1964-11-06

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask whether the government has recently received representations from the government of France, or from General de Gaulle, relating to a new form or direction for the NATO alliance. I ask the question because of an article in today's issue of Le Devoir reporting an alleged statement made by Mr. Pompidou, the French premier, that in line with recent events in the Soviet union and China, NATO's strategic concept must be completely revamped. Has the Canadian government had any discussions in this regard?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has raised a matter of considerable importance. There have been no direct communications from the government of France on this subject, but the attitude the government of France takes toward the military organization of NATO has been the subject of considerable discussion between Canada and France and between the government of France and the other members of NATO.
The publicly stated position of the president of France was referred to by the French foreign minister two days ago in the statement made with regard to the m.l.f. and its relation to NATO. I may say that one of the reasons I asked Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak, the foreign minister of Belgium, to come to Ottawa was in regard to this problem. Today I am having discussions with Mr. Lange, the foreign minister of Norway. Our discussions will have to do with some aspects of this situation.
I would simply like to say that NATO represents for Canada a very essential element of our foreign and military policy. We regard the participation of France in NATO as one of
the most important components in the integrity and unity of that organization. We hope there will be no development on the part of any member of the organization that would in any way result in less interest in NATO or a withdrawal from it. I can assure my right hon. friend this whole question is being carefully examined.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister on the necessity of maintaining a strong and effective NATO organization and not permitting the cement which joins the various nations to become weakened in any way. However, the minister made a statement, referring to the attitude that France is taking toward NATO, that I think should be amplified. What are the implications of that statement? Does it in any way convey a decision on the part of France, or a fear that France may separate itself from this organization so necessary to the preservation of western defence?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that the government of France has taken a position with regard to the integration of forces in NATO. Its view has been stated on many occasions. It is also known that the government of France, through its foreign minister, has recently confirmed its views about m.l.f., the multilateral nuclear force proposal which has been put forward by the United States. Beyond this I cannot go without interfering with discussions which are now under way.
No intimation has been given by the government of France as to the position it would take if its views did not prevail. I expressed the opinion strongly a moment ago, and I confirm it, that it would be a matter of the greatest regret if the government of France were to take any position, or be caused to take any position, which in our judgment would render less strong the integrity of NATO, particularly at this time in world affairs.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: May I ask whether the views of the government of France with respect to the m.l.f. differ very greatly from those of the Canadian government? Am I right in understanding
9834	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that the Canadian government is still refusing to commit itself to participation in the multilateral force?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the Prime Minister stated on several occasions that it was not the intention of the Canadian government to participate in the multilateral force.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a question for the Minister of Justice. In his absence perhaps I could address it to the Prime Minister. It refers to the action of the governor general in council in commuting the sentence on Kingsley Lloyd Meeker from one of death to life imprisonment. As one who is opposed to capital punishment I do not raise any objection to this action. I am perturbed, however, about reports to the effect that this man could be paroled within ten years. Since he was found guilty of a particularly heinous crime I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any provision in the order for commutation which would make it impossible for this man to be released unless there were adequate assurance he would no longer be a menace to the public safety.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, there is no such reference in the order of commutation, but consideration is being given to certain representations which have been made to the government with regard to this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the government be letting the house and the public know what decision it reaches in this regard before the matter is
finalized?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I am interested in the statement made by the Prime Minister. Is it not customary when a commutation order is made in circumstances such as these to include therein a provision that the nature of the crime committed and the general disposition of the convicted murderer make it necessary that no action be taken at any time in the future to effect the remission of the sentence and the discharge of the prisoner?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate the point made by the right hon. gentleman. This is one of the matters we are looking into.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Has the minister received confirmation from the Maniwaki Algonquin chief that he did not want his group, which comes under federal jurisdiction, to change to provincial jurisdiction?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Not as far as I know, Mr. Speaker. However, I could check with the department to see if the matter came up.



REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF DOMINION- PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE PROPOSALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In this context with its connotation perhaps the phrase "white paper" is not the correct one to use, but I should like to ask the minister whether he would prepare a document of some sort setting out in as much detail as possible the proposals emanating from the dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs for presentation to the house, so the house and the native Indian people in particular will know what is the government thinking on all aspects of the Indian affairs problem, both as the dominion and the provincial governments are involved?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the suggestion of the hon. member and tell him what I think about it later on.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.

Does he intend to order an investigation concerning the charges laid against the C.B.C. by Mrs. Jean Desprez, who has been employed by this corporation tor the last 28 years? According to those charges, the C.B.C. would be harbouring rubbish and deadwood, incompetent, useless and good-for-nothing employees. Could the Secretary of State investigate this matter and endeavour to improve the standards of the C.B.C.?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion to hear the two simultaneous monologues which were presented over the French network of the C.B.C. I am convinced that the C.B.C. authorities are investigating the facts or the alleged facts which were mentioned in that broadcast.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Does he refuse to order an investigation into the facts mentioned, or, in view of those serious charges, does he intend to order such an investigation and see to it that it be carried out?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the C.B.C. will promptly carry out an investigation. I would also point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that the committee on broadcasting is presently investigating problems concerning broadcasting, including the administration methods of the C.B.C.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the effect that Bill No. C-126 may have on the continuing operation of a large section of the Canadian mining industry, will the minister now consider sending this bill to the committee on industrial relations so that all interested parties from the mining industry, as well as other industries, can be heard?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how this bill could have any general effect on the mining industry in Canada.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not realize that the large mines at Flin Flon, Manitoba,
Inquiries of the Ministry come under the dominion labour code, and that all mining in the Northwest Territories also comes under the dominion labour code?


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister inquire into the effect that Bill No. C-126 will have on the mining industry and then consider sending this bill to the committee on industrial relations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already considered the possible effect on the mining industry. That industry usually comes under provincial jurisdiction in all provinces of Canada, with the exception of the uranium mines, which have been declared to be to the general advantage of Canada. Therefore this industry comes under the bill.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister now be able to assure the house that the hours of work provision provided in the bill will not be applicable to country elevator operators?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to deal with these questions when the bill returns for discussion and is dealt with in the committee of the whole.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, since the transport industry comes under joint jurisdiction, federal and provincial. Did the minister think of seeking the opinion of the federal legal advisers on the constitutionality of Bill No. C-126?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is another question which we can deal with in the committee of the whole.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has stated that only the uranium mines come under federal labour jurisdiction. I have pointed out to him that all the base metal mines at Flin Flon, Manitoba, come under the dominion labour regulations. It is my belief that the mines in the Northwest Territories also come under the dominion labour code.


Mr. Nielsen:: Don't forget the Yukon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is another question which can be dealt with in the committee of the whole. I think it was agreed the last time this was raised that it was irregular to deal with questions concerning a matter
983S	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry which had been listed tor consideration by the house at a later date.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further supplementary question?
Is the Minister of Labour considering referring this bill to the committee on industrial relations, in order to enable the members to question legal advisers on the constitutionality of this legislation, which we cannot do in committee of the whole?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has already referred this bill to a committee, namely the committee of the whole house.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Because of the announcement in yesterday's newspapers, the second such statement in a few weeks, by Mr. Gilchrist, president of the crown corporation, Eldorado Mining and Refining, that he foresees a shortage of uranium, would the government consider the calling of new contract tenders for uranium?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, as Eldorado Mining and Refining comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I would refer this question to him.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, my question a few minutes ago was directed to the Minister of Industry because in the statement made by the government it was said that the Department of Industry would be responsible for the people of Bancroft. That is the reason I directed the question to the Minister of Industry. I will now direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Because of the recent statement, the second one in a very few weeks, made by Mr. Gilchrist, president of the crown company Eldorado, that he foresees a shortage of uranium, would the government consider calling for new tenders for uranium?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gilchrist was speaking about the general uranium situation. It is his opinion there will be a shortage in


the future. It is not the government's intention to buy any more uranium at the present time.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. In the light of the publication of a statement promising a white paper on the question of constitutional amendment, will the house be enabled to make a detailed examination of this white paper and secure a variety of views on this vitally important question by means of a parliamentary committee that could look into this matter? I think a statement on this question was promised some time ago. I would like to know whether we are to have a parliamentary committee to look into this subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, members of the house will certainly have an opportunity to express their views on this very important question. The exact procedure to be adopted in this regard is, as I have said, under consideration and a statement will be made very shortly. There are reasons, which I need not go into, why it has not been possible to make it before now, but I assure my hon. friend that we hope to make that statement next week.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that members of the West German armed forces will be trained in Canada this winter? If so, how many men will be involved and where will they be stationed?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the tests which were planned to be held in Canada this winter of certain equipment under cold weather conditions have been postponed due to the timing in the series of tests being held. Therefore they will not be held as previously planned.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Could the minister confirm or explain the fact that lately the American consulate has decided to reduce by 90 per cent the number of Canadians allowed to cross into the United States in order to work?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, if that question were put on the order paper, I could provide more details.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, and I do so with the hope that he personally places a different connotation on the word "consideration" than that which he attributes to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I should like to ask whether, in view of the faet that during the entire tenure of office of the previous administration no opportunity was afforded for an appointment to the Senate from the province of British Columbia, the Prime Minister has considered or will consider offering an appointment to the Senate to Hon. Howard Green.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting suggestion and certainly should be given consideration along with similar consideration in respect of the many other persons from British Columbia qualified for the Senate. It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Green has ambitions to return to another house of parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I call attention to the presence in the gallery of the foreign minister of Norway, Mr. Halvard Lange, one of
Supply-National Defence the strongest and most constructive supporters of the Atlantic alliance over the years, and a man whom I think all parliamentarians would be delighted to honour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

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


[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,289,221,625 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 , 30 , 35 , 40, 42, 45 and 50 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $799,648,500 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $3,917,825.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that during the months that have passed since last year's estimates were up for consideration by the house in December there have been numerous occasions when defence matters have been discussed in parliament, I wish to preface my remarks today by saying that I will attempt not to duplicate the information already submitted in previous debates.
In addition to the debates in the house, the special committee on defence was re-established in May on this year and has had the opportunity to study many important subjects relating to defence policy generally. On behalf of the government I should like to express our appreciation for the conscientious work of the members of the committee. Certainly the recommendations contained in the report submitted to the house on October 1 have received careful study and consideration by my colleague the associate minister and myself, and by officials of the department.
Debates in the House of Commons include the one on the establishment of the United Nations force in Cyprus in March; the one in May prior to the establishment of the special committee on defence; the one relating to the amendment of the National Defence Act incorporated in Bill No. C-90 in May and later
9838	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence at the end of June; and finally the discussion which followed the acceptance of the motion of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to adjourn the ordinary business of the house in order to discuss the Cyprus situation on August 10.
In addition, in March parliament and the Canadian people were furnished with a white paper on defence which outlined the defence policy of the present government. Since the purpose of the white paper was to project defence policy into the years ahead, I am sure the committee will agree that this paper should be the basis of the discussions we are now commencing in respect to the estimates of the Department of National Defence for the year 1964-65.
This year, as set out in the blue book, the government is asking for the approval by this committee of estimated expenditures of $1,525,000,000. This figure is a reduction of some $109 million from the estimate of $1,634,000,000 for 1963-64. Of necessity the estimates we are now considering were prepared prior to the completion of the white paper, but they do reflect to a considerable extent the studies which were carried out within the department and which were referred to in my remarks last December.
Hon. members will, I know, be interested in the progress that has been made over the year, and in particular in the steps which have been taken to implement announcement policy. Before going on to this, however, I would like to make a brief reference to the strategic situation now existing.
The real balance of power in the world has not changed materially since the white paper on defence was tabled. There have been developments, however, of some significance. There has been a change in leadership in the Soviet union. Early reports do not indicate any major change in Soviet foreign policy, and there have been what appear to be reassuring statements to this effect. It is too soon to determine for certain, however, that there will be no change in the direction established by the Khrushchev administration, and some time will be required to permit an adequate assessment. During this time of uncertainty it would be prudent for NATO forces to remain alert and for NATO governments to be ready to respond to any genuine gestures offering a prospect of easing world tensions.
Communist China has now succeeded in exploding its first nuclear device, a possibility


which was forecast in the white paper. Although this test came as no particular surprise, it does show that the Chinese have sufficient technical knowledge to permit them to develop a nuclear arsenal. The immediate effect of this explosion is to increase Chinese military prestige so as to overawe their Asian neighbours. It was indicated in the white paper that it will be some years before they would have any substantial long range delivery capability even if they were to divert a consideration proportion of their resources to this end. However, the long term consequences are important and should not be minimized.
An important development during the year was the events which led to conflict on the island of Cyprus, posing as they do a threat to international peace and to the security of the eastern Mediterranean flank of NATO. The circumstances leading to this have been fully dealt with by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I should like to make reference to the outstanding part played by the Canadian armed forces in implementing the decision taken by the Canadian government and by parliament. I do not wish to repeat what has already been said in the debate in August, but perhaps a brief summary might give some indication of our demonstrated capability.
On the day the Canadian government approved the dispatch to Cyprus Canadian personnel, an advance party of 26 left Trenton. The actual airlifting of troops was started on March 15 and was completed by March 22. H.M.C.S. Bonaventure left Halifax on March 18 and arrived off Cyprus on the 30th, carrying vehicles with their drivers and some 92 tons of cargo. On April 10, in response to a request by the secretary general of the United Nations, some 156 additional personnel were sent to Cyprus to provide a brigade headquarters for the United Nations force. Finally on August 13, again in response to a request from the United Nations, Canada sent an anti-tank platoon.
Over the months that the United Nations force has been in operation in Cyprus, the Canadian element of that force has performed in a manner of which all Canadians can be proud. I was fortunate to be able to visit Cyprus in June, to have had the opportunity to meet at first hand our troops there and to be briefed by Canadian officers in the field on what exactly Canadians were being called upon to do. I was extremely impressed and extremely proud of our men.
The situation in Cyprus has been fraught with difficulty but, as the Secretary of State

for External Affairs has informed the house, within the last few weeks there has been a period of comparative quiet, and I myself believe that the presence of the United Nations force, of which Canadian personnel form a very substantial part, has been one of the most significant factors leading to the improved conditions. Certainly the government, in agreeing to extend Canada's participation for a further three months, put great dependence on this fact. The six month rotation has been completed with the same smoothness and efficiency that was evidenced last March, the whole operation being carried out in nine days.
Conflict, and the possibility of conflict, continues in many parts of the world; in South Viet Nam, on the border between Indonesia and Malaysia, in Cyprus, in Yemen, in the Congo, etc. While Canada is not directly involved in all these areas, they are all areas of concern to us as they affect the peace and stability of the world situation.
I would now like to discuss operational readiness and operational capability. A year ago none of the squadrons of the air division in Europe were operational in the strike and reconnaissance roles undertaken by Canada in 1959. In the intervening months the operational status has changed dramatically. The necessary agreements have been reached to permit the storage of the special ammunition for the strike role, and the six squadrons of CF-104's stationed in Germany are now operational. The two reconnaissance squadrons stationed at Marville in France have undergone intensive operational training for some months and are expected to reach full aircrew establishment in early 1965.
In accordance with the commitment given by the government, decisions have been taken which will permit all aircraft in the air division to have an alternate non-nuclear support role capability. Contrary to one or two articles which have appeared in the newspapers, the modifications required to permit these airplanes to carry conventional armaments are not great. We anticipate that it will be possible to proceed in an orderly fashion to give the aircraft and the aircrews this dual capability.
In the past year the operational capability of the brigade group stationed in Germany has been improved by the addition of 12 Centurion tanks to the armoured regiment and the formation of an anti-tank company which is being issued with a new anti-tank guided missile now being received from contract. Selected personnel from Canada and the brigade group have attended anti-tank guided
Supply-National Defence missile instructor courses, and a missile controller course for operators was conducted in the brigade this summer. Graduates of this course are manning the anti-tank weapon systems of the Royal 22nd regiment company now in Germany.
As hon. members know, the brigade group has included an Honest John artillery battery since early 1962. Until this summer, however, the battery was unarmed. Recently, following the signing of the necessary agreements, the battery has become operational.
For several years it has been obvious that the brigade group suffered one notable deficiency in equipment, that is the absence of armoured personnel carriers. The decision taken last year to acquire the M-113 armoured personnel carrier has resulted in initial deliveries, with production quantities to be available early in the new year. By midsummer the total complement for the brigade group should be available for Europe. The availability of armoured personnel carriers will result in a marked qualitative improvement in the operational capability of the brigade group.


