see the dearth of French Canadians in some of the upper brackets of both the departments and the crown corporations. It is the sheerest nonsense to say this is because there is not an adequate number of French Canadians with the necessary training or qualifications to fill these positions. The civil service commission needs to follow a policy of recruitment under which French Canadians with the necessary training and experience could be made understudies so they might automatically move into the higher positions

in both the public service and in the crown corporations. This is something we have needed to do for a long time.

I was impressed by the eloquent plea made last night by the hon. member for Laurier when he asked members in all parts of the house to give their support to this idea. I would have been more impressed if I could have forgotten that he and his associates sat on the treasury benches for 22 years during which time they had ample opportunity to carry out that kind of recruitment program, a program which would have seen to it that trained French Canadians occupied senior positions in the service of the government of Canada.

The organization and methods division of the civil service commission could also reexamine the whole administrative structure to ensure that we are operating as a bilingual and binational country. I am told that in many departments letters come in French, are translated into English, the whole problem is dealt with on an English basis, then the answer is dictated in English, that letter is translated into French. This is a hangover from Canada's colonial days. An entirely new approach must be made to our administrative set-up.

There are further measures which we have been advocating, together with other members. There is the question of a national flag, a national anthem, and a constitution fully amendable in Canada. These are goals whose attainment should be proceeded with now. While I do not want to inject a partisan note into the discussion, let me say to the hon. member for Laurier who was telling the government the other night that this was their responsibility, and that they must take the initiative-and I fully agree with him- that I cannot help remembering that the Liberal government set up a parliamentary committee on a national flag which sat for two years, collecting hundreds of designs, and then dropped the matter like a hot potato. I think the time has come for all of us in all parts of the House of Commons seriously to set ourselves to the task of acquiring these national symbols which will give to the Canadian people a sense of national pride so that we can reach our centenary with a sense of greatness and a sense of belonging to a nation which has become of age.

I wish to underline what was said by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre last evening on this whole question of supply and the granting of money to the government. I think this parliament has really been a shameful exhibition. It is the privilege of members, before voting money, to be able to query ministers; to ascertain

what money is being spent for; and to ascertain what the government's policy is. During this period of almost three months in which this parliament has been in session we have been unable to discharge that responsibility. When we try to move to adjourn the house in order to discuss a matter of public importance, we are told that the matter is not urgent. When we ask questions on the orders of the day, we are told that these matters are more properly for discussion when the estimates come up for consideration. However, no estimates have come up for consideration, except for a few hours when we discussed the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. When we come to discuss interim supply we find that many of the ministers are absent. During Thursday and Friday of last week hardly any ministers were present. With the exception of the Minister of Justice and the Associate Minister of National Defence, no minister has taken part in the debate or made a government statement on the many questions which have been raised in the course of this debate.

When this supply motion passes, parliament will have voted to the government between $3,000 million and $4,000 million without having had an opportunity to pass a single estimate or an opportunity to interrogate a single minister. I must say that I have been disappointed that, with respect to the various questions that have been raised during the course of this debate, no statements have been forthcoming from the ministers of the crown. Let me just touch on a few of the items. Some of my colleagues raised the matter of the Columbia river treaty which is now almost two years old. Parliament has had no opportunity to discuss it. It has not been referred to the committee on external affairs. There are many questions to which members of this House of Commons have a right to get an answer. For instance, we wish to know why the McNaughton plan was shelved in favour of the plan which is incorporated into the treaty. I think we have a right to know why a treaty was signed with the United States prior to an agreement being signed with the province of British Columbia.

Many of us wish to know if this treaty leaves the Canadian government with authority to divert sufficient water to meet our expanding needs for irrigation and for domestic and industrial consumption. This matter is important not only to the people of British Columbia, although for them it is important as there are large areas of British Columbia in which irrigation would be of value. The members who come from the prairies know that if only 10 per cent of the 27507-3-176i

Interim Supply

flow of the Columbia river were diverted into the Nelson river basin it would double the flow of the South Saskatchewan river, a result which would be of immense value to the farmers in the three prairie provinces.