Mr. Churchill:: May I interrupt with a question? The minister says that by midsummer the complete complement will be available. How many?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I believe something in excess of 400 is the approximate number required.
Another important addition will be the provision of a transport helicopter platoon. Following the delivery of heavy transport cargo helicopters now under contract and the training of crews to operational standards, the platoon will be moved to Europe to provide logistic and tactical air mobility.
To increase the fire power of the brigade group, two 105 mm. batteries of artillery are being replaced with two 155 mm. batteries.
To increase the transport capability of the Royal Canadian Air Force the decision was taken some months ago to augment the inventory of C130E Hercules aircraft. An order was placed for 16 C130E Hercules planes and the first of these will be delivered shortly, the balance to follow in the period between now and August of next year. The C130E is a remarkably good aircraft which can operate from unimproved airstrips, and its short landing and take-off characteristics are ideal for the support of the Canadian army in mobile operations.
There has been a steady improvement in the fighting efficiency and modernization of


[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence our antisubmarine ships. Two new destroyer escorts have been added to the fleet. H.M.C.S. Nipigon has been commissioned and H.M.C.S. Annapolis will be coming into service in December. These two ships are fitted with both variable depth sonar and full facilities for operating large antisubmarine helicopters. Trials of the Canadian developed "haul down" gear to enable these helicopters to operate effectively in rough weather are proceeding satisfactorily.
Concurrently the conversion of the seven St. Laurent class destroyer escorts has been proceeding. This conversion brings these escorts up to full Nipigon standards. Two ships are already fully converted and back in service and the third, the Ottawa, is about to be recommissioned. H.M.C.S. Assiniboine, the first ship converted, has been making excellent progress in trials operating the latest antisubmarine helicopter, the CHSS-2 Sea King, from her own flight deck and hangar. This combination gives every promise of being completely successful and, if this is so, the combination of operating a destroyer escort with its own antisubmarine helicopter as a single weapons system will increase by several times the effective surveillance which can be furnished by our antisubmarine fleet.
The first of three new submarines of the Oberon class, the Ojibwa, was launched last February, and in June the keel was laid for the second, the Onondaga. The acquisition of these submarines will not only increase our operational capability but will also be invaluable for training purposes.
Development of the hydrofoil as a potential antisubmarine vehicle is continuing. Along with the development of a prototype ocean going craft is the development of its associated weapons system. We wish to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of a high speed hydrofoil antisubmarine vessel in conjunction with other naval forces. The design being developed is based on a concept by the defence research board which is unique and different from those being developed in other countries. The weapons system for the hydrofoil will include variable depth sonar and homing torpedoes. The target date for completion of the construction of the prototype is mid-1966. Any plans for operational use of the hydrofoil will have to await evaluation of the seagoing trials.
It is interesting to note that the British government is concentrating on the development of hovercraft ships in the same role. This will permit concurrent development of two entirely different concepts in the two countries,
[Stage Direction]

with full information in respect of developments being made available to the other. By concentrating its efforts on one of the two concepts each country will be making the best use of its resources, and will at the same time have access to the benefits of new knowledge derived from each. There is a full exchange of technical information in respect of these craft among the United States, Canada and Britain.
Some months ago a study was undertaken in the Department of National Defence to determine the best combination of ships and weapons systems for the antisubmarine role. This study was completed on schedule and is now being studied by the integrated defence staff. We anticipate that it will be possible to take some decisions and indicate our initial requirements for new ships within a few weeks.
Over the past several years Canada has worked in close co-operation with the United States in respect of air defence of the North American continent. The white paper pointed out certain fundamental questions which will have to be answered before it is possible to determine what role will be required in air defence in the years ahead. In particular, the deployment or non-deployment of an antiintercontinental ballistic missile system will have a direct bearing on future plans. Until this major decision is taken there are many questions which must remain unanswered.
In the present strategic situation it is considered worth while to maintain fully operational anti-bomber defences. In this connection Canada has increased, and continues to increase, the capability of its contribution to the anti-bomber defences. The arming of the two Bomarc missile squadrons has doubled the number of vehicles available in this role. We have reduced the number of interceptor squadrons from five to three in order to reduce overhead and increase efficiency, but the acquisition of the MB1G missile expected in the new year will increase the effective operational capability of our interceptor forces by a significant order of magnitude.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Is that a nuclear missile?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes. Canada has been playing and will continue to play its full part in the collective security of the North American continent.
In this regard it is perhaps advisable to lay at rest the newspaper speculation that the NORAD agreement would not be renewed. This report was without any foundation whatever. From a strategic standpoint the security

of the North American continent is indivisible; therefore the NORAD agreement, or a similar arrangement, is a continuing requirement. The Canadian government has no intention of withdrawing from full partnership in co-operation with the United States in the collective security of the continent.
As part of our program to increase the operational readiness of our forces and to ensure maximum co-operation both within the services and with our allies, we have participated and will be participating in a number of major exercises. Some examples of these exercises that have been held so far this year are as follows. In February, units of the army and the R.C.A.F. carried out an airborne, air transported exercise to test plans for regional defence operations. In another, the Royal Canadian Navy, R.C.A.F. and army tested the embarkation, transportation and logistic support of a company group of 3 CIBG ready force. The most recent one was Yeoman, in which the 3 CIBG ready force was moved by sea to Argentia, Newfoundland from Saint John, New Brunswick and Halifax, Nova Scotia. H.M.C.S. Provider and nine escorts as well as R.C.A.F. aircraft from air transport command and maritime air command participated along with United States naval personnel stationed at Argentia.
An international exercise was conducted in February and March in an area off Ceylon which included naval forces from Canada and was designed to exercise combined commonwealth forces in the conduct of war operations and to advance standards of efficiency in weapons. Other countries participating in this exercise were Britain, Australia, India, Malaysia and New Zealand. Another exercise in April included units of the R.C.N. and maritime air command along with units from the United States, Britain and the Netherlands to further the development and improve the tactics, doctrine, command and control arrangements for antisubmarine warfare barrier operations. In September, Slamex was an exercise in combined antisubmarine warfare operations to evaluate the effectiveness of available Canadian and U.S. forces in coordinated defensive operations against missile launching submarines off the east coast of this continent.
Joint Canada-U.S. exercises are continually taking place to test the effectiveness of our air defences here, while in Europe both the 4th brigade group and the air division have joined with the land and air forces of our NATO allies in training manoeuvres to ensure their maximum effectiveness.
Supply-National Defence
For the immediate future, further exercises are planned which will provide cold weather winter warfare training at Fort Wainwright and, in conjunction with the United States, units of the army and air transport command will conduct cold weather operations in Alaska. Also, in December an exercise will be held in Newfoundland to gain experience in securing an air force base against ground attack with units from all three services and the U.S.A.F. co-operating. These are only a few of the many national and international exercises in which the armed forces are participating, either here at home, in Europe, or in other areas where conditions are conducive to furthering the capability of the armed forces to be prepared for any eventuality.
I have spoken at some length about our contribution to NATO and to NORAD, since the major part of our defence effort is concentrated in those areas in so far as manpower and expenditures are concerned. However, our military contribution to the United Nations peace forces, as hon. members know, plays an important part in international stability and has a not inconsiderable impact on the defence budget.
Looking in isolation at the various United Nations operations to which Canada makes a contribution does not give a true picture of our involvement in this important area. Quite apart from the Congo, from which the United Nations force was withdrawn this summer and to which Canada supplied an important element of specially trained personnel, at the present time we have 17 Canadian officers forming part of the United Nations truce supervisory organization between Israel on the one hand and the United Arab Republic, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria on the other. Over 800 army personnel and some 100 R.C.A.F. personnel are stationed in the Gaza strip to guard against border violations between Israel and the United Arab Republic. In Cyprus we have about 1,200 Canadians. Twelve Canadian officers and five other ranks form part of the United Nations military observer group whose role is to supervise the terms of the cease fire agreement between India, Pakistan and Kashmir, and some 47 officers and 35 other ranks are part of the international supervisory commissions comprising members from Canada, India and Poland in Laos and Viet Nam.
In so far as the newly independent countries are concerned, Canadian armed forces personnel are providing training assistance to Ghana and Nigeria, while training in Canada is being given to a number of service personnel

Supply-National Defence from other commonwealth countries. Military-survey teams have been sent to Tanganyika
and Malaysia to determine the military training and equipment assistance Canada might appropriately give them, having regard to our other military and financial commitments.
As indicated in the white paper, it was decided that the best method of ensuring the rapid and effective integration of Canada's armed forces would be to start at the top. This is the procedure being followed. Bill C-90, amending the National Defence Act, was passed by parliament after due deliberation and came into effect on August 1, 1964. On that day the positions of Chairman, chiefs of staff committee, and the chiefs of the individual services were abolished and the new organization established. The new organization consists of the chief of the defence staff, the vice chief of defence staff, the assistant chief of defence staff, and four functional chiefs- operational readiness, personnel, logistics and engineering, and comptroller general.
Since the bill was proclaimed the reorganization has been developing stage by stage. The first stage being considered is the complete integration of Canadian forces headquarters. This process has now reached the higher levels and will continue until all the positions required for the new integrated headquarters have been filled. The target figure for savings at Canadian force headquarters is approximately one third throughout all ranks, and will be possible as a result of the formation of an integrated staff and the elimination of duplication and triplication. It is anticipated that the new integrated headquarters will be largely organized on the reduced scale within a year. Some special problems pertaining to the logistics and engineering branch exist, however, and progress in this area in making the planned reductions may not be as rapid as in other branches.
Throughout the integration process new methods are being developed and new policies established. We are attempting to take the best from the several systems previously in operation and to apply them as a whole. In the case of logistics, for example, this will mean extending the automated system presently in use by the air force throughout the three services.
Now that the integration of the Canadian forces headquarters is well under way, preliminary thought is being given to the integration of commands. It is anticipated that within a few months it will be possible to
[Mr. Hellyer.l

evolve a careful long range plan which will permit considerable financial savings while at the same time maintaining and, hopefully, even improving the efficiency of units. Stage three will involve the integration of schools and other facilities. This will follow naturally and logically from stage two. While it is difficult to predict the time cycle required for the whole process, it is anticipated that the major elements of integration can take place, and the most important savings effected, within three years.
The special service force is being formed by modifying an existing Canadian army brigade group to provide a light mobile force smaller than our brigade groups assigned to NATO. The force is to be air transportable, with some of its equipment air droppable. The force will consist of a headquarters and three infantry battalions, light artillery, engineer and signals elements and other ancillary and support units as required to enable the force to carry out its various operational commitments. For instance, a reconnaissance squadron from the newly formed reconnaissance regiment might be assigned to this force. Similarly, if it requires heavier weapons such as tanks or anti-tank guns, these will be provided from our other conventional units. Should the force require an airborne capability, a parachute element will be assigned to it.
A number of major equipment items implicit in the white paper have been under serious study for some time. As I indicated earlier, I hope to be able to announce within a few weeks a substantial part of our shipbuilding program for the next few years. The same applies to aircraft. We have been giving detailed study to our requirements for tactical aircraft in a close ground support role, and it is hoped that a decision can be made in this respect, too, within a reasonable length of time. Also under consideration is the possibility of acquiring self propelled artillery, and reconnaissance and other vehicles for the army.
In summation I would like to say that notwithstanding the reduction in expenditures, we will have achieved within two years a significant qualitative improvement and operational capability of our armed forces. Further qualitative improvements will take place as new equipment becomes available and new tactics are developed. We are at the same time involved in an historic reorganization which will put us in the forefront of developments in the field of military organization.

We fully appreciate the problems that ara inherent in any such reorganization. No improvements can be effected, whether they be the installation of new streets or lights or water systems, without some temporary inconvenience and dislocation. The same problem applies in respect to the integration of our forces. In order to effect permanent and worth-while improvements, temporary inconvenience and dislocation is inevitable. We are deeply grateful for the patient understanding of those who have been affected, and we will do our utmost to minimize the problems that we will create for others during this transitional period.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not a word about the militia; a shocking omission.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the minister's statement and certain points he has mentioned. Perhaps the hon. member for Rosedale would tend to matters of justice and to what he is reading, and we will get on with the discussion here rather than have him make sotto voce remarks from his seat.


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I am interested to have the hon. member acknowledge that what he is going to say is not worth listening to and that I should read. I will take his advice.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister has referred to the white paper. With the passage of time I have not revised my opinion with respect to the white paper, in that I feel it has been greatly overestimated and there has been a great deal of ballyhoo in regard to it. It has not materially changed from white papers in the past, and I think we have made our views known in this regard. There was a great deal of ballyhoo with regard to estimated savings, or what were thought to be savings or projected savings to be savings, but nowhere is there any concrete evidence as to these savings. I think we will have to depend upon experience to see whether there actually was not a real flim-flam in this regard.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be instructive to read the last October 7 report of the meeting of the Canadian air industry in Quebec city. The following is attributed to the air chief marshal, who is reported as having said:
-the proposed integrated armed forces will provide savings for defence spending, but a speedy decision was difficult to make while the forces were working out the many problems of intergrating forces management.
Supply-National Defence
He did say that he expects a saving but that this cannot be expected immediately. In the early stages, certainly, one cannot anticipate these savings of which the minister spoke and about which there was the usual publicity surrounding the issuing of this white paper. I am sure the minister, in retrospect, will agree that there was a great deal of optimism but that the actual carrying out or the implementation of some of these plans will indicate that the so-called savings are just not there. I think it was wrong too, to say there would be savings, if it was the minister's intention, as I think it was, to devote the moneys that he could take from one sector for use in another. These are not savings; this is a reallocation of funds and a redirection of spending.
There is no quarrel with the basic principles involved in this; but to talk about savings and say they were going to save perhaps a billion dollars over ten years is a lot of nonsense, unless the minister intends to reduce the role of the armed services. He tackled one portion of the over-all defence expenditures which was nothing new to his advisers; it was information that was available and was being acted on by the previous administration. It is a problem that has occurred not only in this country but in all countries, in that really the housekeeping costs were getting out of line; and not only a little out of line. They were built into the system. The minister has tackled this problem by trying to bring about integration. We will see whether that is going to work out in so far as a saving or a making of funds available for other expenditures is concerned.
I noted the remarks the minister made with regard to the progress of unification of command. I call it unification of command; I do not call it integration, because I do not think it is yet integration. It is purely unification of command. This is a desirable step all the way along. Obviously there are going to be some difficulties in this connection. Again I think a great fanfare, shall we say, was made in regard to an idea; then how to work it out came later. Already we learn of some reservations in this respect. Earlier this year the minister was indefinite about a great many things; now he tells us that it is possible that, in the main, integration or so-called integration, or unification of command, will take place within three years, and that in so far as Canadian forces headquarters is concerned, with the exception of logistics and engineering, by late next fall.
9844	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence A year after August 1, 1964 or shortly thereafter, it is anticipated that the Canadian forces headquarters will be reorganized.
I am not going to say any more about this matter at the present time. We had a complete examination of it earlier this year. Again I am going to make the reservations that I made at that time. I would like to see, in the performance of this reorganization, just what has happened to the civilian counterparts in the minister's office, the alternative that was offered by the opposition with regard to the reorganization in order to eliminate some of the very real difficulties regarding the chain of command as it now exists.
The minister did say something about the replacement of ships for the navy. Well, it is still delightfully vague as to when the decision may be made. The minister will agree, I think, that over the past few months he has been very pleasant and very non-committal when he has been asked by members of the opposition when a certain decision was going to be taken. He has said it would be in a few days, shortly, or in due course; all those nice, imprecise terms. But the minister used to-if I may use a very slang phrase-blow his stack, when he sat in the opposition, if these expressions were used by his predecessors in office. I remember that his indignation used to be something to behold, but he certainly learned the lesson far better than his teachers as to imprecision and this delightful vagueness in so far as telling the house what is being planned is concerned.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is because of lack of knowledge.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think today the same thing applies with regard to the ships and what he has told us with regard to the decisions taken by him in connection with the Assiniboine and the Nipigon, as well as the Sea King helicopters were also decisions taken much earlier. The conversion of the St. Laurent class of destroyer escorts was an earlier decision. The purchase of the three submarines was also an earlier decision. The only way the minister or this administration can claim that some of these decisions may be theirs is by saying that on assuming office they suspended everything and then decided to reconfirm the decisions.
One thing they have not done, and I think it is very serious. Two years ago the hon. member for Calgary North, when minister of defence, announced a program respecting general purpose frigates. On assuming office the new minister suspended that decision, and then


after several months decided not to go ahead with them. But there has been no announcement whatever as to whether there are to be any ships to replace the general purpose frigates, whether there will be a modification of the proposed general purpose frigates, or what there will be. There is that delightfully vague suggestion concerning ships. Is this suggestion along the line attributed to the associate minister the other day, that there should be ships with great troop carrying capacity; that the transport ability of the navy would be increased? If these remarks were attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the associate minister there may be some validity in the point of view that the navy requires some type of ships which will provide a greater troop carrying capacity in a combined role. I remember the minister's notorious speech in which a bold new military policy was announced. That was the one which sort of spluttered but did not get off the ground. That was a famous occasion which the minister will remember to his dying day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It got off the ground too soon.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was a damp squib in any event. There was in that statement of policy an item in connection with greater transportability of men and equipment by the navy.
We have not heard too much about the minister's thoughts in this regard. I think that today he could have taken the house into his confidence in connection with what he conceives to be the strategy and tactical use of our Canadian armed forces, particularly the army. In addition, we have not heard about the proposed reorganization of army commands. True enough, the minister said that he is looking at this, but in the interval are our brigades marking time?
I can do nothing but underline the absolute urgency of arriving at a decision regarding replacement ships for the navy. Certainly the defence committee is of the opinion that the decision must be made soon. The committee was made aware, both by the minister's advisers and by the senior officials of those forces with which the navy is co-operating in the north Atlantic, that unless we get some of these replacement ships laid down soon there is going to be a gap by 1970, when the obsolescence of our present ships will place many of them in the category of very limited use.
It must be remembered that the minister's advisers in this regard were primarily the same men who advised the hon. member

for Calgary North and the previous administration on a ship replacement program. They foresaw over two years ago that these ships would have to be replaced, yet two years later we are still in suspense. It is obvious that there is going to be a gap, unless of course their role is going to be changed; but we have heard nothing in that regard. Therefore, assuming their role will remain as it is now, I suggest to the minister that it is high time that the qualitative and quantitative capacity of our navy be decided upon as of now. Not only is it important to our defence capability, but I am sure the minister understands that this question is seriously affecting the morale of the men in the navy, and that there is a limit to their patience in this regard.
The same comments apply to replacement aircraft. There seems to be a sort of self generated hysteria building up in connection with this matter, and I am wondering just how much of this has been sponsored by certain circles in connection with an aircraft to replace the CF-104. One article in this connection which appeared recently was entitled "The Phantom aircraft industry". Then there was a most extraordinary communique put out I know not by whom, but presumably by someone on behalf of the minister, on the eve of the conference of Canadian air industries, in which the air industry was told to mind its P's and Q's. As I say, I do not know who was the spokesman but certainly it appeared to be someone in authority.
The following week, namely the week of October 7, the chief of the Canadian defence staff reportedly said in Quebec city that the air defence order is still being worked out. As far as the defence committee is concerned, if the minister feels that some of his opinions should not be made public and wants to come before that committee in camera, I think the defence committee is quite a responsible body which has in the past been able to sit in camera and treat the information placed before it as confidential and for its benefit only.
According to some stories which have appeared in the press there is a tug of war going on in the defence department. There are protagonists of a very fancy and sophisticated aircraft, the McDonnell Phantom fighter, known as a $2.5 million, eight ton bomb carrier. At least that is how it is headed up.
I have also received reports concerning a number of other aircraft, or what one might term potential candidates. No doubt history
Supply-National Defence is repeating itself and there is no dearth of potential candidates. I have referred to the Phantom II. I understand one other candidate is the Northrop Freedom Fighter, which is reportedly less expensive, being in the neighbourhood of $600,000 per copy. There is also the Grumman Intruder, referred to in one press report as an extraordinary ground support aircraft at an extraordinary cost, $4 million per copy. Even that cost is nothing compared to what the Arrow was going to cost. There is also the Douglas Sky Hawk, the Thunderchief and the Lougheed CL-90, which is presumably akin to the CF-104 or the model on which that aircraft was based.
Mr. Chairman, there are two aspects to the philosophy of such a choice. We must consider the glamourous side, shall we say, of the former air force. We cannot call it the air force any more because it has been taken into this integrated force, or so some people believe. In this regard one must consider the Phantom II whish is reportely to be a very slick, complex aircraft. As I indicated some days ago, some individuals have suggested that an informal agreement has been reached and all that is required now is an agreement among Britain, the United States and Canada for the manufacture of airframes in Canada, some 250 I believe. The aircraft would have a British engine, which could be substituted for an engine of United States manufacture. This is all speculation, and, undoubtedly, there is uncertainty in this regard. However, the source of this report is usually reasonable and authoritative. Where there is smoke there is usually a certain amount of fire.
Mr. Chairman, it may well be that this proposition is being examined carefully. The Phantom II is reputed to be a very fast aircraft with a speed of something like 1,600 miles per hour, with a 900 mile range and an eight ton bomb carrying capacity. I think one must also consider the Northrop Freedom Fighter, which is described as a $700,000 grass field jet. It is a much more versatile aircraft for the tactical role. I understand the Phantom II requires a runway of some 5,000 feet. In any event, there are two conflicting philosophies in this regard. One is that we need a more or less workaday jeep type aircraft, and the other is that we must have an aircraft which is in the Cadillac class.
Mr. Chairman, I point out these facts because there seems to be some indication that the minister and his advisers are considering the continuation of a tactical role
9846	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence lor at least a good segment of our air force. We should like to know the official philosophy in regard to the utilization of our air component with our ground forces. Is the use of our air component concentrated on transportability? There are varying views in this regard. We could use our air component in such a way as to make sure our ground troops are transported to certain areas, making them highly mobile. In that event their equipment and logistics supplies would be readily transportable. This use of our forces would fit into the Canadian peace keeping role to be utilized at any place in the world where it was required. In contrast to that role is the use of a substantial part of our air component as an air arm combined with ground forces.
There are two very different principles involved and, of course, very different consequences. A tactical air arm would require tactical aircraft with necessarily shorter ranges. If we are going to use that type of aircraft in conjunction with our forces stationed some distance from Canada one must be concerned about getting the short range aircraft to a place within the limit of their range from our forces.
As I have said, I do not intend to go into detail in relation to the consequences of this philosophy, as time does not permit, but I point out these facts as fundamental differ-rences in respect of the potential role of the air component of Canada's defence forces. Certainly a judgment decision will have to be reached, and we should like to know the thoughts of the minister in this regard. A decision in respect of replacement aircraft in this particular range is forecast in the minister's remarks. He says he hopes to be able to arrive at a decision concerning tactical aircraft, perhaps not within a few weeks but in the near future. The two week period had reference to the shipbuilding program. In any event "the near future" is a relative term. The officials involved certainly are considering the situation.
Other remarks have been attributed to the minister to the effect that he will reply to the aircraft industry but that his decision may well be a year away, and that the industry should not push or rush him. We should have some clarification in this regard. I am pleased to note that steps are being taken toward the use of the C-130. I always felt that we were a little hesitant in buying only four of these aircraft, but there were several factors involved. Perhaps for another reason


the limited purchase of this aircraft proved useful in that it has been shown that these aircraft can really deliver the goods without the necessity of obtaining an expensive air fleet. The hesitancy in this regard has resulted in the continued use of C-119's to the point where one wondered how they could still fly.
I should like to hear from the minister about the modified version of the Caribou, now called the Buffalo. What does the Canadian Department of National Defence envisage in respect of this development? Is this to be a Canadian development encouraged chiefly by the United States? I think we must realize that in so far as the Buffalo is concerned, it was not developed as a result of Canadian encouragement. It was ultimately brought into production in its refined state- or an improvement upon the Caribou

as a result of encouragement from a source other than Canadian. I was sorry that we were unable to see our way clear to follow the original concept of the Caribou and the Bobcat in a more closely related role. In any event, I am sure that we have been taught a lesson by our mistakes and I trust we will not repeat them.
The minister should make reference in his reply to a replacement for the Penhold air base. After all, Penhold was supposed to be the chief centre for advanced jet training. This plan was knocked on the head rather unceremoniously and I think improperly. True enough, the minister felt bound by certain decisions reached within the Department of Transport, but these decisions have sufficient against them to render them somewhat suspect. In any event, there it is; the minister has announced that the Penhold air base is to be closed. What is to be its replacement, we have not heard. I think there should be some indication of what the plan is in so far as training command is concerned. Is this going to await some uncertain date in the future when everything is going to be reorganized?
Now, I did hear in passing that the minister's introductory statement made no reference to the militia. I too regret that he failed to mention this. True enough he made his statement to the defence committee, but I think the militia merited as much mention publicly as did the Cyprus force. I agree with the minister that our force on Cyprus has performed very well under very trying and frustrating circumstances. I think we must give them full marks in that regard. Mind you, I cannot approve of the circumstances under which they had to perform their duties.

I think, too, the minister will agree that the organization of our peace keeping force in these international groups leaves something to be desired. I am hoping that the conference this week will be able to iron out a lot of these difficulties. These people who have been to Cyprus, and who have come back, will readily testify that such peace keeping forces have far too many chiefs and not enough men. At every level we seem to require equivalent officers from each participating nation. I believe experience will lead us to the point where these peace keeping forces can be organized on the basis of efficiency and not prestige.
With regard to the militia, I should like to read into the record paragraphs 70 and 72 of the defence committee report:
There was considerable discussion in the committee concerning the numbers required to fulfil these roles.
The reference there is to the roles the government indicated for the militia.
The government has indicated a requirement of
30.000	effective militiamen as follows:
(a)	reinforcement of field forces, 7,000-8,000 officers and men; special units for NATO commitments, 1,000 officers and men;
(b)	training forces to support the field force,
18.000	officers and men;
(c)	internal security, 2,500 officers and men;
(d)	national survival installations, 1,500 officers and men, for a total of approximately 30,000 officers and men.
Then the committee's remarks follow:
Your committee cannot confirm or refute this estimate except to note that the potential requirement for internal security appears to be seriously underestimated. Your committee also recognizes the fact that those requirements will change in the future, and that regular periodic reviews should be made.
Then I quote paragraph 72:
The government has announced that the present strength of the militia is to be cut, for budgetary reasons, from approximately 45,000 all ranks to approximately 30,000. To achieve the requirement of 30,000 referred to in paragraph 70, this would mean an approximately 100 per cent efficiency rate. Your committee considers this to be unrealistic- I
I can assure the minister, without disclosing what went on in the committee, that this was an almost unanimous view.
-and would agree with the contention of the conference of defence associations, that in order to achieve the 30,000 effectives, the militia enrolment, even taking into account an increased efficiency, would have to be considerably higher. It must therefore be recognized that, after the militia is cut to 30,000 all ranks, it will be unable to fulfil its proposed roles.
Well, of course, we had to-
Supply-National Defence


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Lachance):: am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to advise him that his time has expired.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I have another five minutes?


Georges-C. Lachance: Does the committee give its consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wish to thank hon. members for their courtesy in allowing me to have a few more minutes to complete my remarks. We did have a bit of a comic opera performance with regard to this matter this summer. It was announced that the 30,000 figure was going to be the end result. The minister's associate indicated that he would have to agree with the contention in the committee and the conference of defence associations that undoubtedly enrolment would have to be somewhat higher. He was not precise because one could not precisely indicate what that higher figure might be, but certainly it would be higher than 30,000. However, on a subsequent appearance the associate minister indicated that there was a hard line adopted, and 30,000 was going to be it.
Then we had the minister come before us the other day and say that the 30,000 figure still held but there would be an establishment of some 41,000. In response to questioning in the committee the minister agreed that in the implementation of this proposal it would be possible to get up to a figure of 41,000 if everybody enlisted up to the top and if they could get the money, which is another consideration, but he thought 30,000 would be the practical figure.
I believe he will agree with me that if he wants to get 30,000 men out of the militia, as set out in paragraph 70 of the defence committee report-those figures were taken straight from the ministerial statement in this regard, so there is no hocus-pocus or glossing over of the figures by the committee-he will not get 30,000 out of a 30,000 enrolment. Something has got to give. Perhaps the minister might be a little more frank with the committee and tell us just how many men he thinks he is going to get out of a militia force of 30,000.
I am going to leave to some of my colleagues the discussion of what may be the effects of the militia reorganization. However, there is one last point I should like to make, Mr. Chairman, at this stage of my remarks.

Supply-National Defence I do not claim originality for this idea, but I think it should be put to the minister, perhaps not so much to the minister as to some of his colleagues. As was indicated the other day, as a result of this reorganization of the militia, the reserves and the regular force, certain national defence properties are going to be surplus. What properties will become surplus is not yet determined. We know what happens when these properties are declared surplus; they are turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for sale. The proceeds of the sale are then credited to the consolidated revenue fund.
I know that in my own city of Edmonton there may be several hundred thousand dollars worth of property that will go on the market, and it should. There are a number of lots there that are producing nothing but the best weed crop possible. They are surrounded by a fence and posted with signs saying "No Admittance, Department of National Defence". Neither is there admittance for a weed cutter. I am sure the situation is paralleled in a number of other cities, and that there is property worth hundreds of thousands of dollars which could be disposed of by the department.
Admittedly the minister is short of funds for the purchase of new equipment. If, by reason of the Financial Administration Act, it is impossible to take the funds realized from the sale of these properties and return them to the department for the purchase of new equipment, then I suggest an agreement should be reached with the minister's colleagues that he be provided with an extra credit in lieu of the amount realized. This makes sense, because in effect he would be disposing of properties that were purchased by his department.
This idea is not original but it is a commendable one, and I think the minister's colleagues should see the wisdom in it. I am sure the minister himself advocates this, and it can be pointed out that it is a one shot proposition because he will not be able to continue to find properties that can be sold.
I may have some other remarks to make depending on the minister's answers to questions raised, but for the moment that is all I have to say.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, it has been my practice, when leading off for my party in discussing item 1 of departmental estimates, not to prepare a statement but to rely on my own knowledge and understanding in the belief that it was only proper to await the


minister's statement. I am sorry that in doing so today I made a mistake, because I found the minister's statement very frustrating, most disappointing and shocking-shocking in that through his evasion and rationalization he has not given the policy points of view to which we believe we are entitled.
The minister completely evaded two points. I am certain members of the committee recall statements made by leaders of the Liberal party during the last election campaign, and commitments made in this chamber, that the government would enter into negotiations to remove Canada from a nuclear role. The minister shakes his head.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would you mind giving the quotations?


Harold Edward Winch: If you check the political statements made during the campaign, and if you also check Hansard, you will see the Liberal party promised to fulfil the commitments which it maintained the Conservative government had made and, having lived up to those commitments, was going to enter into negotiations to get us out of a nuclear role. You will find that on page after page of Hansard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Read it.


Harold Edward Winch: You will find it there, but today the minister made no statement on the policy position of the government with respect to nuclear weapons and nuclear warheads. I believe we should have had some indication from him as to the policy of the government with regard to the role of Canada's armed forces in the use of nuclear weapons.
A second matter which the minister omitted to mention

and I hope he will not shake his head at this too-was that the government undertook to renegotiate the position of Canada within NATO. That was not only a campaign promise but is also to be found in Hansard, and the minister made no mention of it today. I know he made certain statements about NATO, but he did not go into the fundamental principle and philosophy of Canada's role within the NATO structure.
Up until now I have always supported Canada's contribution to NATO, but surely the time has arrived when the minister should tell us in detail what he has in mind for the future. If memory serves me correctly 1969 is the year for the re-establishment of NATO as a collective military alliance, and tied in with this question of NATO itself is the other question of how long Canada is to continue

maintaining thousands of its troops, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, in the European theatre. V-E day was the day the surrender was signed in Berlin. That was may 8, 1945. We are now in November of 1964. Have our operations in Europe in the interval been considered as peace keeping? Was there any thought in the mind of the government when the surrender was signed in 1945 that in 1964 a small country of 19 million people would still be supporting occupation forces in Europe at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars?
I think this is a reasonable and logical question to ask, and one with regard to which we should have some information. We are entitled to have the views of the Minister of National Defence on this matter. I should be grateful, too, if the minister would indicate how he intends to implement the policy set out on page 15 of the white paper, the policy on peace keeping, in the light of what is contained on page 24 where priorities are outlined.
The white paper was interesting enough, but basically it deals in generalities. Even where it is detailed, how are the aims set out in the white paper to be accomplished having regard to the availability of Canadian forces and funds? Beyond this, bearing in mind the money available, what kind of efficiency are we to expect in our armed services? We are at peace, thank heavens, but it is amazing how much money Canada can spend through the Department of National Defence while the country is at peace. If my recollection is accurate, between 1949 and the end of 1963 the Department of National Defence spent $22J billion on our armed services. And what is their efficiency? Now is the time to bring this question out into the open.
I had the honour of being leader of the opposition in British Columbia while Canada was at war. As leader of the opposition I had the privilege, along with the premier of British Columbia and the G.O.C. western command, of knowing what was going on. But because of public relations psychology I could never make known what I knew then, namely, some passenger ships with naval personnel on board carried guns made of wood. This was when Japan was in the war. I knew this, but I could not say so because we were at war and it would not have been advisable. But we are at peace now, and we should be able to discuss the efficiency 20220-623J
Supply-National Defence of our forces. I heard nothing from the minister about this aspect of our defence situation.
I had hoped to hear about that naval exercise off Bermuda when three Canadian destroyers took part in combined operations with the United States navy Atlantic command. Members of the special committee on defence set up by this House of Commons were aboard the three Canadian destroyers taking part in this actual, factual exercise. There were three destroyers in line. I happened to be one of those on the first destroyer in line. What armament did those destroyers carry? They had a mortar for use against submarines, and they had only one piece of armament equipment for everything else, a 3 inch-70 guns for use against attacking forces or attacking planes. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this was a prearranged exercise; it had been on the books for a long time. The department knew members of the defence committee would be present, so I imagine everything was ice cream and perfect.
What happened? In the beautiful, calm waters off Bermuda, when the drone plane flew over, the only armament available for use against an attacking force would function to the extent of only about 50 per cent. One of the guns aboard the destroyer I was on would not fire. We had that experience. The gun on the second destroyer would not fire at all on two runs. Aboard the third they were luckier. Remember, this was shooting at a drone plane; and the only armament carried would not function to more than 50 per cent of capacity. Would the minister say these ships are ready for war if it ever occurs? We were told these guns were the most intricate and complicated in the world, but they are the only guns provided, and this is the situation.
Surely we have a responsibility as well as a right to ask the minister now what is being done in this regard. Is the armament being changed? I understand there is an arrangement with Britain for skilled men to come over here to assist us with our submarine program. Does the minister not think there should be a similar arrangement for technical assistance in connection with these guns? Or should there be a change of armament? Remember this is the only armament those destroyers possess apart from the mortars which are only for use against submarines. Now we are at peace I think we should be absolutely honest, and that we are entitled to expect honesty from the minister.
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-National Defence AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, when the committee recessed at one o'clock I was speaking about the fantastic expenditures of the Department of National Defence amounting, as I pointed out, to $22J billion since 1949, and my own experience as a member of the defence committee in finding out the inefficiency of some armaments, despite these expenditures. If time permitted I would have liked to have the opportunity of enlarging on that phase of my remarks, because I think to a considerable degree it applies to the armaments, and in particular the mobility of our forces at home and abroad. However, in view of the fact that you were kind enough, Mr, Chairman, when I spoke to you a moment ago, to let me know that I now have 13J minutes left, I would like to proceed from that phase of my remarks on item 1 of the estimates of the Department of National Defence to another matter which I mentioned at the opening of my remarks relative to our position regarding NATO, and in particular to what I maintain was the lack of responsibility by the Minister of National Defence in not outlining to this house what we should have had, and had the right to expect, namely an explanation of his policy statement which is to be found on page 15 of the white paper on defence, correlated with the priorities as outlined on page 24 of the white paper.
During my very brief remarks before the luncheon adjournment with regard to NATO I rather gathered from the expression on the face of the Minister of National Defence that he thought I might have been a little out of line. May I draw to the attention of this committee a press release covering the text of a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Atlantic treaty association at Ottawa on September 15, 1964. On page 4 of the press release we find the Secretary of State for External Affairs saying this:
As far as the alliance itself is concerned, there is still a long way to go toward completion of the review of NATO defence policy which ministers required at the Ottawa meeting in May, 1963. While I would not wish to overstress the problems of the alliance in that regard, I cannot escape the feeling that the long term effects of not achieving some agreement in the fields of strategy, military integration, nuclear control, command structure and cost sharing are bound to detract from our effectiveness as an alliance in using the forces we have at our disposal. I believe that the time has come to face these problems and honestly to deal with them with the requisite boldness and imagination. In particular I believe