I think we have a right to know whether or not the government intends to facilitate the sale of downstream power benefits. The Minister of Public Works, when he was minister of justice and was speaking in Prince George on November 28, 1961, stated the government's position clearly and beyond any shadow of doubt. He said this:

Canada is opposed to the sellout of the power we are entitled to under the treaty. Canada is opposed to long term contracts tying up Columbia downstream benefits. This would confer an enormous benefit on the Americans but, we are not prepared to permit that at the expense of British Columbia. The Bennett-United States squeeze play won't work. The power sellout has to be resisted.

Then he went on to say this:

This is a sensible, practical and mutually profitable arrangement between two neighbours. To exchange it for a penny-wise-and-pound-foolish agreement under which this country would dispose of a great resource in its entirety would be sheer madness.

It would be an act of such reckless and improvident philanthropy that would make this country the laughing stock of the world.

I submit that it will make us an even greater laughing stock if we supinely surrender and agree to the sale of these downstream benefits. Any excuse that this is being done in order to get United States dollars is surely a very lame one indeed, since the need for United States dollars is a short term requirement. The need for this power is something which will affect this country for many years to come. To me it is amazing that in this whole debate no minister from the government has stood up in order to clarify the government's position. It is true that the Minister of Public Works interrupted the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard two or three times but, although we invited him to do so, he has made no statement clarifying the government's position.

There is also the matter of defence which I might mention. The Canadian people are anxiously waiting for some clear cut statement on the government's position with regard to nuclear arms, either with regard to whether we are going to have nuclear arms on Canadian soil, or whether NATO is going to become a nuclear power. From the Secretary of State for External Affairs and from the Minister of National Defence we have had contradictory statements. From the Prime Minister we have had some soporific platitudes. However, we have had no clear cut statement as to what the government's intention is. In the money we are voting there is money for defence, without our having

Interim Supply

any opportunity to discuss and debate what the government's defence policy is. It is common knowledge that there is now a good deal of pressure to have NATO become a nuclear power. At the meeting of NATO parliamentarians the under secretary of the United States said that the United States government was willing to consider a request to make NATO a nuclear power. Yesterday in his report on the NATO meeting of last week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the house that there was discussion among the nations meeting there of the possibility of setting up medium ballistic missiles if they could be kept under some form of control. If the government is going to make a decision like this, I submit that it should be made only after there has been the fullest opportunity for debate in this House of Commons, so that members in all parts of the house can express their views, and that it should not be given to us merely as a fait accompli.

The government's position is as yet undisclosed. The Liberal party's position is also not too clear. I congratulate the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount on the excellent presentation he made the other day. I take it from his statement that the Liberal party, if NATO expresses its desire to become a nuclear power, would agree that Canada should acquiesce in that regard. As a matter of fact, according to the press the hon. member for Trinity has gone even further and suggested that we ought to enter into an agreement with the United States for nuclear weapons.

In my view there is an opportunity now for all parties in the house to state clearly where they stand on this important matter. I want to say that as far as this group is concerned we are convinced that the meagre military gains from making NATO a nuclear power would be more than offset by the tragic consequences of increasing the membership of the nuclear club. Making NATO a nuclear power is an open invitation to the Warsaw pact nations also to become a nuclear force. If the Cuban crisis demonstrated anything, it demonstrated that there was great apprehension on the North American continent when it was found that there were nuclear missiles within 90 miles of the shore of this continent.

I think we should consider what would be the effect on the Warsaw pact nations if there were nuclear weapons in the possession of West German forces, even though they were under some type of NATO control, because how effective that control would be would always be in question. I cannot imagine any

way in which you would harden the situation in middle Europe more than by having West Germany armed with nuclear weapons.

We in this group believe that the ultimate hope of the world and of maintaining peace is that eventually we shall be able to get a ban on nuclear testing and that eventually we will get nuclear disarmament under international inspection and control. That is a long, hard road and it will only come about if we can lessen the tensions which are abroad in the world. We suggest that making NATO a nuclear power will not lessen the tensions but will increase them. It will harden the situation, which will make the cessation of nuclear tests and a program of nuclear disarmament much less likely to succeed.