that they point to the need for some re-thinking first with regard to a greater sharing in the military direction of the alliance, and second, in regard to the relationship between the civilian and military arms of the alliance.
Mr. Chairman, you will remember that when I spoke before the luncheon adjournment I expressed my regret that the Minister of National Defence had not given us any basic point of view or policy outline with regard to what I said then was a re-thinking of our position in NATO and its operations. That is why this afternoon, because I believed my memory was correct, I looked into my files; I was almost certain that a similar expression had been used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his speech on September 15. Members of this House of Commons are not children; they have responsibilities-big ones-and one concerns the relationship of our country to others, and the defence of our country. But for some reason or other there was an evasion of rationalization and no attempt whatsoever by the Minister of National Defence, in his introduction with regard to item No. 1 of these estimates, to take this house or the people into his confidence, into the government's confidence, on the major issues that face our country and others. Nor was there an attempt to give us an explanation as to how in his view, believing as he must in the general principles of peace keeping as outlined on page 15 of the white paper, we could follow the priorities set out on page 24 without a massive increase in defence expenditure or a cut down in other fields.
In the few remaining moments I want to speak on the cutting down in other fields. As I said this morning the surrender treaty was signed in Europe in 1945. Today we are still spending hundreds of millions of dollars, and have thousands of troops. For how long is this going to go on? Is it peace keeping? I would also like to be able to quote all of the observations on page 15, but may I just very briefly draw attention to this paragraph, which I presume reflects the views of the Minister of National Defence:
Canada's own experience in this field points to the need for a high degree of versatility in preparing for possible United Nations service. In the past, requests from the secretary general for assistance have been for specialists of various kinds, mainly from the Canadian army and the R.C.A.F.-
The success of United Nations peace keeping operations may depend on the speed with which they can be established on the ground. Once there, they may be required to exercise authority with limited personnel in broad areas. Thus, there is

a need for mobility as regards deployment, method of operation and logistic support. In most situations which can be foreseen, there is likely to be a need for highly mobile forces for ground observation, air surveillance, rapid transportation and reliable communications. These are among the United Nations requirements which Canadian forces have helped to meet in the past.
As I read the white paper, emphasis is to be placed on peace keeping and greater aid through the medium of the United Nations. That is why there is the requirement in the priorities listed on page 24 that:
On the basis of this assessment, major expenditures in the next few years will be designed to: (a) re-equip the army as a mobile force; (b) provide an adequate air and sea lift for its immediate deployment in an emergency; (e) acquire tactical aircraft; (d) maintain a relatively constant improvement of maritime antisubmarine capability.
I believe with regard to (d) that the minister is doing an excellent job. With regard to (a), (b) and (c) heavy financial requirements will be necessary to meet these objectives.
I honour the Minister of National Defence for the approach he has made toward integrating the forces. That is an experiment which is being watched around the world. I think he is to be commended for the courage he has shown in some of the new approaches which are being made. At the same time, sir, I think that he did a disservice to the members of this house by not stating whether or not these savings which he hopes to accomplish can or will meet what he states in the white paper to be his objectives. In not giving us that information he failed to give the complete picture regarding our continued operation on the present basis within the commitments of NATO and particularly in connection with NORAD.
I was most interested in what he had to say about the two Bomarc installations in Canada, one in Ontario and one in Quebec. I noted his remarks to the effect that the interceptors at Comox are going to have nuclear warheads. I say it is time we had some honesty both from the minister and from this government. Up till now we have had only what I maintain is dishonesty in certain matters of policy. Is the minister actually telling this committee that in the event of an attack on the North American continent the enemy would give warning of the approach of manned bombers so as to give the United States time to get its I.C.B.M.'s on their way? And on the other side of the picture-I know this will not happen but I put it hypothetically-if the United States ever attacked the U.S.S.R., do you think that
Supply-National Defence it would send its manned bombers and give the Russians time to get their I.C.B.M.'s on their way to North America? Of course not.
That being the case-and surely that is logical and reasonable-what is the basis for Canada spending money as it is today on Bomarc bases and nuclear warheads for interceptors? What is the basis for the millions which Canada is spending now on NORAD, with this change in technological warfare and the staff which is available? In the past it has been necessary for one purpose-to see that the strategic air command of the United States was kept up in the air. But surely that is not the position today in the event of war. Fifty per cent of the strength of the strategic air command of the United States is up in the air all the time as it is; but it can only meet manned bombers. Surely it is time we had an explanation from the minister of the necessity for spending millions of dollars and utilizing Canadian personnel on Bomarc stations, nuclear warheads, interceptors and NORAD, all of which would be of use only in the event of attack by manned bombers. I might add, although this has no connection with NORAD, that this month saw the completion of four stations outside of Canada to detect the launching of an I.C.B.M. anywhere in the world.
I am down to my last 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, and I do not want to take additional time. Perhaps I will have an opportunity later to speak again, but may I conclude my remarks by saying what I said at the outset. There was no reference to matters of policy or matters of viewpoint and no indication of the government's understanding of the objectives given in the statement made by the Minister of National Defence. Such being the case the minister has shown disrespect for and disregard of the members of this committee and the responsibilities each and every one of us has as a member of this House of Commons. Before we are through with these estimates I hope we will have a clear exposition by the minister, and that he will take all of us into his and the government's confidence.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to draw to the attention of the house a situation which I deplore at the present time. Today, the house is taking up the estimates of the Department of National Defence, which represent 25 per cent of Canada's national budget; and even though the matter is a rather touchy one, and
98S2

Supply-National Defence one that is discussed at length during electoral campaigns here and there across the country, very few members of the house are interested in discussing it when it comes up for debate in the house.
I think that the absence of the members of the defence committee from the house is particularly unfortunate. The 24 members who have been chosen by the House of Commons and by the various parties to scrutinize the national defence problem in this country as well as the financial impact of national defence are surely of all the members of this parliament the ones who should deem it their duty to be here today.
This being said, must we come to the conclusion that the defence committee have Ho more work to do once they have completed their study outside the house, and that their members ought not take part in the discussions that can go on in this house? I hope not.
This committee did a good job by allowing several members to examine thoroughly the very complex problem of defence. And the house could thus avoid momentarily the discussions on national defence which we have known in the past.
During the first session I sat in this house, in 1962, I remember that almost every day questions were being placed on the order paper concerning national defence. I remember that long discussions and debates occurred on this question. At least, since the committee on national defence was formed to examine this matter, those discussions calmed down in the house. Sometimes several weeks go by without the Minister of National Defence having to answer any questions from members of the opposition.
We have at least attained that objective. But, in my opinion, when the estimates of the Department of National Defence are examined in the house, it is the duty of every member, Conservative and others, to attend the debate, because this matter affects a very important area, not only at the economic but also at the social level; many Canadians are thereby affected directly: those in the armed forces, and indirectly, their dependents. And I could also add all the taxpayers who foot the bill at the end of the year.
In his statement the minister outlined the general policy which the cabinet intends to apply concerning defence. Of course, he did not have much information for us, members of the committee, except that there are still many questions unanswered, including the

one raised a while ago by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch).
I think that the Minister of National Defence did not give us exactly what we had a right to expect.
When he talks about maintaining NORAD agreements for the defence of the North American continent, with the United States, does he mean to maintain them exactly on the basis which has prevailed since 1957? Will he renegotiate the agreements when they come to an end?
I think that we are all in agreement in this house-and all Canadians will support the suggestion-that we must maintain our contribution to the defence of the North American continent. But I think it is proper for Canadians to wonder on what basis it will be.
We are all aware, because it was repeated many times, that our present system of defence is simply out of date and obsolete. Therefore, when we talk about the defence of the North American continent what are we talking about exactly? Before setting up defence policies it would be a good thing to know exactly what threat we have to face. Are we facing an invasion by some foreign force on the continent? Are we facing an air force attack? Or is there a danger for Canada to be destroyed by remote controlled nuclear head missiles?
I believe that it is easy to determine what type of war or attack could take place against Canada.
It is quite unlikely that we would be faced with an invasion of land forces, since, for more than 300 years now, no sizeable enemy has ever set foot on our Canadian soil, with the exception of small raids by the American people at the beginning of the last century.
It is unrealistic, in my opinion, to maintain some of our present defence items when we all agree that they would be inefficient against the only threat really conceivable.
We have Bomarc bases. Now, we all know that these bases do not represent actually any kind of protection. Yet, we continue to maintain them, perhaps, to please our allies across the border. We maintain squadrons of Voodoos equipped with nuclear missiles.
Have we fully realized the extent of the threat that is hanging over us? There again I very much doubt it, because in the light of all the information we have been able to get in the committee on defence, it is more obvious every day that an attack would not

be launched against our continent by long-range bombers.
Therefore, once again we are clearly behind the times.
I know that the minister has discarded two squadrons and reduced that force of Voodoo aircraft to three squadrons only. Of course, that was a step in the right direction, but that does not solve the problem at all, because I think the whole problem is based on the following question: What will the next war be like and what will be its pattern?
In co-operation with the Americans, we have developed a radar system which had to be discarded as soon as, if not before, it was completed, because several radar stations, all across the country, were closed during the last year. I am a little amazed to notice that we closed radar stations and that actually, we are building some others. It is quite difficult to reconcile those rather extreme positions.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) was obviously referring to the promises made by the Liberal party during the last election campaign when he mentioned that, after coming to power, this government was supposed to renegotiate the agreements signed with the U.S.A. by its predecessor with respect to North American defence and also Canada's role within NATO.
What has the government done in the two years it has been in power? Has it renegotiated anything? Of course, it will argue that the agreements in question have not yet expired but, in my opinion, one does not have to wait until agreements have expired to renegotiate them. The government must decide what policy it will follow when those agreements come to an end.
While I am on the subject of NATO and of Canada's role within the alliance, I might say that I had the privilege of visiting our bases in Europe. Like the other members of the defence committee, I was in a position to realize the importance of Canada's presence on the old continent, but I must say that that importance is more psychological than military because, 20 years after the war, our presence there is more or less necessary, in my opinion. I am not advocating Canada's full withdrawal from NATO, but I feel that we should be active in all organizations. What should be our role? It should be adapted to our capabilities and to actual needs. In the last year we have undertaken, as Canadians, to build up a much more mobile military force which could be put at the disposal of the United Nations. I think this is a good
Supply-National Defence thing, even if it may present certain negative aspects.
I believe that our sense of responsibility compels us to take that course but, personally, if I consider the part we are called to play in NATO and our intention to increase our contribution to the United Nations, I feel it would be logical to conclude that we should reduce our NATO expenses in proportion to the intended increase in United Nations contribution, since these two organizations complete one another, to a certain extent. In my opinion, it is rather difficult to justify a double expense for the same purpose.
Considering that European nations such as France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, England and Italy regained an economic stability and a power which cannot be doubted and which are clearly superior to ours, I think it is logical for Canada to reduce its contribution to NATO and, like the great majority of Canadians, I would be pleased to see a reduction in our armed forces within NATO.
Considering our commitments, I think Canada should get ready, when these commitments are fulfilled to withdraw the major part of its military forces in Europe, leaving a nucleus of officers charged with co-ordinating the work of the soldiers in Europe and with keeping the military forces in Canada and Canadian authorities aware of any development which might occur on the European continent.
The minister spoke about the CF-104 supersonic aircraft stationed in Europe. We have all had to decide, for some time, not to renew these aircraft. If we consider the role assigned to such aircraft, I believe that the decision not to replace them is logical, and that it is also logical to conclude that our participation in the air forces of NATO should be abandoned upon the expiry of our commitments. France, Britain, Germany and Italy are sufficiently strong now to replace the few squadrons we still have left on that continent.
I believe that there is a point here that we must consider, a rather important point which is raised by our presence in Europe. It is the human aspect of the matter. It is the sacrifice required from those thousands of Canadians in Europe who have to live away from their family, their parents, their environment, their country. Several have their family with them but this is not the case for the majority. I feel there is a human problem there. In my opinion, it is illogical, in the circumstances, to maintain in Europe

Supply-National Defence a force which, for all practical purposes, cannot be justified.
There is also another aspect to consider: the expenditures which contribute to increase to a certain point our trade monetary deficit with the other countries. Canada's balance of trade is unfavourable, and it is obvious that all expenses made in other countries by Canadians increase this deficit. Even though we ship the majority of equipment and provisions for our troops in Europe, it remains that these people spend a lot of money in those countries and that the Canadian treasury must pay to keep them there.
We are all in favour of a greater role for Canada in peace keeping operations. I think the action taken by our country during the Cyprus crisis proves our willingness to solve that problem even in other parts of the world.
I believe the experience of Canada in Cyprus will serve in other circumstances. Personally, I think Canada has reason to be proud of its contribution in that part of the world.
I should like to say a few words about our navy. It seems to me that, for the past few years, our navy has been somewhat neglected, with the result that, today, we are faced with a rather sad situation, and by that I mean that we now have a navy whose definitely obsolete equipment is not suited to the tasks we intend to assign to it. There is no doubt that before purchasing equipment for our navy, we should determine what part we mean it to play.
At present, following all those discussions, the committee is aware that the military role of the Canadian navy is extremely limited. Our coast line is quite extensive and we Canadians cannot expect our present navy to be able to guard and keep watch efficiently over all our shores.
It would therefore be impractical to consider such a possibility. We must also ask ourselves if, should a conflict occur, it would be fought at sea. We have all recognized that, in case of war, the battle is not very likely to take place at sea. A little of it at first, perhaps, but for such a short while that our ships would hardly have time to weigh anchor. This raises the question of whether a navy is justified for the defence of our country.
The defence committee decided that the only role our navy could play would be to destroy submarines. It is quite clear that our navy could play an important part in the

detection of submarines, but I feel there is all the difference in the world between detecting a submarine and preventing it from attacking.
In fact, if we compare the features of a submarine with those of a surface ship, namely speed, depth and period of immersion, mobility, armaments, I am of the opinion that the submarine has more advantages than the surface ship.
Moreover, I think that if we had to face a war in which atomic submarines would play a part, our surface ships would be definitely in an inferior situation and we would suffer heavy losses, notwithstanding the few gains we might achieve.
Does that mean that we must give up any role in that field? Of course, I do not believe so, but we must try to limit ourselves to probabilities and possibilities, and in my opinion, the submarine detection system seems better when it is operated by airplanes and their radar systems.
If we take into consideration the fact that a destroyer may cost $10, $15 and even $20 million, according to its shape and class, and that an Argus or Neptune airplane may cost half a million, a million or $2 million; in short, if we consider the work that one may do as compared with the other, I feel that we may easily conclude that for the amounts of money available in this field, it is definitely better to increase the number of aircraft for air patrol, rather than increase the number of destroyers. It would be easier for the enemy to destroy a surface destroyer than a flying aircraft.
On the other hand, if we consider the possibility of patrolling a wide area, again the aircraft has definite advantages over the destroyer.
It has been argued that an aircraft has limited means to destroy the enemy. I think that it is true, but under the circumstances, it must also be admitted that the destroyer has also very limited means to destroy a submarine.
There is also another aspect which must be considered. When an atomic submarine is given the order to take part in a conflict, it is most probable that its only warning will be a guided missile with nuclear warhead. I feel that it is illogical to think that we can prevent a submarine from firing its missiles; even if we know its location, those destructive missiles will be ready to be fired when orders are given and even if it is destroyed afterwards, I do not think that this will make much difference in the results.