We contend that if Canada becomes a nuclear power it will weaken our moral authority. It will lessen our effectiveness to work for mutual disarmament between the great powers in the world.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
PC
NDP
PC

Lloyd Roseville Crouse

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crouse:

I have been following his remarks very closely. I should like to know what in his opinion was the deterrent that caused Russia to remove her nuclear weapons from Cuba during the Cuban crisis?

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
NDP

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

New Democratic Party

Mr. Douglas:

I am not sure that is relevant to what I am talking about. If my hon. friend is talking about deterrents, may I point out that the United States today has a deterrent power about ten times as great as that of the Soviet union. We have an adequate deterrent power now and the choice we have in the world is whether we are going to develop two great armed camps each equipped with a nuclear deterrent and with no room for flexibility, resulting in an impasse out of which there can come only one thing, a war of annihilation. The alternative is to have sufficient flexibility so that nations like Canada can help to lessen the tension and prepare the way so that we can move step by step toward a cessation of nuclear tests, and the achievement of nuclear disarmament and eventually general disarmament.

One of the steps that could be taken is military disengagement through central Europe, including Berlin. No one can long maintain a static situation with two great powers increasing their deterrent capacity, because this will eventually lead to war unless something is done to lessen these tensions. We believe that Canada can play an important role in this regard and that our best military

role probably lies best in contributing conventional forces to NATO. But even more important is our diplomatic role in which we can be a power that has the confidence of other nations. Because we are a non-nuclear power, because we have no territorial ambitions and because we are not a colonial power we can help to negotiate, to lessen tensions, and thus help lay the groundwork for a peaceful solution.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB
NDP
LIB

John Ross Matheson

Liberal

Mr. Matheson:

Does the hon. member not feel that when this government in September, 1958, selected the Bomarc, and in July, 1959, selected the CF-104, and in March, 1960, selected the Honest John, in effect they decided the policy for Canada without giving us any chance to debate it or to consider the implications of this selection of weapons, and that to some extent we are now involved in an alliance with allies to whom we have certain obligations, not because parliament had any choice in the matter but because this government-

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
NDP

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

New Democratic Party

Mr. Douglas:

Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is not asking a question; he is making a speech, and he is perfectly at liberty to do so when I have finished. I have been saying all over the country that the moment we committed ourselves to weapons which are useless without nuclear warheads we are ipso facto committed to a nuclear program and this is one of the things to which I object. I am raising the matter now because I suspect that we are again being led down the garden path and are going to find ourselves part of an alliance which is going to become a nuclear power, with the result that we will have no choice but to become a member of the nuclear club or to withdraw from the NATO alliance.

I see that my time is going, Mr. Chairman, but there are two or three other items that have been raised in this debate and on which we have had no reply from the government. Before I leave defence I should like to say that I support those who have been advocating that we should have a defence committee. Even if in that committee we could not agree completely on a non-partisan defence policy we would at least have common and reliable information, so that the members of that committee would have all the facts regarding Canada's defence forces and would be able to formulate their ideas of what should be done in the light of those facts and not on the basis of bits of information which members have to pick up from time to time.

There are two other matters I want to raise, and I will deal with them in a sentence

Interim Supply

or two. I want to raise the matter of R.C.M.P. interrogation of students and members of faculties on the campuses of universities. The other day the Minister of Justice made two statements which in my opinion were quite specious and quite evasive. He said with reference to these interrogations: "No such instructions have been given by me". Second, he said, "No special security investigations are being conducted on university campuses". This is playing with words, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps no special instructions have been given by the minister, but there are standing instructions. This questioning and interrogating of students and members of faculties of universities has been going on, and as far as we can learn it is still going on. It may be that there are no special security investigations, but the fact is that there are investigations. The Minister of Justice is not here and since he is not here I will give specific instances during the consideration of his estimates, instances which are on the record. Interrogations have been conducted, not because some student was applying for a job but students who were interrogated, and their parents interrogated, because those students took part in a ban the bomb demonstration. If the minister will look up his departmental files he will find records sent to him by the attorney general of Saskatchewan concerning interrogations which took place in that province in the year 1961.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
PC

Rémi Paul (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Deputy Chairman:

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him his time has expired.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink

December 18, 1962