[Stage Direction]
There is also something else to be considered. The purpose of a submarine is to destroy populated and industrial centres of our continent. It would surely not attack a ship because such prey is not worthwhile. If it attacks anything, it will surely be highly populated cities, administrative and industrial centres of the continent. What will be the use then of destroyers, even on the surface, if we no longer have administrative centres in Canada, if the population is partly destroyed?
At that time, our ships will have to remain at sea, unable to return to their home ports, since they will have been destroyed.
It is therefore illogical to recommend increased expenses in the naval service. However, I must recognize that the personnel of our armed forces is very well disciplined and trained, and that we can be proud of them. But I wonder whether to experience such pride, we should spend $1 billion, $1J billion or $lf billion a year, to maintain those fine sporting clubs and to allow those young men to indulge their taste for adventure at sea? Should we spend yearly $200 or $300 million to provide them with toys with which they may play?
I believe this is a question we should ask ourselves. If the navy plays a necessary role, if there is need for it, in brief, if the threat to our security is real, then, there can be no question of money. Should our country be threatened, the point is not to ask ourselves what we can do, but what we must do. But at this time, we are unable to establish exactly the magnitude of this threat, and even less how we can face it.
Mr. Chairman, the expenditures of the Department of National Defence at present account for about one quarter of the national budget. I believe drastic cuts will have to be made, for its present spending is in no way commensurate with the aims sought.
Other questions obviously have to be considered in connection with the curtailment of the national defence budget, and I know that the minister himself has been severely criticized for some cuts in some particular fields.
The military establishment has been brought down to 10,000, and the minister was criticized for this action. He closed down radar stations, military bases all over the country, and for that too he was sharply criticized. Economic consequences on our economy of military expenditures will have, of course, to be considered.
Committee members have received reports about studies they had requested, precisely with regard to the economic implications of
Supply-National Defence military expenditures on the country and also to the economic consequences in case of world disarmament.
We know that throughout the world countries are now studying the possible economic implications of an international agreement on total disarmament. I feel that this is a matter the study of which will be most interesting, and, so far as I am concerned, I feel sure that the members of the committee will devote much of their time to its study; for it is a problem that must be faced, considering the criticism which resulted from the cuts in military personnel and expenditures in certain sections of the country.
We all hope that military expenditures will be reduced, provided it does not affect us personally. However, I feel we should be more realistic and recognize that, if certain cuts can be made in military expenditures, we must also find ways of spending money in other fields which will be more productive and will contribute to increase the value of our country as a whole.
It is, of course, very easy to criticize, but it is much more difficult to achieve something. I know that the Minister of National Defence is conscious not only of the problem as such, but of its magnitude; as far as I am concerned, and like all the other members indeed, I shall support any suggestion tending to the reduction of military expenditures, in accordance with our abilities, while maintaining the part we should logically play in the free world's defence.
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak today on behalf of the Rallie-ment Creditiste on the estimates of the Department of National Defence, but I have changed my mind. I wish to deal with an aspect of the matter different from what we have heard so far this afternoon. I hope you will permit me at this time, Mr. Chairman, to pay homage to those of our fellow men who fought for this country, especially those who were called by the Department of National Defence when things were dark both in Canada and across the world. I am referring to our veterans, those who made the supreme sacrifice of their lives, in the service of this country. I notice the minister is wearing a poppy today. I am sure he calls to mind various poems and writings which arose out of those days of turmoil. Indeed one of these poems comes to my mind now-the one of John McCrae which contains these familiar words:

Supply-National Defence
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row.
I realize this has only an indirect connection with the estimates which are before us. But were it not for the Department of National Defence I imagine there would not be a Department of Veterans Affairs. This is the aspect to which I wish to devote some time this afternoon.
We have been talking about 25 pages of expenditure. We have been talking about figures, acceptances, transformation, integration, and so on. But we have not heard very much about the moral aspect of this whole question, something which cannot be evaluated in the book of expenditures, something which cannot be divided into subsections. It is a quality one is born with; it is the understanding and the comprehension we should have among ourselves and which nations should have among themselves. We shall be celebrating Remembrance day very soon, a time that affords a good opportunity to remember what has gone by. However, I do not think we should remember our veterans only on one special occasion. I am asking the minister as well as all those in his department and all those in this Canadian parliament that we should bear them in mind throughout the year.
The decisions which the minister has to take are, I am sure, not taken lightly. But we often forget the human side of the whole picture. We may discuss the steps which should be taken to promote the greater efficiency of our armed forces, but let us not forget one thing-if there is a war, if there is turmoil, somebody is responsible for it. It was not in the divine plan that nations should be forever quarrelling with each other; that is not in accordance with the natural law. Wars and conflicts are caused by some organization somewhere which does not agree with the principles being followed by another organization. If today there is a state of crisis between Turkey and Greece, this situation came about as a result of their legislation, as a result of their ways of living, which in turn resulted in strain, misunderstanding and, finally, bloodshed. This is not something new, but perhaps if we appreciate it more fully we may take a different attitude toward the whole of our military set-up. We buy, we plan, we produce and we build to defend ourselves against an enemy; to defend ourselves against an attack from a nation which may not agree with our views. Or else we try to help out our neighbours, as we are doing in Cyprus.

But when will we arm ourselves to fight at home? There is a fight to be fought here, too; a fight which is not carried on with cannon or atomic bombs. In this country as well as abroad I think the best war which can be fought is the war against misery, against incomprehension, against the lack of understanding which exists among nations. It is the fight against misery and poverty in our own country. If we were to abolish many of these sore spots we might save ourselves a great many of the 25 pages we are now considering in the estimates book. The evils I have just mentioned are, basically, the reasons why nations rise up against each other. Something is missing at home.
It would be the same in Canada if the situation which prevails here now were aggravated. I am talking about hunger, about misery, about social insecurity. These were the conditions which prevailed in Germany before the last world war; these were the conditions which prevailed in Cuba. And until we arm ourselves to fight this general enemy we shall have this issue to face; we shall always need arms to defend ourselves, not only against other nations but even against our own people. Legislation flows from this building and we are responsible for it. We in this parliament as well as those in other parliaments across the world are the guiding lights of the nations. Decisions are taken in parliament by human beings, by responsible men. I believe we have too often forgotten those enemies which are not fought with guns or with ammunition. This is the direction in which we need to concentrate our efforts, here at home, and right now. I think possibly that the government understands this, but it is not making a strong enough effort.
The minister had a great deal of information to give the house today. He gave us many details, but they were all related to the same picture, a material picture. I know that the generals, the wing commanders and so on have their needs. They will speak to the minister about them. But they are willing accomplices; they have a job to do and they will ask for the equipment to do that job. I ask this question, though: To what extent is their job necessary? A picture has to be complete, but if it does not fit on the wall it is out of place, no matter what kind of picture it is. It is the whole room one has to look at, not just the picture. Right now I am thinking of the affairs of this nation as a whole. I am wondering whether the minister of defence would cut down his budget-


An hon. Member:: To $1.


Raymond Langlois: I do not know about $1, but at least from 25 pages to 15 pages. I think he would do so if there were less stress or tension in the world today. We ourselves have a part in building that tension. We are all individuals in this world, each having individual liberty and each wanting to keep it.
This is why we are fighting for it all the time; but sometimes we forget to use the right methods to go about it. We wait too long and then we have to take up arms to defend our liberties, or to get them back if they have been taken from us. It often happens that somebody oversteps his rights, and when that happens he is necessarily stepping on somebody else's rights. In this area we have a great job to do, not only in Canada and America but across the world. We belong to the Atlantic treaty organization, to NORAD, to the United Nations and other world-wide organizations. I think we had an example not too long ago of how race, colour, religion, nationality, social stature, and so on, need not enter into this question. I refer to the Olympic games that were held in Tokyo. The athletes there came from every nation in the world, including Russia; but there was something that struck me and most of our Canadian sports commentators over there, and this was the link, the understanding among these people.
I will tell you one thing, sir. There was no suggestion of declaring an international war at those Olympic games. They had something in common; they had a common interest; they understood each other. This is the direction in which the United Nations, NATO and NORAD should be moving now. They should be cutting down on arming themselves with nuclear weapons and trying to beat the enemy in manufacturing nuclear weapons. They should get out and try the other course; that is, beating the enemy at giving more information and helping nations to understand each other as much as possible. In that way we would at least be trying to achieve real peace, not by fear but by understanding and comprehension.
The army is needed, and so is the air force and the navy; but not in order to fight wars or defend our own skins. We need them for other things. We need organized forces like these for the purposes of which I spoke previously when the minister presented his white paper. I refer to having an organized, mobile army at home in order that we may use it when needed in order to fight conflagra-20220-624J
Supply-National Defence tion, floods or any kind of emergency that may arise. In that way our forces could help this nation not only in time of war but in peacetime, and they would not have to be shining buttons all the time. It is all right to have discipline; it is all right to have well dressed officers; it is all right to look sharp. I go along with that, but as well as a smart appearance we must deal with urgent needs in this country and in the world. Canada is playing a role in Cyprus today, a peace role. But if we had moved in in time to give these people the opportunity to think about what was happening before they engaged in a quarrel, as they did, and perhaps if we had done our job three years ago in regard to that island, and the United Nations had worked in that way to greater advantage, we would not have Canadian troops standing between the Turks and the Greeks over there. It is all right to be the referee in a matter like this, but I like the rules to be laid down before anything starts.
This is the part I wanted to talk about today, a part that we often forget in this house; in fact, I have not heard it mentioned too often. I do not want hon. members to suppose that I am giving a moral lecture, because I am not. That is not the attitude I am taking and I do not want hon. members to take that point of view. I am putting this forward as something that everyone in this house should be conscious of with regard to national defence or any other activity. It is this. When we do something, we should be doing it for the welfare of the nation. When I talk about the nation I am talking about industry, about companies, about families, about municipalities, about school boards, and about every single individual in this nation; and the nation shall be itself a proud, strong nation as long as the individual stands up proudly and strongly himself. This is very much like the apple cart; the apple cart is worth a lot so long as the apples in it are not rotten. If we do not take time to correct a situation when it begins, soon we will have everybody feeling the effects of some little, cock-eyed idea of a person or group of persons; and these things sometimes cause a national calamity and crisis. We have to guide the nation, to tell the nation what to do. But we have to do it ourselves. We have to tell ourselves what to do and when to do it. That is one thing we should not forget.
I am saying to you, sir, and to the Minister of National Defence that we have a war to fight all right-but not with arms, at the

Supply-National Defence moment. We have wars to fight across the world today. One of the greatest wars is fighting communism. Does the minister expect to fight communism with an atomic bomb? Does he expect to kill with an atomic bomb the idea that communism is better than the free, democratic world in which we live? He does not believe that for one single moment; nobody does. But what are we doing? We are arming ourselves in case somebody from the other side decides to take over this part of the world. But we sit and wait; we do not want to be an aggressor. I know why: It is because deep down in our hearts we know we will not attain any kind of goal by trying to destroy the eastern bloc with arms of any kind. The eastern bloc idea is for communism to creep throughout the world by one method, and it is going to creep into Canada if we let things go that far. They try to spread communism through our own social security, through our own misery at home, through hunger and misunderstanding. This is when they come in with the magic formula. This is how they got into some of the satellite countries of Russia. This is how communism got into Russia itself. This is how it is creeping now into the countries of South America where hunger prevails.
In this connection I would refer to statistics of the last world war. These are not my statistics; our dominion bureau of statistics can give them to you. They were produced by an international bureau of statistics, I imagine, although I do not know where they were picked up from. All I look at are the the figures they give me. They took long enough picking them up, so I am not going back to find out where they came from. With regard to the last world war, more people died in one day from hunger during the world crisis than during the worst week of the war. We fought the war but we forgot to fight this monster that was with us during the last world crisis. There are still signs and pangs of it here today. We sent our Canadian troops over to defend this nation, and they did it proudly. But they wanted to defend something else; they did not want only to defend us from the enemy, or prevent the enemy coming over here. They fought hoping that this country would continue to progress; that this country would be able to give three meals a day to the people living in it. They fought for these ideals, just as Americans did for America and as the English did for England.
I think the Minister of National Defence, who is primarily concerned with this business


of warfare, should give some thought to this. I am sure he has already, but I would ask him to extend his thinking and meditation in this way. If he does I assure him he will have the best army which ever existed either on this continent or anywhere else, on the day we stop thinking in terms of who is stronger in the military field, and start thinking about who is stronger in understanding human beings.
We sometimes forget here the principles with which we were born. Until these principles are restored to their right place, no matter what kind of army or nuclear forces exist they will not be strong enough to appease the uprisings which occur across the world. More and more these uprisings, both in the past as well as today, are caused by hunger and social insecurity, and in many cases by regulations imposed by governments. There is enough in this world for everyone to live on, and it is up to us to distribute these goods to each and every one.
Someone has said that war contributes only to the well-being of those who manufacture or purchase war materials, and I agree with that. As a result of the last world war we were left billions of dollars in debt. A lot of Canadians were literally slaughtered, as was the growing youth of other nations. Who profited from the war? A few more millionaires came into being, but that is all; everybody else is still paying for it. Sometimes we forget that during the ten years preceding the war we needed to look down to each individual's needs and problems of the moment. We have a little insecurity in our own country at the present time. We hear talk of extremism on one side or the other, and of separatism. But if we looked at the heart of the problem we would see we had forgotten something. If this parliament has also forgotten, let it say "Mea culpa" and try and correct the situation as soon as possible.
In my own province there is an area where there is social insecurity now-the closing of a mine with consequent unemployment. Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that these people are worried about how many bombs we have or how many nuclear arms there are on NATO soil? They are more worried about whether they are going to eat tomorrow morning. If they are left in that state we will not be worrying for long about NATO; we will be worrying about the guys who come up to Ottawa and perhaps cause more turmoil than we already have. This is because of the social insecurity there is at home and the economic gaps in the system which fail to provide the

people with the basic requirements, such as a home, security for their children and for their families. That is what they want. I think the government should look at this problem more closely.
I go along with the minister in reducing his defence budget. I congratulate him for this, although he has not reduced many of his activities. However, I hope he reduces his expenses a little more. He has integrated the forces. Let us hope they are all united in one group and that he will direct them to fight for this common problem across the world, the problem of hunger and misery. It is there, do not worry. Two thirds of the people in the world today go to bed at night starving, so something must be wrong. I think it is the responsibility of the government to discover what is wrong, to correct the mistake and to try to bring about a real peace both in our nation and in other nations.
I have referred to this particular aspect today, which has been left aside to a certain axtent in view of the fact that Remembrance day is approaching and has brought back to me memories of the things for which our brothers fought, and possibly that has inspired me to talk on this particular aspect of national defence, our responsibility to this nation and to the world. If the minister has not got any, I have many books I would gladly lend him written by independent authors, writers, businessmen, leaders and nation leaders across the world, past and present, all of them dealing exactly with this subject. So far many governments have turned a deaf ear to this sort of plea, and thus caused international crises, calamities and wars. I think it is the responsibility of the government at least to open its ears and to listen to what nations and the people in them have to say; because when one listens to the social worker, the labourer, the civil servant at the bottom of the ladder, the farmers and their children, the housewife, and so on, and hears their grievances, he can be pretty sure that he has reached the heart of the nation. That is where the strength of a nation lies. That is where the best national defence you could ever hope for lies. Destroy it and you have not even got a country to defend.
That is where I should like the Minister of National Defence to concentrate his efforts, along with those of his colleagues in the cabinet, and give peace of mind first of all to the people who need it, to the people who want it and to the people who are yelling and begging for it. When you do this you
Supply-National Defence will find you have the best national army you could ever want for a country, and it would be the best example we could give to the world to show that we can attain peace economically at home, and by the same means internationally, because the same thing would result if this were done in other countries as well as Canada.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, my first general criticism of the minister and the government with regard to defence could be summed up in the phrase that theirs is a record of big talk and small performance. The minister's publicity machine has been working overtime ever since he took office, and as a result the general public has been given the impression that great financial savings were being made and that great things were being accomplished in the way of increasing the efficiency of our defence forces, while ini actual fact expenditures have increased! rather than decreased and our general defence situation has steadily been weakened.
I object on general principles, and I object as far as defence matters are concerned in particular, to this kind of propaganda which gives the people of Canada a false picture of what is going on in matters of defence. It is the sort of thing which I hope the minister will stop. The Canadian people have been led to believe, as a result of statement after statement about savings to be made, that the minister was cutting down the cost of defence and thus making money available for other government purposes; or, perhaps of more interest to them, for making tax cuts.
The last speaker at one point complimented the minister for cutting down defence expenditure. That member is a member of the defence committee but he does not seem to realize that instead of defence expenditures being cut down they have actually been increased. This fact is indicated by a press release which came out only last week, on October 28. A Canadian press article by Dave McIntosh states in part as follows:
Defence spending in the 1963-64 fiscal year rose to its highest point in the last seven years, officials have disclosed.
Despite slashes in some navy and R.C.A.F. equipment programs, defence expenditures in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1964, amounted to $1,683,471,903, the biggest outlay on defence since the $1,759,426,000 spent in 1955-57 when the Liberal government was last in office.
This is a fact of which the general public has not the slightest inkling. I know as a result of some letters I have received and conversations I have had with several indi-
9860	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
viduals that the facts contained in this article struck them as a great shock. The situation as disclosed by this article was exactly opposite to what they had been led to believe by statements made by the minister about the general situation. They thought the reverse situation was true, and there would be quite a saving which could be applied in the form of tax cuts, or for some other purpose.
The article then continues as follows:
The Liberals, who again assumed power in April, 1963, have promised to reduce expenditures on defence department housekeeping-military personnel costs and operations and maintenance-and increase spending on new weapons in equipment.
But in the last fiscal year the trend was in the opposite direction. Military personnel costs rose-
Apparently equipment costs remained almost the same as they were, although they did rise slightly. The article then continues:
The defence budget for the current 1964-65 fiscal year is $1,526,000,000.
As I have said, more than seven months of the year have passed.
It calls for a cut of nearly $250,000,000 in personnel, operations and maintenance costs to $1,126,000,000, a figure which many officials now say they doubt will be achieved.
I do not think there is a doubt in the world that this will not be achieved. The reductions in strength which have taken place up to date, and seven months of this year have gone by, make it an impossibility that the estimates now before us for consideration will be sufficient to cover these costs. I do not think there is any question but that we will be faced later on with supplementary estimates, which when taken into consideration will show an increase in these costs. This article in the last sentence states:
The original 1963-64 defence estimate approved by parliament was $1,590,006,537. Actual defence expenditures were $93,464,466 higher.
The estimates for 1963-64 were prepared when I was minister, submitted to and received the approval of treasury board. However, the expenditures were made almost entirely during a period when the present minister was in office. He was the person responsible for this increase of some $90 million odd in the expenditures over what we had planned to spend for military purposes last year.
While this increase in expenditures was taking place, as I have said I will demonstrate by what I have to say in the next few minutes, our general military posture was steadily weakening, or decreasing. Before going on to some of those other matters I should like
[Mr. Harkness.j

to state that I am pleased that the white paper and the minister's statement have made it clear that our general defence policy of the past seven, eight or ten years is to be continued. That is, our strong support of NATO, NORAD and the United Nations will continue to be the basis of our defence policy.
The speakers who immediately preceded me, and who sit in the left hand corner of this chamber, have cast considerable doubt on the value of NATO and have advocated in some cases that we should put an end to our NATO expenditures and apparently leave our defence in the hands of the gods. What they do not seem to realize is that no country at the present time can look after its security except through an adherence to a system of alliances. No country, particularly one such as Canada, has adequate resources to look after its own defence entirely alone. The only way in which we can obtain a reasonable amount of protection and security is by combining with like-minded nations, pooling our resources with theirs, from a military point of view, and obtaining the maximum amount of security at a minimum cost. However, we cannot expect other countries of NATO or of the western world to protect us if we are not prepared to pay something for that protection. The idea that we should get a free ride in this regard is one which is not worthy of us as Canadians, and one which is completely irresponsible and pays no attention to what is the general situation in the world today.
There is no doubt that we must continue in our support of these three great alliances, and if we expect them to continue to be effective we must play our reasonable part, and by "reasonable part" I refer to one which is related to our population resources.
In actual fact this is one of our difficulties at the present time. The proportion of our manpower which we devote to military purposes to play our part in these alliances, particularly in the case of NATO, is considerably smaller than that of most of the other members. The proportion of our gross national product which we devote to military purposes for the support of NATO has been steadily decreasing year after year for quite a number of years. The proportion of our actual government expenses devoted to military purposes has been decreasing. Our position in NATO relative to our allies has been getting worse all the time, rather than the reverse.
The main question to be asked is whether we should not really be increasing the proportion of our resources which we devote to

these purposes in order to play our fair part in the defence of the entire west. One of the things I think we must also realize, but which is not realized by quite a number of people, is that our adherence to these alliances determines to a very considerable extent the size and the organization of our defence forces. We have assumed certain responsibilities to NATO, to NORAD and to the United Nations, and in order to meet those responsibilities we have provided and must continue to provide certain types of military forces. Everyone in the house I am sure is familiar with what those are, and I will not go into detail.
I should also like to note that I was pleased to hear the minister state this morning that the nuclear armament has now been supplied for the Bomarc, for some of the 104's, and for the Honest John battery, and that the armament for the 101 aircraft for the defence of Canada is expected to be supplied some time in the new year. This was one of the chief election pledges of the present government. I have been extremely surprised that they have been so slow in implementing it. I find it extremely difficult to understand why it has taken them a year and a half to implement this decision, and yet the 101's are not equipped with nuclear weapons. I believe this is an example of the slowness of the government in getting things done. Having taken the main decision to acquire nuclear weapons for weapons systems which were already in existence, I think the government has been deficient in the lack of speed they have shown in accomplishing that purpose.
Now, this is one case in which the general position of the defence force has been improved. However, in other directions we have been steadily falling behind so far as our commitments to NATO are concerned. I think the minister and most other members of the house are well aware of the fact that we are steadily and rapidly falling behind in the number of naval vessels which we have available or will have available in the years ahead to meet our responsibilities for our own local coastal defence and our commitments to NATO. This is a matter which has been of considerable concern to me because of the time lag between the institution of a naval building program and the time you actually get these ships into service. This time lag in the past has always run between four and five years. I think it is very doubtful whether there will be any improvement in the future. The present government scrapped the general purpose frigate program
Supply-National Defence which had been started, but has substituted nothing for it. The minister did say today that he hoped to be able to make an announcement in a few weeks about some naval rebuilding program. However, there will be a considerable time lag during which we will be deficient in meeting our naval responsibilities.
The same things applies so far as the Canadian air division in Europe is concerned. We had agreed to provide an air division of eight squadrons of CF-104's equipped for the strike-reconnaissance role, which meant nuclear equipment. This government has equipped six of those squadrons with nuclear weapons. The other two squadrons have been converted to the reconnaissance role and are going to be armed with some type of unknown or unspecified conventional weapons. What this means, in effect, is that the actual striking power of the air division has been reduced about 25 per cent, a very material reduction in our obligations to NATO so far as air power is concerned. It is all very well for the minister and his government to talk about meeting our commitments to NATO and other people, and they have to some extent met them as they said they would in regard to supplying some nuclear weapons for the weapons systems we have in Europe, but they have considerably reduced what we had agreed to provide. They are failing in this regard.
Another thing upon which I should like to comment is the closing down of a large number of military installations. Undoubtedly -I think nobody would argue this-this process really weakens our actual and potential military strength. I am quite prepared to agree that in some cases the closing down of these installations was justified in order to save money for expenditures in other lines. However, what I do object to is misrepresenting the situation by saying that the closing down of these military operations has actually improved our military situation. This is what the minister is constantly doing. I feel the minister should quite frankly lay the cards on the table and say, we have closed this installation, that one or the other, in order to save money for some other purpose because the total amount of money we have is limited. I think it is completely wrong to try to pretend that while you are doing this you are increasing your military effectiveness when, as a matter of fact, you are actually decreasing it.
9862	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
The reorganization of national defence headquarters is a matter upon which I spoke at considerable length when the bill providing the legal basis for that was before us. I do not propose to repeat what I said at that time except to say that, in my opinion, some basic mistakes were made. I refer particularly to the introduction of what has been called the supremo concept, having a single military adviser on whom the minister has to depend for all his military advice. I think the history of military organization in western Europe has shown clearly that this is not as good a system as the one we had, whereby you had a chief of staff for each service. I believe our future experience will show that this is the case.
I should like to say of course, and I think no one realizes it better than I do, that some reorganization was required at national defence headquarters. Parkinson's law had been at work there for many years, and certainly a reorganization was required. The present minister may recall that as long ago as when I was before in opposition, I used to be pointing out that this was a necessity, and pointing to some of the overgrown staffs, branches and what not. I might say that while I was minister I started on this process, as the minister is aware, by setting up a ministerial manpower commission whose job it was to survey the entire personnel set-up of national defence headquarters and to recommend how that could be reduced or reorganized. I have no doubt that perhaps a considerable amount of the work of that commission has proven useful in the reorganization which is going on there now. So far as the reorganization of national defence headquarters is concerned, I quite agree some reorganization was required. I do express reservations as to the way in which the reorganization is being carried out so far as some phases of it are concerned.
In so far as this matter of integration of the services is concerned, it has been quite apparent ever since the minister made his first statement in regard to the matter that there was no plan in existence so far as integration below national defence headquarters was concerned. This long delay in issuing a statement on what will happen below the level of national headquarters in Ottawa has given rise to a great deal of uncertainty on the part of serving personnel. There is nothing which produces decline of morale more rapidly than uncertainty, and it is extremely unfortunate there has been such a


long delay, with still no prospect of a statement being made.
This morning the minister said that stage two, the next step, would be integration of commands. However, he gave no indication what the term "integration of commands" means. If he has any plan with regard to it, then surely this is the place and now is the time to make it known, so that members of the committee may have an opportunity to express their opinions on it.
Neither has the defence committee been told what is to be done below the level of national defence headquarters. If there is any plan dealing with integration below the Ottawa level the time is long past when it should have been disclosed to hon. members.
From some of the statements made in recent months by the minister and the associate minister, I gather that what seemed to be the minister's original idea of rolling all the services into one bale or one pot, if it may be described that way, has now been seen to be an impractical and impossible proposition. You just cannot move a man from an army job to a naval or air force job, and I hope the minister now has firmly in his mind the fact that fighting units cannot be disturbed very much. They have to remain pretty well as they are. It is just an impossibility to switch an infantry officer to fly a jet plane, or anything else along that line.
I would like to hear what is planned concerning integration of the administrative services. There is no doubt this is the area in which integration can be carried forward with resultant considerable savings and, I would hope, an improvement in efficiency. I would urge the minister to make a statement on this matter.
Once more this morning the minister tried to give the impression, when speaking on equipment, that these were all new programs which he and the present government had instituted, and that the improvement which would result from them would be entirely due to this government. In actual fact in all cases they were programs which were instituted whilst the Conservative government was in office.
Dealing first with armoured personnel carriers, the minister is well aware that we had a program to produce these in Canada, but unfortunately it did not proceed as rapidly as everyone hoped it would. He scrapped that program and purchased armoured personnel carriers from the United States, and I have

no quarrel with that. In fact I am glad the personnel carriers will be delivered soon.
Heavy helicopters for the army were ordered and were in the course of production long before the minister assumed office, and the fact is that they are just now coming into service. The same situation applies to the anti-tank missile.
So far as the navy is concerned, the program to equip destroyer escorts with variable depth sonar was well under way before I ceased to be minister of national defence. Similarly, plans for the Oberon class submarine were advanced to the stage where they were just waiting for a final arrangement between the British government and ourselves which would involve the British buying some equipment from us. Research on a hydrofoil vessel and the production of a prototype had also been launched. There is nothing new in any of these things. We purchased four of the Hercules aircraft to see how they would work out, and if satisfactory said we would purchase more. They did prove satisfactory and now the program is proceeding.
I was glad to hear the minister say that the NORAD agreement will be renewed, thus setting at rest rumours which have been current in newspaper articles that it would not be renewed. I thoroughly agree with him that it is essential for us to play our part in this agreement for the joint defence of the North American continent.
The minister also said today that he hoped within a few weeks to be able to announce a shipbuilding program. Last week the associate minister made a statement which seemed to indicate that what is planned is some type of troop carrying vessel. If they are planning to build naval vessels which would have the primary function of transporting army personnel I hope that plan will not be proceeded with, because there could be no greater waste of naval funds than to build ships of that kind. Ordinary merchant vessels are available in large numbers and can always be secured in order to transport personnel whenever such a requirement arises.
Basically our navy has primarily been an antisubmarine navy, and its continuance in that role is confirmed by statements in the white paper. Therefore I hope the type of ship to be built will contribute toward that role, or if the role is to be changed we should be told so at this time instead of waiting until an announcement is made on the type of ship to be built, a type that might not contribute much to naval effectiveness even
Supply-National Defence though it would provide some work for our shipyards.
If what the associate minister had in mind was a type of naval aircraft carrier which could be adopted for carrying personnel, tanks and other equipment, and which could be used for various task force purposes, then this means a departure in the general policy which has been pursued so far as the navy is concerned, and we should be given an opportunity of discussing that.
I would like to say something about the reserve forces but I see my time is practically at an end, so I shall resume my chair and come back to that matter later.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: My remarks on
these estimates will be brief. It is not my intention to be repetitive, and therefore I shall not attempt to deal with subjects already dealt with by the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Edmonton West. However, I do want to ask the minister for a further explanation of his observations with regard to the integration program. I should like him to give, once and for all, a definition of what he means by integration. I should like him to say how far the program of integration is to go within the definition he gives. He did say that the unification of headquarters was in progress, that stage two would be the integration of commands and stage three the integration of schools. As I recall it, he stopped at that point. Are we to assume that this is the total picture, or are there to be stages four, five, six, and seven and so on which he did not mention, but which nevertheless he has in mind? If he does have further stages in mind, what are these stages? I believe the members of the various services are not completely sure what the future policy may be in this regard.
The minister mentioned savings which might accrue as a result of integration but, as has already been said, the term "savings" in this context is inaccurate. What the minister may have in mind is a direction of defence spending along different channels, with increased accent on certain types of expenditure and a reduction in other fields. I have no quarrel with this as long as it can be justified. But something which has been completely omitted from the minister's remarks is a reference to the cost of this reorganization. It is well and good to give the picture on one side of the coin only, but we must also have an idea of what this reorganization is costing in terms of extra expense having to
9864	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence do with the premature retirement of personnel, and so on. More important still is the cost in terms of the effort which is being expended at the present time on this reorganization and I should like to have some estimate of this cost if one has been made. I presume that at the present time a large number of personnel of all ranks are devoting a large part of their time, if not all of their time, to the solution of the problems caused by reorganization itself. This has to be placed on one side of the balance against the gains which are visualized on the other, because it is only net savings in which we are interested. If we were starting from scratch to set up a department of national defence and defence services, one system might have a considerable advantage over another. But it does not necessarily follow that there is any advantage in changing from one system to another. It is like remodelling the floor plan of a house; the cost may be greater than the advantages, or at least the cost has to be subtracted from the advantages gained.
The minister could not be expected to cover all the aspects of defence in the limited time available to him, but he omitted to mention in his remarks what progress has been made in the study which a special committee on antisubmarine warfare has been conducting. I may not have called the committee by its correct name, but I have a special interest in this subject; the committee is conducting a study of the proper mix of aircraft and naval units for the most effective conduct of antisubmarine warfare and coastal defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I referred to that in my statement.


John Angus MacLean: Only briefly; but I should like to have a fuller statement as to what changes in policy are contemplated as a result of this study. If there are changes involved I should also like to know whether the minister is in a position to spell them out accurately and in detail, and perhaps he would tell us at what point they will come into effect.
I intend to say a word now about a recent announcement of decisions by the department of defence with regard to the closing down of reserve units. As is generally known, committees were appointed, one for the air force, one for the navy and one for the army, to study the position of the reserve units in all three categories. In most cases the department accepted the recommendations of these committees though, of course, not in all cases.


I think it is unfortunate that the department did not see fit to accept the recommendation of the Hendy committee that H.M.C.S. Queen Charlotte, which happens to be in my constituency, should be continued. I am perhaps being parochial up to a point, but I say this because of wider interests. I think it is an unfortunate anomaly that our small province of Prince Edward Island should be the only province in Canada without any naval presence whatever, as will be the case when this unit is closed.
The unit has been in existence for about 40 years. It has an excellent record, and in this connection I might say that all the reserve units in Prince Edward Island have always received magnificent support from the general population. As a matter of fact, on a per capita basis, compared with the country as a whole the number of people who have over the years entered the militia and the other reserve units is about three times as great as the national average. I admit at once of course that there are areas in Canada where the opportunity to join the reserve forces is not as great. However, this particular reserve force had a magnificent record during the last war. I cannot quote this as an accurate figure but I believe more than 150 naval officers who had been members of the Queen Charlotte before world war II or in the early days of world war II served in the Canadian navy during that war. This is a magnificent contribution to the war effort to come from such a small unit as this, and I believe it is unfortunate that the unit has been done away with.
I have an uneasy feeling that when the Hendy committee was appointed to deal with this subject the public was told that it had been appointed to give advice to the department as to how the money spent on these units could be used to the best advantage so that as many as possible should be kept in existence. However, the fact seems to be that the committee was actually formed so as to give these reserve navy units a decent burial, as it were. To continue the analogy, the people who thought they were being called in as medical advisers found that their duties were actually those of pallbearers. In the Hendy report I find this statement on page 27:
While no official decision on this will be reached until-
He is speaking of the naval reserve divisions:
-the report of the militia commission is completed it is certainly obvious that the militia are looking forward to the acquisition and use

of the buildings which the naval divisions have been directed to surrender.
Yet the government was trying to create the impression that no final decision had yet been taken and these reports were being asked for in good faith. The Hendy committee had this to say about H.M.C.S. Queen Charlotte, and I will quote briefly:
This division located in a provincial capital and on salt water would be expected to have naval facilities established in emergency. The division is admirably located overlooking the harbour with communication facilities. It is not, however, using its building anywhere near to maximum use for defence purposes... .It is believed the militia also wish to acquire this building and it would seem that some space sharing arrangement is feasible here as in other centres. This will, of course, have to await findings of the militia commission. As the division will not be closed until December first of this year, it would seem that there would be no problem in entering into consultation and making concrete proposals at a later date, but it is certainly the committee's recommendation that every effort be made to retain this division because of its particular situation although a complement probably not more than 15 officers, 50 men and 10 Wrens is indicated and this should be borne in mind in determining the utilization and allocation of costs between the various users.
However, when the commission on the reorganization of the army reported, the report indicated that it contemplated having all the militia units that were to survive in Charlottetown housed in H.M.C.S. Queen Charlotte. I can only draw two conclusions from this: Either the army reorganization committee knew beforehand that the government was going to close down Queen Charlotte and therefore it was available to them, or there is still room in H.M.C.S. Queen Charlotte for the naval reserve unit as well as a militia unit. If that is the case, the justification for closing down H.M.C.S. Queen Charlotte is reduced. The explanation that was given the other day in committee seemed to be that this was just a question of mind-reading; one did not happen to know what the other was doing and it was a case of serendipity and just happened this way. This, in my mind, does not quite wash. I do not want to say any more about that, Mr. Chairman. I have lodged my statement of non-approval of what has been done in this connection, and I believe I am not alone in this respect, because this view is shared not only by the people who are interested in the naval reserve as such but by the general population of Prince Edward Island. With regard to the militia reorganization, I have no particular quarrel with the reorganization as it affects my own constituency or Prince Edward Island generally. I think it was recognized that these are on the
Supply-National Defence whole excellent units and there was a minimum of reduction in the establishment there. I want to express my appreciation of that fact.
However, in the wider view I think it is unfortunate-the minister may wonder why I have any particular interest in this, but I did live in Vancouver for a year on one occasion-that the recommendation of the militia commission with regard to the Irish Fusiliers in Vancouver was not accepted. I say this because, perhaps only by coincidence, the Irish regiment in Toronto is also one of the units which got the chop, and I believe there are two other cases of units which have an historic association with some particular groups of citizens or people of some particular racial origin, at least technically. I think it is unfortunate that two of the Irish units in Canada should be wiped out at the same time. It is true that they have only nominally been disbanded. What has happened to them is that they have been transferred to the supplementary order of battle, which is a polite way of saying that they are going to be sort of embalmed to give the impression that they are still alive-the same idea as Lenin's tomb in Moscow, or something of this sort.
As far as I can read this, it has no significance whatsoever except that these units will probably be represented by some dead files in a filing cabinet somewhere in headquarters and perhaps they will have the honour of having their colours deposited in a church somewhere, and their silverware and this sort of thing may still be retained in the armouries they originally occupied. But as far as I can see, as units it is just a figure of speech to say they have been transferred to the supplementary order of battle. They just do not exist-unless it means that if at some future date there should be an expansion of the militia, these units would have priority with regard to being revived. If that is the case, it makes a little bit of sense and there is some shred of consolation for the people who are particularly interested in them.
I would like the minister to clarify that small point. I would have hoped there would be a little more awareness of the fact that these reserve units have a special meaning to the civilian population who have served in them from time to time. This may be brushed aside as foolish sentiment; but it is well to remember that the greatest military exploits of all time and the finest units in all armies of all time had this bit of sentiment, which meant the difference between being just a good,
986S

Supply-National Defence efficient unit and a superb one. That is all I have to say at the moment, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, there will not be time for me to complete my remarks today in just the 20 minutes remaining, but I can make a start on them. I echo the disappointment my colleagues have mentioned in regard to the statement made by the minister today. My seatmate, the hon. member for Queens, was just too charitable; he said it was unfortunate that the minister did not have more time to complete his statement. On the introduction of estimates the committee has never refused an extension of time to ministers making statements with regard to their departments; so the minister was not limited to 30 minutes. In fact, he should have gone on, and the committee would have welcomed a complete, comprehensive statement with regard to the policy of the Department of National Defence, with regard to the efficiency of the forces at the present time, with regard to our commitments overseas and with regard to the most recent announcement concerning the reorganization of the Canadian militia.
I said at the conclusion of his remarks that it was a shocking omission not to say something today about the proposed reorganization of the Canadian militia, and I will deal with that on the next occasion these estimates come before us. Because to omit any reference today, when the minister's estimates are before the committee for the first time in this calendar year, to the Canadian militia, who received a very severe blow within the last week, is inexcusable. There was not one word of thanks from the Minister of National Defence to the militia, who have served this country from its origin and who are serving the country at the present time. No ray of hope was given to those who are in doubt today as to what may be their future. That is an attitude on the part of the Minister of National Defence that cannot be excused, and I hope that some of my colleagues will deal at length with that subject in the future.
When the former minister of national defence, the hon. member for Calgary North, was speaking a few minutes ago he drew attention to the sham surrounding the present Minister of National Defence and his department. He mentioned the fact-we have drawn attention to this matter before but I reiterate it-that we have had a great press personal relations build-up of an incompetent Minister of National Defence. We have had statements on the radio and on television and


press stories about what this man was to do. But what have been the accomplishments in the year and a half in which this minister has been in office? There has been a great ballyhoo across the country about the savings which were going to be made. As the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out, the expenditure in the last fiscal year was the highest for seven years. What saving has been effected in the fiscal year 1963-64? What saving is going to be effected in the fiscal year 1964-65? The estimates placed before us -the main estimates plus a supplementary estimate-indicate that on the basis of the very large figures for the preceding fiscal year there will be a saving of $100 million odd. I suggest that by the time further supplementary estimates have reached us, either this month, next month or in January, February or March, there will be an even higher expenditure in the Department of National Defence than in the last fiscal year.
How is the minister to live up to his promises unless there is more money available? This pretence that he is saving money by chopping off militia units, closing down establishments, retiring officers of long service on three months' notice and reducing the total strength of our forces represents no effective saving which has been shown to us today; it is only a transfer of expenditure from one area to another.
The minister told us a year and a half ago when explaining this matter to us in the house-he repeated it when we had the white paper in front of us and then when we had the bill setting up his supremo-that unless something were done immediately the amount of money available for replacement of equipment for the navy, army and air force would not be forthcoming but that all the money would be utilized to pay the personnel who are in the services plus the housekeeping charges. We are fully aware of that; there was to be a decrease in the amount of money available for equipment. But the minister has tried to mislead the Canadian people to the extent that he was going to make such savings on housekeeping, on streamlining the forces and increasing efficiency-these are some of his own words-that he would have money available for equipment.
About a year and a half ago he reported in one of these magnificent press releases that he was entering upon a 60 day period of decision during which he was going to place orders for equipment for the navy, the army and the air force. He is still fiddling around with this. Where are these orders

for new equipment for the services? Except for certain transport planes and for armoured personnel carriers and anti-tank weapons there has been none. What about the navy? What are we going to do about the air force, with the long range policy which is planned for it? In wartime we used to have a branch of the army known as the camouflage branch. The minister should be colonel in chief of a reactivated camouflage branch of the Department of National Defence, because I say that this matter has been camouflaged. He has pretended to the Canadian people that enormous savings were being made without decrease in efficiency, when this has not in fact resulted. I question very much, as did the hon. member for Calgary North, whether the efficiency of our fighting forces has been maintained.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me indicate some of the deception to which we have been subjected over these last two years. It is just about two years since the Minister of National Defence and the present Prime Minister were talking in this house about defence policy and what they were going to do when they got into office. All you have to do, Mr. Chairman, is to look back to the session of 1962-63, where you will find some of the statements made by these gentlemen at that time. I wonder whether the Minister of National Defence thinks as much of his vaunted Bomarcs now as he did two years ago. Two years ago, or almost two years ago-February 4, 1963-he said, as reported at page 3429 of Hansard:
Mr. McNamara has not much more faith in it than I have.
That was in speaking of the Bomarc. Almost two years ago he had no faith in the Bomarcs. Now he has equipped them with nuclear weapons. What faith has he got in them at the present time? They are sitting ducks for the first missile to attack this continent in the event of nuclear war. I asked the minister several questions during the course of the last two or three months about the arming of our forces. I asked him whether nuclear missiles had been provided for the Honest John battery in Europe; whether the 104 air division over there had nuclear missiles; whether the Voodoo planes in Canada had nuclear missiles. All these things were going to be attended to. They told us that these matters should have been done by February, 1963. They said we were not living up to our commitments and that these missiles and nuclear devices were to be supplied. To the questions which I asked the min-
Supply-National Defence ister, his reply in the summer was that they had not been supplied or that he did not know whether they had. It is only recently that he has informed us that the Honest John battery in Europe may now be provided with nuclear missiles. Why were they not provided when this minister took office in April, 1963? If we were in default, and those are the words he used in February, 1963, the present government stayed in default until just a few weeks ago.
What about the nuclear weapons for the 104's in Europe? Have nuclear weapons been supplied to that great air division? I asked the minister that question some time ago and his explanation was that the air division was operative. He did not say it had nuclear missiles. I wanted to know whether the aircraft of that division were on alert stations with nuclear weapons attached to the aircraft. He just said the air division was operative. Perhaps he will answer that question now. Are nuclear weapons available for our air squadron in Germany? Are some of the aircraft sitting at action alert with nuclear bombs attached to their fuselages? The minister does not answer my questions. All we are told is that the air division is operative.
I asked him a question about the two squadrons in France which are not armed with nuclear weapons or with conventional weapons. His answer was that the photographic equipment used by those squadrons constituted armament. I do not know what sort of a missile or bullet could be fired from a camera, but that was his answer. He said we were in default in respect of our alleged commitments, when speaking in this house in February, 1963. He had been over to Europe and was talking about the nuclear equipment of the air division and said, as reported at page 3427 of Hansard:
We were also told that the first squadron was intended to go on target on May 1, 1963 and that in order to go on target a bilateral agreement would have to be signed with the United States by November 1-
That was November 1, 1962. Then he continued as follows:
-NATO headquarters in Europe puts a very high priority on that particular project. The infrastructure, as it is called, the runway extensions and the ammunition depots to contain these weapons were being built under top NATO priority. It was being considered by the supreme commander and his associates to be an urgent matter because it was recognized that Canada, at the time we were there in November, was in default.
That reference is also November, 1962.

Supply-National Defence
The minister then went on to state:
Well, if we were in default then we are that much more in default at the present time.
The minister made those statements on February 4, 1963. I state to the minister that we were in worse default from the time he took office in April, 1963 until just a few weeks ago than at any time when we had the responsibility for our NATO commitments.
The present minister retired the Sabre jets from the air division in Europe before the 104's had been completely delivered, ready for operations, and before missiles were provided. For almost one year the air division in Europe could not even fire a peanut; it had no weapons at all. That is not the proper action of a responsible minister of defence. We have yet to receive the requested information in this regard.
I have mentioned this situation before, but what I say very frequently does not get the same attention given to statements of the Minister of National Defence and the minister of external affairs. I remember very well that in November and December of 1962, as well as January, 1963, great pictures and stories appeared in the newspapers with headings such as "Honest John Battery in Europe Unarmed''; "104 Aircraft in Europe Unarmed"; "Voodoo Planes in Canada Unarmed".
Canada's defence situation was indicated to the Canadian people as being absolutely incomplete, yet for a space of almost one year the air division in Europe, presently equipped with 104 aircraft, had no weapons to discharge. Did any of you see in the newspapers of this country, the weekly and other magazines, stories about the unarmed air division in Europe?
What about the Voodoo aircraft in Canada? They have not been armed yet with the nuclear missiles about which this minister complained so much when he was sitting on this side of the house. These aircraft were to be equipped immediately for the protection of Canada. In the event there was an air attack we would be caught without missiles on the Bomarc and our Voodoos would not be able to intercept because they were not armed with the required missiles. A period of 18 months has elapsed since this minister took office, yet the Voodoos are still unarmed so far as nuclear missiles are concerned, which he said were so essential to the protection of Canada.


What is the situation in Toronto and Montreal, where the newspapers which carried those headings about unprotected cities were published? The stories suggested that the cities were unprotected because the Conservative government failed to arm the Voodoos with nuclear missiles. Those cities have been unprotected since and are unprotected at this moment.
It being five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps a good time to resume my seat.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to a consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-62, to amend the House of Commons Act (Speaker on dissolution).
He said: Mr. Speaker, after having come into this house as a member of the opposition in 1962, and then after having come back into the house after the election in 1963 as a member of the government party-


Harold Edward Winch: Does that make a difference?


Eugene Whelan: It does in this party-I was amazed to find out how this institution we call parliament was run. One of the things that amazed me was the power of the Speaker. It is a constitutional principle of our form of government that a Speaker of the house lives and dies with the house. This principle is incorporated in section 44 of the British North America Act which provides:
The House of Commons on its first assembling after a general election shall proceed with all practicable speed to elect one of its members to be Speaker.
In these few words, there are three constitutional conventions which are as follows:
1.	There can be no Speaker during a dissolution and this vacancy continues until the newly elected House of Commons first assembles;
2.	The house, when it first assembles after a general election, cannot exercise any of its rights, prerogatives, privileges, jurisdictions and duties which are normally in the trusteeship of the Speaker except one, the right to elect the Speaker;

3.	The Speakership dies when the house is dissolved because the Speaker must be a member, and when the house dissolves there are no members.
Except by amending our constitution, we cannot depart from the principle that there is no Speaker of the house during a dissolution of parliament. This is so because section 18 of the British North America Act provides:
The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by act of the parliament of Canada, but so that any act of the parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers, exceeding those at the passing of such act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the commons house of parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.
When we refer to the constitutional position in the United Kingdom, which we cannot exceed, we find that in 1704 the house of lords and the house of commons jointly agreed as follows:
That neither house of parliament have power, by any vote or declaration, to create to themselves new privileges, not warranted by the known laws and customs of parliament.
In the light of these authorities, it is not constitutional for our Speaker to continue as Speaker during dissolution. The constitutional position of the Speaker is recognized in section 15 of the House of Commons Act. This section provides:
The person who fills the office of Speaker at the time of any dissolution of parliament shall, for the purpose of the following provisions of this act, be deemed to be the Speaker until a Speaker is chosen by the new parliament.
The person who is designated in this manner is authorized to prepare and sign the house estimates and to deal with misconduct or unfitness of employees. It is obvious that these powers are only the barest minimum necessary to keep the internal economy of the house functioning. It is obvious also that the person so designated is deemed to be Speaker only for the purpose of status in signing the estimates prepared by the Clerk of the House and Sergeant-at-Arms. The power of disciplining employees is that held by any deputy minister of a department, in this case the Clerk of the House.
There are other statutes which name the Speaker and in which it is not clear whether, constitutionally, they can apply to the Speaker during a dissolution. For example, I cite section 10 of the House of Commons Act respecting a vacancy after a general election;
House of Commons Act the Controverted Elections Act, the Library of Parliament Act, and others.
In 1936 the question of the status of a Speaker, so-called, during a dissolution was referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections. The reference was moved by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King on March 23, 1936, in the following terms:
That the standing committee on privileges and elections be instructed to inquire into, study and report on, the usages, customs and practices respecting the status of the Speaker of the House of Commons during the period of time which may elapse between any dissolution of the House of Commons and the assembly of a new parliament, and in particular the rights, prerogatives, privileges, jurisdiction and duties ordinarily and customarily exercised by the Speaker under such circumstances in previous years in Canada;
And, also, the status of clerks, officers, messengers or other persons attendant on the House of Commons, distinguishing between such persons as are permanent officers and such as are temporary and those whose duties are of a sessional character;
And the right and proper procedure to be adopted with respect to the retention or dismissal of any such employees;
And that the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day, as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and members of the house.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this reference was made to the standing committee on privileges and elections as a result of the action of the Speaker in dismissing some employees before a new Speaker had been appointed. One of the main reasons for drafting this bill was, as I said, some of the things I learned after coming back into parliament in 1963. Before the session opened that year I was in my office in the west block and, to my amazement, I heard some strange noises in the hall. I wondered who was making these noises. These noises were made by a former minister of the crown and the former Speaker, which I thought was rather strange at the time. The Speaker was checking on the offices, who was in them, how long they had been in these offices, and so on. I asked him what he was doing, and he said he was still the Speaker of the house and still had these powers. I wondered at that time how a person could be appointed a minister of the crown and still be the Speaker of the house, a position that is held in high regard and beyond patronage and political influence. I wondered how a person could be the Speaker, then a minister of the crown, and then go back to being the Speaker. This is why I feel that when the house is dissolved this responsibility should go to the Clerk of the House in whom we have the utmost confidence, and

House of Commons Act we actually state he has this authority now. I urge the house to adopt this bill so that we will not again have this type of operation during dissolution of parliament.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is rather an odd bill and I hope I will not be considered a little too equivocal in regard to it. I think it is a good idea to bring it forward, but I certainly do not agree with the hon. member and I think a lot of the premises on which he has founded his arguments fall to the ground.
For the purposes of historical accuracy I might inform him that the reference to the committee of the duties of the Speaker did not come about as a result of the actions of the Speaker who was then carrying on, but as a result of the actions of the man who ultimately was to become Speaker, he having moved into the House of Commons a week or ten days before being elected to office and summarily fired some 129 people who were on the staff.
I can also tell the hon. gentleman that if he reads enough of the 1935 Hansard he will find that on the occasion of the election of the Speaker both the prime minister, Mr. King, and the leader of the opposition, Mr. Bennett, gave some very good definitions and descriptions of the office of Speaker, and I would commend them to the hon. member for his edification. It is a matter of historical record that the election of the Speaker of the day was unopposed, on a recorded vote, on condition that the matter be referred to a committee. May I also say that though the election was recorded on division, something which is rather strange, the persons involved were restored to the staff and some of them are still members of the staff.
I think it was unfortunate that the continuing Speaker of the day did not stand by the authority that was granted to him by the act because there would not have been all that difficulty or, shall we say, degradation of the office by another man who had been a member of the house for a considerable length of time and who decided he was going to wield a very heavy patronage axe. Therefore if the hon. member is using the incident of 1935 in order to buttress his arguments, the complete contrary is the result.
I would suggest that one of the strongest arguments is that this is one of those areas in which there should be no vacuum. Again, however, I quarrel with the language of the bill because the hon. member limits it to the Senate and the House of Commons Act, and the requirements of the Financial Ad-


ministration Act must be taken into account. The Speaker is the only person authorized to sign the estimates and confirm certain appointments to the staff.
There is nothing incongruous in the Speaker's continuing in office. After all, a minister continues in office even though he ceases to be a member. So far as the house is concerned the Speaker is in the equivalent position of a minister, and there is nothing that says a minister must be a member of the house, although he cannot take his seat in it unless he be a member.
The hon. member may not be aware that in 1962 the Speaker of the house, the former member for St. Paul's, was defeated in the election, yet he administered the affairs of the house until the very day that I was elected Speaker. Thank goodness he did. I do not know if the hon. member some day aspires to that office, but may I assure him that having the counsel and advice of a continuing Speaker in office is of the greatest importance to a new Speaker.
Another incident that the hon. gentleman has missed occurred in 1953 when Mr. Speaker Macdonald, on dissolution of parliament, was appointed to the other place and appointed solicitor general, yet he continued as Speaker and carried out the functions of that office. May I also inform the hon. gentleman that the position I found myself in, in 1963, was referred for opinion to the law officers of the crown and it was found to be perfectly regular with no disability on my part. As a matter of fact, parliament having been dissolved there was nothing to prevent my taking the position of a minister of the crown without resigning the position of Speaker, because the position had fallen vacant, saving and excepting for the purposes of section 15 and also the requirements of the Financial Administration Act. Certainly the affairs of the house had to be administered by a member, and the person who carries out those functions is a member of the house.


Mr. Olson:: Not during dissolution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He is a member of the house. He is the man who is carrying on. This is not something that existed only in 1963. It existed in 1962, in 1957, in 1953 and in 1949. In 1945, Mr. Speaker Glen went into the ministry and in 1949, when parliament resumed, Mr. Speaker Fauteux took his seat as an ordinary member until he was appointed to the office of lieutenant governor a matter of a few months after returning to

parliament. But he did act in that period between the dissolution of parliament and the election of Mr. Speaker Macdonald in 1949 or early in 1950.
I have no precise knowledge of what happens in the United Kingdom but I would be the most surprised man in the world if there the clerk were to become speaker pro tern. At no time do we consider an administrator or a deputy minister as eligible to take on the duties of a minister, certainly, within the statutes which parliament has determined. He may, of course, make certain decisions, but under the terms of the Financial Administration Act he would have no power to sign documents, which can only be signed by a minister or an acting minister. This is why we have acting ministers-so that there may be someone who can act at ministerial level. Again, with the Clerk of the House in the chair, I feel that when we come to the election of a Speaker there is a neat point about rulings at that time. The Clerk of the House simply presides in a silent way during the election of Mr. Speaker. He is not the presiding officer of this house. All he does is to read out the letter summoning hon. members to the bar of the other house to attend upon the deputy of His Excellency in order that they may receive instructions from him to elect themselves a Speaker. Then the Clerk of the House is merely in the position of indicating to hon. members that they may have the floor if they wish to propose candidates for the office. Beyond that, the Clerk has no power in this house. He is not in a position to make any decision affecting the members and I would say that in my opinion we would be placing the Clerk of the House as such in a most invidious position were he elevated to a position of authority and protocol as far as the Speakership is concerned.
As I say, there have been other proposals from time to time that there should be a permanent Speaker of this house-that he should be a kind of supra-official, not a member of the house. That is in the same category. But if we stick to the principle that Mr. Speaker should be a member of this house, then I put it to hon. members that it is the Speaker who was in the chair at the time of the dissolution of parliament who should continue to fill the office until a new Speaker has been elected by the house.
As far as the ministry is concerned, again, for the purposes of the Financial Administration Act, if unfortunately there should be a decease or a resignation, a vacation of office for some such reason, then an acting minister
House of Commons Act takes over, not a deputy minister. I put it to hon. members that this practice should continue and I think it is far better for the administration of the affairs of this country that Mr. Speaker who occupied the chair at the time of dissolution should continue to discharge the duties of that office which it is necessary for him to discharge. With all due respect to the Clerk of the House, he is not Mr. Speaker, and therefore Mr. Speaker should continue in office until he is replaced.
After all, there is always a possibility that Mr. Speaker will be re-elected. This happens usually if the administration continues. There is nothing to bar him even if there is a change, though we know of the practical difficulties which may arise. It does happen. In 1957-58 it would have been ludicrous to have Mr. Speaker Michener stand down for all purposes and then come back immediately the new parliament was re-opened in May, 1958 to be re-elected. The same applied to Mr. Speaker Lemieux who carried on for more than one parliament.
So, with the greatest of respect to the hon. member who has put forward this idea, I think that for a multitude of reasons it would be preferable on balance to continue the present arrangement. Since the burden of showing the desirability of change is upon the hon. member who is proposing a change to the house, I suggest the hon. member has failed to discharge that burden, the reasons he has advanced being insufficient.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) by the introduction of this bill has focused our attention upon a problem. However, I do not feel that the terms of his bill solve that problem and I think there are manifest reasons why the bill in its present form should not be passed by the house.
At the same time I do not suggest that we simply talk the matter out. It seems to me this is a subject which might well be considered-I mean the subject itself, not the hon. member's precise proposal-and at the end of my remarks I intend to move an appropriate amendment. As a matter of fact, hon. members who know the composition of the special committee on procedure and organization will not be surprised if I say that my good friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) knows of the amendment I am about to move and is prepared to be named as its seconder. I may say at this very moment that the purpose of the amendment I shall move will be to refer the subject matter of this
9872	HOUSE OF
House of Commons Act
bill to the special committee on procedure and organization, which has already indicated in a report to the house that the question of the Speakership is among the items on its agenda.
I suggested that the hon. member is perfectly right in pointing out that this is a problem. As he has told us, under the terms of the British North America Act a person cannot be Speaker of the House of Commons with all the rights and privileges which pertain to that office when there is no House of Commons of which he can be a member. But he has also pointed out that the functions which Mr. Speaker carries on after dissolution and before a new Speaker is elected are not the functions of Mr. Speaker in this chamber; they are the administrative functions set out in the House of Commons Act, in the Financial Administration Act, and so on. Nevertheless there is a bit of a problem that it would seem wise for us to look at.
However, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is unfair for me to say, basing my remarks on what the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) himself said, that there seems to be some feeling on his part that things were not handled quite properly during the period of time when the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was, if I may say it affectionately, a lame duck Speaker. The hon. member knows what I mean by that. I refer to the period of time when he was no longer Mr. Speaker of the house but was administratively the Speaker. If the bill is being introduced on the basis of some kind of a grudge over what happened, I do not think this is a very good basis on which to ask us to change an important piece of legislation. Therefore, if there is something to look at, let us look at it in a more calm light than is suggested by this basis.
I also think there is something in what the hon. member for Edmonton West said about this bill in so far as it refers to the Clerk of the House of Commons. I wonder if it is fair to the Clerk, in view of the responsibility that he carries as the permanent head of the administration-the deputy minister, as it were-to ask him to assume for a certain period of time what would amount to a position of minister. Certainly I would want some opportunity to discuss this with the present Clerk before we impose such a duty on him. As the hon. member for Edmonton West said, there is some relationship between the situation here, where we have a Speaker and a Clerk, and the depart-


ments of government, where we have a minister and a deputy minister. No one would suggest that in the absence of a minister for any reason whatsoever, the deputy minister should become the minister. Is it not, therefore, a bit strange to suggest that the deputy head of the House of Commons administration should become the head for that period of time?


Harold Edward Winch: It would make it political, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would also involve the Clerk, as my hon. friend from Vancouver East suggests to me, in decisions which, whether it is correct or not so to designate them, are sometimes thought to be political. The administrative things that the person acting as Speaker has to attend to after an election, between an election and the first meeting of parliament, even such matters as the allocation of rooms, secretarial staff, seating arrangements in the House of Commons and appointments, can certainly seem to have political connections.
I know that I had to deal with Mr. Speaker Michener on the question of seating arrangements after the 1962 election. I had to deal with Mr. Speaker Michener-at least, I tried to deal with him.-on the question of our trying to create a vacancy so that our leader could come into the house. I had to deal with Mr. Speaker Lambert after the 1963 election on one or two of those same issues. Actually, I did not get satisfaction from either of those two Speakers, but that is beside the point. The issues I was raising then were admittedly political in character.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You did not get all you wanted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Edmonton West says I did not get all that I wanted. That is a fair comment. But I think it would have been most unfair for me to have to place these matters before a permanent official such as the Clerk of the House; in other words, to present him with issues which would in effect be political in character. Therefore I believe there is a lot in this question that has to be looked into.
Also, as the hon. member for Edmonton West has pointed out, there is discussion in the country about the possibility of our achieving something in the nature of a permanent Speakership. I am afraid that phrase is a bit of a misnomer. If we ever achieve it, it will not actually be permanent, but what we may achieve some day is a tradition whereby a Speaker continues from one parlia-

ment to the next, and I hope such a tradition may some day be established. Twice in our history, in the case of Mr. Speaker Lemieux and in the case of Mr. Speaker Michener, the Speaker did get elected to the chair in a second parliament.
It seems to me this is not the time to try to disturb the present statute by seeking to pass a bill like this during the course of this one private members' hour. As I have already pointed out, the fact is that the subject of the speakership is on the agenda of the special committee on procedure and organization. It is not a secret; this agenda was given to the House of Commons in the first report made to the house by that special committee and it is listed there in black and white. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we should not prejudge this issue by a decision made here at this time, but rather that we should refer this question and all its various angles and aspects to that committee. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson):
That Bill No. C-62 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special committee on procedure and organization.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to make it clear now that I had no personal grudge against the former Speaker of this house. I said there was noise outside my room. He never bothered me in my office. There would have been a lot more noise if he had. But I could not for the life of me see how a minister of the crown could go back to being Speaker, because as far as I can see there is no way we can get away from the fact that he would not be neutral to the extent that the Speaker should be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since this is not a point of order, perhaps the hon. member could make his remarks by speaking to my motion.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in seconding this motion to refer the subject matter of this bill to the special committee on procedure and organization. I want to say at the outset that, although I see some merit in the bill that has been presented to the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan), it does not in my view take care of the entire problem and, as has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it seems perhaps unfair to expect the house to deal with
House of Commons Act this matter in one hour and delve into all the details of the problems and the possible solutions without having the matter referred to a committee where we can call witnesses for advice.
I think Bill No. C-62 does, in its intentions, tidy up some anomalies perhaps in the official position of Speaker during dissolution, and certainly we should be concerned about it. I should say, also, that some consideration is being given to taking care of the anomalies that we have and the contradictions in the law. For example, the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) quite properly pointed out that under the British North America Act the House of Commons shall appoint or elect one of its members to be the Speaker. There is a contradiction here. All of us know that as of dissolution there are no members of the House of Commons. Therefore if the Speaker must be a member of the house there appears to be some contradiction.
It has been argued that ministers of the crown carry on after dissolution; but it has also been pointed out that ministers of the crown do not have to be members of the House of Commons. Therefore I do not believe that this parallel takes care of the situation. I do not believe in many other respects that there are differences between the position of Speaker, so far as one administering what may be termed the legislative branch of government, and that of a minister of a department, although they are not quite the same.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) contended that he checked with the law officers of the crown during that period between dissolution and the next session of parliament to make sure that he did in fact have the authority to carry on the duties of Speaker. However, I think the reason the law officers gave him that opinion was that there was nothing else for them to do. There is no other provision to provide for the carrying on as head of the legislative branch of parliament during such a period.
I do want to be very brief, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this bill. I think there is some merit in transferring this authority to the Clerk of the House of Commons during dissolution of parliament. At the same time I see some problems arising therefrom, because if you read the bill carefully you will find it provides that:
The Clerk of the House of Commons at the time of any dissolution of parliament shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be the Speaker until a Speaker is chosen by the new parliament.

House of Commons Act
I believe there may be some validity to the argument that the Clerk of the House should carry on some of the administrative duties of the Speaker, but I think those duties should be considerably restricted and by no means amount to the total authority of a Speaker during dissolution.
This brings up the thought, of course, which many of us have held for a long time, namely that there be a permanent Speaker. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated, and I agree, that no member of parliament has ever advocated that a Speaker should continue to hold office on a permanent basis without being re-elected from one parliament to another. This bill specifically deals with that period between parliaments; it does not deal with the period between sessions of the same parliament. So that even if this house did take action to elect a permanent Speaker for an entire parliament, it would still not take care of the period from the date of dissolution of one parliament to the assembly of a new parliament.
I do not want to take up any more time because other hon. members want to speak to this bill, particularly in view of the fact that an amendment has been moved to send its subject matter to a committee. But I do urge all hon. members to support the sending of the subject matter of this bill to a committee because, after all, the committee on procedure and organization has under consideration the Speakership of this house. It is well known to members of the house that there have been some changes in the administrative staff under Mr. Speaker during the past few months. I do not think we should consider those changes as being a complete revision of the administrative staff set-up of this house and which is under the Speaker. This is another of those anomalies which needs to be tidied up, and certainly this should be done before any committee considers the matter and witnesses are called before it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have before the house an amendment to the House of Commons Act to change the status of the Speaker of the House of Commons in order to confer some of the responsibilities which he now exercises upon the Clerk of the House. I may say that in my view this is a very sound proposition and well worth consideration. I say that because of the circumstances which occurred after the end of the election in 1963


and in view of some of the incidents which arose at that time.
Other hon. members have pointed out to the house the responsibilities which rest upon the Speaker when the house is not in session and even when there is no parliament in existence. He has the responsibility of surveying in an administrative way the functioning of the house. He also has other very important responsibilities. However, I suggest in this connection, as in all other connections affecting the Speaker's duties, that we should bear in mind that the prime requisite of his duties is that he be impartial.
Perhaps the duty of a Speaker has never been better expressed than in the following quotation from Hon. Ernest Lapointe, which is quoted in an article by James H. Aitchison of Dalhousie University entitled "The Speakership of the Canadian House of Commons". He said:
"Impartiality on the part of the Speaker is the supreme law of his office. It is essential that every member should have the conviction that when our colleague ascends the throne of the Speaker he ceases to be the man of the party and becomes the man of the whole house."
That is the end of the quotation from Hon. Ernest Lapointe. Mr. Aitchison continues:
When Lapointe moved the election (for the second time) of Lemieux to the Speaker's chair he formulated in these words the prime requirement of the Speakership of the popular branch of the legislature of a parliamentary democracy patterned on the classical British model.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker is placed under a duty to abstain from partisan political action not only in fact but to make it apparent to all, and particularly to his fellow members of parliament, that he has no part in party politics. He is in fact like Caesar's wife: Not only must he be pure but he must be above suspicion.
The particular incident from which I understand this amendment arises relates to the activities of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) when he was still occupying the position of Speaker following the election in April 1963. The hon. member made some reference to the fact that at that time he was exercising those duties; he also made some reference to the fact that he was exercising them even though, during the interval after he was elected Speaker of the House, he accepted a position as minister of the crown. So that while he was under the solemn trust to the members of the House of Commons as their Speaker he accepted an appointment as a minister of the outgoing government and participated actively in a

campaign against those members of the House of Commons to whom he owed the duty of impartiality.
The Speaker is in an anomalous position when elections are called because he must be re-elected to the house. However, I would point out that while he may be under an [DOT]obligation to regain election in his own constituency he certainly is under no obligation to carry on an active campaign on behalf of the government in office as a whole.
It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker-and I put it forward respectfully to the house-that this was a serious thrust at a fundamental democratic right in this country. Perhaps criticism of this particular action has not been put better than by a native Albertan, a distinguished academic from the hon. member's own province, Mr. Denis Smith, a former lecturer in political science at York University, now at Trent University, in an article which he wrote appearing in the Canadian Forum for April 1963. He refers in particular to the state of the Speakership at that time and says:
The election of Mr. Michener was auspicious; his unanimous re-election to the chair in the 24th parliament suggested that the prime minister-
The reference in that case is to the hon. member for Prince Albert, the present Leader [DOT]of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
-and the whole membership of the house, had learned the lesson of the pipe line debate. But from then on, while Mr. Michener dignified the Speakership, the prime minister-
Again I would remind the house that that is the Leader of the Opposition.
-progressively allowed political interest to cloud his conception of an independent Speaker. The office of Deputy Speaker was used, as the Speakership had once been used, as a test for prospective ministers. The prime minister did not always defer to the Chair, as parliamentary practice and the prime minister's own conscience should have demanded. Finally, after the defeat of Mr. Michener and the accession to the chair of Mr. Lambert in the last parliament, Mr. Diefenbaker gave up entirely his belief in an independent Speaker. In his desperate search for ministers after the cabinet crisis, he turned to Mr. Lambert, and by implication made the Chair once more a stepping-stone to political office.
We have in question here, Mr. Speaker, not so much the question of whether or not it is desirable for the Clerk of the House to exercise these duties, and my personal opinion is that the present Clerk of this house as an experienced former member of this house is well qualified in the operation of the administrative duties of this house, but the question of conflict of interest which faced
House of Commons Act the hon. member for Edmonton. West when he was in that particular position.
It is my suggestion that the best way in which we can remove that conflict is by taking the responsibility for these administrative duties away from the Speaker when he is in this kind of half life-in the position of perhaps not having been re-elected or, if reelected, not having been selected again as Speaker of the house.
Mr. Speaker, the kind of measure which the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) has put forward is the kind of measure which should commend itself to the house so that that kind of conflict of interest or breach of the impartiality which is expected of the Speaker will not occur again.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am not
attempting to justify myself. The point I am making is in respect of the office I occupied.
I suggest that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice should take that statement from Professor Denis Smith's article, whose father is the distinguished chief justice of the province of Alberta, in context with the fact that Mr. Smith is primarily interested in the establishment of a continuing Speakership. That is the thread of his article.
The hon. member for Rosedale, of course, failed to mention Mr. Speaker Macdonald, Mr. Speaker Glen and Mr. Speaker Fauteux, all of whom were my predecessors in office.


Harold Edward Winch: Why did he not mention Rene Beaudoin who was in office in 1959?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There has been no change in the position. Mr. Speaker Macdonald was solicitor general at the time he was carrying on these duties. These duties must be carried on.
Perhaps the hon. gentleman will indicate to me just where, in theory, there is impartiality on the part of the Speaker in the British house between dissolution and reelection. At this very time I dare say Hon. Sir Harry Hylton-Foster has not campaigned, but it is certainly a fact that a Speaker is going to campaign in the light of what the situation is at the present time. If the hon. member would guarantee that Mr. Speaker in office at the time of dissolution shall not be re-elected, then perhaps he would have a stronger point.
The fact that Mr. Speaker engages in a political campaign during the election campaign while at the same time coming into this house and carrying on with the adminis-
9876	HOUSE OF
House of Commons Act trative duties of his office surely does not indicate that he will not exercise impartiality. I have not heard anyone suggest that there has not been impartiality in this regard. If anyone thinks that to be the case, let him have the courage to stand up and make the charge. I do not think any of my predecessors in office would hesitate to put their records before the house, and I certainly am not afraid to do so.
I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of the ambit of the work of the special committee on procedure, which already has indicated that the powers, perquisites, duties and responsibilities of the office of Mr. Speaker shall be the subject of a continuing study by this committee. I am a member of that committee and I can assure you that this matter is being studied. As a matter of fact, one of the individuals who is making a study of the office of Mr. Speaker is Professor Denis Smith. He is preparing a memorandum, at the request of the committee, to assist the committee in this regard.
The hon. member for Rosedale was trying to make the point that there was something political in this question, and he picked out perhaps the only part of the article, out of context I may say, so that he could make these political points. His effort falls miserably in this regard, and I do not think anyone will take him seriously.


Harold Edward Winch: He certainly does not know history.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As far as history of the office is concerned, I would suggest to the hon. mem-

ber that he read Mr. Philip Laundy's book "Office of the Speaker". I commend that book also to other members of this house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will lend that book to the hon. member. I have it here.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have read it several times. Undoubtedly the hon. member got his lead to Professor Smith's article from a footnote in Mr. Laundy's book.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is a pity you could not understand it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I commend that book to the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan).
In so far as the subject matter now being referred to the committee, I am quite happy, and I will resume my seat so that can be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for consideration of private members' business has expired.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Before you leave the chair, is it the wish of the house that this private members' bill retain its position?


Some hon. Members:: No.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Monteith:: Mr. Speaker, I presume the business for Monday will be as previously outlined.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 9, 1964